Did you know you can buy land on the moon?

Henry Spencer wrote:

If you want to know what's good...then go to the artisans that are
skilled in making it; not to the masses that are intended to consume
it...



Sorry, no. Making the artisans (collectively) the judges of their own
work typically results in an inbred community whose standards are
increasingly arbitrary, bizarre, and divorced from those of the rest of
the world. You need only look at modern architecture for an example; I
think it was Donald Norman who said that when he and his students run into
some particularly grossly botched design, they say to each other "it
probably won a prize". And quite often it did.


Tom Wolfe went into that in detail in both "From Bauhaus to Our House"
and "The Painted Word"; but in both cases the problem _wasn't_ as much
with the architects or artists, as with a clique of clueless critics who
thought that "Different" automatically equaled "Inspired"... and
therefore something that is grotesquely different must be very inspired
indeed.
The origin of that form of criticism (done by people who couldn't cement
two bricks together, much less paint a saint on them) was a bunch of
stuck-ups who wanted nothing more than to prove to their peers that they
were not one of "Those"- the tasteless Petty Bourgeoisie- but rather
Menckin's "Smart Set"- rich Marxists ready to fight the battles on the
front lines, provided that the wine was served in the proper style of
glass for its variety, and the Brie cheese was fully ripened.
Salvador Dali pointed out the way that complete crap got bought by
foolish people trying to be fashionable, and that was why artists were
painting it- as it sold well....the rest of the world of modern art
never completely forgave him for giving away how that particular con-job
worked.




if you want to know the skill that Michelangelo's used in painting
the ceiling of the Sistine...ask Raphael... not the man in the street.



Quite so, but do remember also that said ceiling was work for hire, and
had to pass muster with the client too. The client did not care about the
skill and effort; in fact, the client was not pleased about how long it
took or how much it cost, but put up with it in the belief that the
finished work would be glorious enough to be worth it.



Imagine for a moment if a vote had been taken among the people of Rome,
and Michelangelo's job had been to paint exactly what they wanted up on
that ceiling...there's a second to shudder in, don't you think?





...The reason why nobody wants to read them is that they aren't
worth reading.


The day I find something "not worth reading" for one reason or another,
is the day I hope I'm damned; for abrogation of my duties as a sentient
being.



I've found a number of things not worth reading, unfortunately generally
after I had wasted good money buying them and (much worse!) irreplaceable
time reading them.


I think that even the worst writing tells you something...if not about
yourself or the world, then about the person who wrote it;
(God help me if anyone with a degree in abnormal psychology ever uses
what I've written to this newsgroup in this manner- they'll weld the
padded room's door shut!) and how _they_ see the world- try hard as they
can, their world view is going to leak through into their writing.
Actually, in a perfect world, I'd like to read everything ever written
by anyone (okay, maybe nothing by Ann Coulter) but, as you point out,
time is not an infinite commodity, and so choices must be made....which
is why I pretty much ditched fiction as a waste of time.
Everybody has been quoting Silverberg's law about 94% of everything
being ****, but like the old adage that "You can't legislate morality" (
_all_ laws are a legislation of morality if you think about it "why
shouldn't you steal things?...because it's immoral.") this statement is
pure horse****; in nonfiction writing no more than 50% is ****- and most
of that concerns the Kennedy assassination and Clinton's sexual
misdeeds- and if one moves into scientific writing, then the proportion
drops to no more than 25% at most- and virtually all of that involving
electrogravitic lifters.


In particularly bad cases, I have been heard to say
"author has jerked off in my wallet for the last time".


I _KNEW_ you were the sort of man who would read the Marquis De Sade's
"120 days of Sodom"! Tell me....in detail....what that wallet _smells_
like! :-)

(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

On gay marriage, I'm against it. For this reason. When you decide
to change one qualification of what consistutes a legal marriage
( I'm completely tabling religious marriage, thats not related to
the legal rights and obligations issues ), what mix of sexes is
required, on what consistant basis is one left with, to deny
other qualification changes, to groups who may want them.

