PhyloCode: The real problem...again

Ron at Ron at
Sun Jul 6 16:22:33 CDT 2003


----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Clark" <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: PhyloCode: The real problem...again


> At 12:27 2003-07-06 -0500, Richard Jensen wrote:
> >The simple definition
> >of rape is to take by force and that's exactly what could happen.
>
> I happen to see rape in a different light. If that's "politically
correct",
> so be it. I'm not sure what is "ad hominem" about my priorities differing
> from Ron's.

The subject (point and focus) of the analogy was the "liberal lawyer" with
the head in the sand mentality.  The heinousness he was whitewashing in his
own mind and want to convey to a jury (the internet gallery) could have
been one of 50 different things.  I just happened to choose "serial rapist"
I could just as easily have chosen  slavery or many others.  For the
illustration to convey just how _"naive"_ (The Point)  the lawyer was, one
had to pick an evil universally viewed as beneath humanity.  If I had said
the lawyer was trying to convince the jury of the "inner goodness" of a guy
with a parking ticket (something everyone has gotten - and everyone sees
themselves as good) then the point would not have been made.   It was
indeed predictable that what would be noted was "rape" - and thereby take
the whole post into totally irrelevant areas.  Which is what has happened.
In the superfluity, or hyperbole,  the point was missed.

In my response, "rape" was clearly applied in a standard well known
definition 6 - to seize, take, or carry off by force.    # 7 would be :
"The executives at ENRON raped their stockholders of not only their money
but their futures".

The web and email also fails as a means to determine anything about
anyone's life.

> Obviously, I disagree with his priorities; there are many
> things in the world I take more seriously than the hubbub over Phylocode.

Of course.  Having a good-go at a topic has no relevance as an indicator of
how that topic fits in with anyone's life priorities or values.   More
irony.  I was raped (molested) at 6 by a baby sitter.  In 1981 I sold my
very lucrative dental prosthetics business and went into full time
para-church ministry.  I've spent my life since 1978 in various ministries
to life's hurting and outcasts.  Including taking homeless persons and
convicts into my home and starting and operating a Crisis Pregnancy Center
from 1984 to 1997 - in which time we (and I) helped many sexual rape
victims (both men and women).  I thus likely have known more such victims
then everyone else on this list combined.

Curtis stated he disagree with my life's priorities - which are pretty darn
rubber-meets-the-road - without having a clue as to what they really are.
We all need to be careful how we size people up through the narrow slits in
life's fabric made by topical list serves and emails.

> Nomenclatural issues have always inspired among some a passion that is
IMO
> all out of proportion to their significance.
>

This is a wrong perception.  It has nothing to do with nomenclature itself
being up sized to the levels of life and death, love and war.    It is not
a proportion issue (apples with watermelons).  It is passion - period
(apples with apples).  If all things in life could only be pursued to the
degree of relative import to all areas of human existence, then this list
serve would not even exist for we would all be too occupied with fighting
disease, hunger, and inhumanity.   Then, as these major priorities were
fought and won we would work our way down the list till we were able to
root for our favorite team and argue if Coke or Pepsi was best or ICZN or
PhyloCode.    Lot's of people go full blast at what ever I do --  but that
has no relativity to how such a person ranks life's priorities.

PhyloCode has its points (I'm thought of as a splitter, I should like it).
The attitude of the people behind it looks more and more like it fits
exactly within the frame Mike presented - fascistic (said with no intended
flair or flare). Goodwill, reason, and compromise will not reign in this
enterprise. (How many years has that approach been going on?  Now they're
ready to ratify and implement.)  Only strong opposition will.  I will
eliminate myself from the discussion - for awhile.

Cheers all
Ronnie G




More information about the Taxacom mailing list