mark@bbs.cruzio.com wrote:

: The debate in alt.feminazis about Jesus as a potential rapist

: I am confused. Some of you smart people please explain

: these metaphysicl issues to me, Please. Please.

 

Delighted to be of assistance.

 

If the proposition is that "Any state of any member of a group is

a potential state for all members of that group," you can go anywhere with

it. In this case, all men being considered potential rapists because some

men are actual rapists, try unplugging "rapists" and replacing it with

"FABULOUS Drag Queens". Now how do you feel about it? I like it a lot

better and it's just as "real" as the previous statement.

 

Nevertheless, "potential" is essentially meaningless and the

debate could only be continued by people who fail to recognize the glaring

basic fallacy or who get lost in side issues like whether Jesus was a mere

man or not. How many of us have ever realized even the tiniest fraction of

our potential?

 

If you don't have time to try to read Korzybski's SCIENCE AND

SANITY, you might try thinking of systems of knowledge and belief as a

rack or unit of shelving containing various objects. In the case to which

we have previously referred, the "shape" of the rack is "Any state of any

member of a group is a potential state for all members of that group," and

Men, Rapists, and Jesus are some of the contents of the rack. As I have

already indicated, a handy way of analyzing the argument is by replacing

some of the contents with other contents which do not provoke such a

strong emotional reaction. If the rack still looks alright when you're

not baing blinded by violent emotional reactions, it can be considered

temporarily valid until it is demonstrated otherwise. Usually, like now,

it ends up looking kind of shaky and goofy.

 

One of my teachers noted that the soberest and most soundly

reasoned argument will be instantly rendered null if you include a single

term which provokes a strong emotional reaction, asshole. I would like to

point out here that the flimsiest and most absurd contention can be

carried on endlessly if it is composed of such terms.

As ever,

Nenslo