I never tackle this subject in a joking mood, because of the ferocity I know I risk rousing. I have been the object of more than one witch-hunt on the twin issues of abortion and homosexuality, and any time I publish on either of these matters I do so, literally, with clenched teeth. You evidently have no idea of the hatred I have roused in several areas of fandom, mainly if not exclusively because of these matters. I'm sorry if I hurt you. It's true that I have never experienced the kind of treatment you get from fandom, and I don't know how it feels. I didn't mean to say it seriously: I just wanted to share a joke with at how stupid people are who see the word "gay" and a couple of complicated sentences and who start a trantrum. From now on I'll know better than to answer this kind of posts with any levity, and I apologize if I hurt you. My experience, direct and indirect, is that much of the misery to be observed in homosexual circles is made by jealousy; and one hardly has to make a great deal of effort to realize that jealousy can only be instinctive - as it certainly is - if the assumption you have lain in my bed, now you ought to preserve yourself for me alone is so natural, instinctive and deeply rooted in the human animal, that all the blows of experience and socialization cannot drive it away. It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure what to think of it, but I'll keep it in mind. Unfortunately, human studies - the category in which I gather all those studies which are neither science nor art, such as history, psychology, and so on - do not allow a methodology so clear and unambiguous as the experimental or mathematical methods of science do. I have to say, we physicists, chemists and biologists have it easy when it comes to methodology. I have no moral qualms about making an ion splash against a detector. If you take medical studies, it's much trickier to define a method, since you can't possibly have someone get a disease just for the sake of study. In the case of psychology and sociology, it's the same. What I meant by McNeill's "experimental data" was that he was preaching something completely different from what he was practising. In case of a study of morality, I'd rather want the preacher to practise what he's preaching. McNeill wasn't doing so. I can perfectly understand that Lee didn't see this for a long time, maybe because he was too much in awe in front of McNeill to dare criticize him, or simply because he didn't know about McNeill's life. It reads like McNeill wanted to justify his own behaviour in front of his Church, and maybe in front of himself. Maybe he even didn't see himself the flaw in his theory (I know from a long study of Supervisor that people will do anything to avoid seeing that they're in contradiction with themself). In any case, even if I sometimes think that the author is a bit of a "wanker" as we say in fandom (for lack of a better word), it's an interesting read and I thank you for sharing it.
Re: Still not
I'm sorry if I hurt you. It's true that I have never experienced the kind of treatment you get from fandom, and I don't know how it feels. I didn't mean to say it seriously: I just wanted to share a joke with at how stupid people are who see the word "gay" and a couple of complicated sentences and who start a trantrum. From now on I'll know better than to answer this kind of posts with any levity, and I apologize if I hurt you.
My experience, direct and indirect, is that much of the misery to be observed in homosexual circles is made by jealousy; and one hardly has to make a great deal of effort to realize that jealousy can only be instinctive - as it certainly is - if the assumption you have lain in my bed, now you ought to preserve yourself for me alone is so natural, instinctive and deeply rooted in the human animal, that all the blows of experience and socialization cannot drive it away.
It's an interesting thought. I'm not sure what to think of it, but I'll keep it in mind.
Unfortunately, human studies - the category in which I gather all those studies which are neither science nor art, such as history, psychology, and so on - do not allow a methodology so clear and unambiguous as the experimental or mathematical methods of science do.
I have to say, we physicists, chemists and biologists have it easy when it comes to methodology. I have no moral qualms about making an ion splash against a detector. If you take medical studies, it's much trickier to define a method, since you can't possibly have someone get a disease just for the sake of study. In the case of psychology and sociology, it's the same.
What I meant by McNeill's "experimental data" was that he was preaching something completely different from what he was practising. In case of a study of morality, I'd rather want the preacher to practise what he's preaching. McNeill wasn't doing so. I can perfectly understand that Lee didn't see this for a long time, maybe because he was too much in awe in front of McNeill to dare criticize him, or simply because he didn't know about McNeill's life. It reads like McNeill wanted to justify his own behaviour in front of his Church, and maybe in front of himself. Maybe he even didn't see himself the flaw in his theory (I know from a long study of Supervisor that people will do anything to avoid seeing that they're in contradiction with themself).
In any case, even if I sometimes think that the author is a bit of a "wanker" as we say in fandom (for lack of a better word), it's an interesting read and I thank you for sharing it.