None, but isn't the consistent basis exactly the question? What
advantage obtains from allowing gay marriage? What disadvantage? What
is different between that and 1man1woman marriage?

Like, age limits, and numbers of spouses legally recognised,
to name but two.

Now you're talking about something different.

Now, another thing I don't like is *automatic* common law
marriage, where due to no specific actions to legalise a
relationship, a couple ends up in the legal territory of
being married, even though they never bought a license, etc..

Right. For consistency, all state-sanctioned marriages should have some
way of verifying the sanction of the state. What people who want gay
marriage want is to be able to couple without regard to gender and
receive that sanction. To me, people are people, and two people willing
to enter into the contract with all that entails should have the right.
I think it's a proper function of state to enable that right, and I
think people should recognize that objections to it fall under the
heading "religious differences", which we tolerate as long as they're
not hurting other people. To me, treating people differently on this
basis (what gender of person they choose to couple with) is hurting
them.

(Andre Lieven) writes:


[...]

Fix that problem, and then, you open up a useful territory for
legally recognised relationships, that are different ( Note:
Not " inferior " or " superior " to marriage, just... different )
from marriage, with specific legal rights, obligations and standings.

Yes, but what if two consenting adults say that what they want isn't
something different, but something exactly the same?

Chris Jones wrote:

For consistency, all state-sanctioned marriages should have
some way of verifying the sanction of the state. What people
who want gay marriage want is to be able to couple without
regard to gender and receive that sanction. To me, people are
people, and two people willing to enter into the contract with
all that entails should have the right.

But marriage is not a right. Marriage is an institution regulated
and sanctioned by the state for the benefit of the state.

I think it's a proper
function of state to enable that right, and I think people
should recognize that objections to it fall under the heading
"religious differences", which we tolerate as long as they're
not hurting other people. To me, treating people differently
on this basis (what gender of person they choose to couple
with) is hurting them.

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?" and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

Jim Davis

"Jim Davis" wrote ...

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?"

Why the negative phrasing?

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole. Although given that they _are_
part of society as a whole it will by definition be beneficial to
society as a whole (on average) if it is beneficial to them and
not detrimental to others.

and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

Marriage may not be a right, but unless it's a 'wrong' I don't see
that there is a solid basis for denying it to that significant minority
that currently can't have it.

Jim Davis writes:

Chris Jones wrote:

For consistency, all state-sanctioned marriages should have
some way of verifying the sanction of the state. What people
who want gay marriage want is to be able to couple without
regard to gender and receive that sanction. To me, people are
people, and two people willing to enter into the contract with
all that entails should have the right.

But marriage is not a right. Marriage is an institution regulated
and sanctioned by the state for the benefit of the state.

I agree with your second sentence for state sanctioned marriages. What
churches do about their marriages is their business. I don't agree with
your first sentence, since following it to its logical conclusion means
you're going to treat people differently on the basis of who they choose
to couple with, and I don't see why we should.

[...]

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?" and the burden of proof is on the advocates.
I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is beneficial but
advocates are largely standing on the wrong headed "marriage is a
right" principle.

To me there are two questions: is state-sanctioned marriage beneficial
to society as a whole? Should we be treating people differently on the
basis of who they choose to couple with? I am more sure of the answer
to the second question (no) than I am to the first (yes).

Paul Blay wrote:

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?"

Why the negative phrasing?

Negative phrasing? How so?

As far as I'm concerned it should be permitted unless it is
damaging to society as a whole. Although given that they
_are_ part of society as a whole it will by definition be
beneficial to society as a whole (on average) if it is
beneficial to them and not detrimental to others.

This is know as the fallacy of composition.

Jim Davis

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

On gay marriage, I'm against it. For this reason. When you decide
to change one qualification of what consistutes a legal marriage
( I'm completely tabling religious marriage, thats not related to
the legal rights and obligations issues ), what mix of sexes is
required, on what consistant basis is one left with, to deny
other qualification changes, to groups who may want them.

None, but isn't the consistent basis exactly the question? What
advantage obtains from allowing gay marriage? What disadvantage? What
is different between that and 1man1woman marriage?

That the 1man1woman family is the basis of rasing our successors.

Like, age limits, and numbers of spouses legally recognised,
to name but two.

Now you're talking about something different.

Nope. There are several qualifications for getting legally married.
No one has ever shown why one is more " valid " than another.

Thats their burden to show, not mine. I see all as equally valid.

Now, another thing I don't like is *automatic* common law
marriage, where due to no specific actions to legalise a
relationship, a couple ends up in the legal territory of
being married, even though they never bought a license, etc..

Right. For consistency, all state-sanctioned marriages should have some
way of verifying the sanction of the state. What people who want gay
marriage want is to be able to couple without regard to gender and
receive that sanction.

Indeed, and I see no benefit to society of doing that, any more than
I see a benefit to society of letting some " special groups " slide on
other social qualifications, such as, say, driver's licences.

To me, people are people, and two people willing
to enter into the contract with all that entails should have the right.

They do. They can move in together, share one bank account, and all
the rest.

But, cohabitation isn't marriage. Calling the former the latter,
only debases the language and the concept of the latter.

I think it's a proper function of state to enable that right,

In such matters, states can do two different things: 1) Not
prohibit something, and 2) actively reward something.

Gays have all of 1) available to them, just as any couples, or
any larger groups have, to cohabitate, and mingle their assets,
etc., together.

and I
think people should recognize that objections to it fall under the
heading "religious differences", which we tolerate as long as they're
not hurting other people.

Non sequitur. Muslim clerics have no standing in, say, a Catholic
church. Theres no " equal rights " there, for the sound reason that
entry into such a position depends on meeting the *qualifications*
of the position.

The same with marriage. Anyone is free to enter into it, *after
meeting all of it's qualifications*.

Choose to NOT meet them, and you don't get in.

To me, treating people differently on this basis
(what gender of person they choose to couple with) is hurting
them.

A failure to give unearned goodies is not " hurting them "...

Marriage *isn't* an entitlement. Its a repsonsibility. Just
like, say, a military command positioon. You don't get those
for only showing up, either...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) writes:

[...]

Fix that problem, and then, you open up a useful territory for
legally recognised relationships, that are different ( Note:
Not " inferior " or " superior " to marriage, just... different )
from marriage, with specific legal rights, obligations and standings.

Yes, but what if two consenting adults say that what they want isn't
something different, but something exactly the same?

They, they have a responsibility to meet the *qualifications* of
whatever it is that they claim to want.

To demand that it be *given to them, without them doing whats
required of others*, is demanding *special priviliges*. And,
unearned ones at that.

I may want a Mercedes just like a neighbour, but walking down to
his dealership and demanding one, ain't gonna get me one...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Chris Jones wrote:

But marriage is not a right. Marriage is an institution
regulated and sanctioned by the state for the benefit of the
state.

I agree with your second sentence for state sanctioned
marriages. What churches do about their marriages is their
business. I don't agree with your first sentence, since
following it to its logical conclusion means you're going to
treat people differently on the basis of who they choose to
couple with,

Exactly.

and I don't see why we should.

Because the benefits or otherwise to society are as yet not
known. Examples: the state does not sanction marriage between
close relatives, between adults and children, polygamy, etc
because society does not benefit from such a sanction. In the
case of homosexuals a case that society will benefit could
probably be made and it should be made. Claiming marriage as a
"right" is inadequate for state sanction.

Some objections to gay marriage fall under the heading of
"religious differences" but by no means all. To me the only
question is "Is permitting homosexuals to marry beneficial to
society as a whole?" and the burden of proof is on the
advocates. I am willing to be persuaded that it indeed is
beneficial but advocates are largely standing on the wrong
headed "marriage is a right" principle.

To me there are two questions: is state-sanctioned marriage
beneficial to society as a whole?

Excellent question in this day and age.

Should we be treating
people differently on the basis of who they choose to couple
with?

Oh, certainly we should. Do you advocate that siblings should be
allowed to marry? Do you advocate polygamy?

Jim Davis