"To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein
https://www.amazon.com/Sail-beyond-Sunset-Author-published/dp/B00GX3I1YU/

Book number eight in a very loose series of eight science fiction books.
There are also many short stories and novellas that are a part of the
universe. I reread the well printed and well bound MMPB published by
Ace in 1988 that I bought new in 1990 (I think !). I plan to reread
"The Rolling Stones" and "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" soon. I have
going to pass on rereading "The Number Of The Beast".

This book starts with Maureen Johnson Long, the mother of Lazarus Long,
waking up in hotel with a dead man in bed with her. And the cat who
walks through walls, Pixel. She is subsequently arrested for murder and
finds out that she has been kidnapped and purposefully put into this
situation in a quite nasty time line where the First Prophet was never
deposed in the year 2100 like Lazarus Long's original time line.

If you are offended by sex, and I mean lots of sex, in a book then I
would advise you to stay away from this book and series. Except for the
first book in the series, "Methusalah's Children". All of the books,
except the first book, have group marriages in or mentioned in them
which was first expounded by Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
book.

The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

The rather loose book series is (there may be more):
1. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
2. The Rolling Stones
3. Methuselah's Children
4. Time Enough For Love
5. The Number Of The Beast
6. The Pursuit Of The Pankera
7. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
8. To Sail Beyond The Sunset

There is a rather excellent timeline of Heinlein's books at:
https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/579486/

Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.7 of out 5 stars (263 reviews)

Lynn

On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/

What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

-dsr-

In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>
>What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?

Farnham's Freehold.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>
>>What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>
>Farnham's Freehold.
>--scott
>

That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.

I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.

The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 4/29/2024 4:29 PM, -dsr- wrote:
> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>
>
> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>
>
> -dsr-

There is no such NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

Lynn

On 4/29/2024 5:56 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>
>> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>
> Farnham's Freehold.
> --scott

I liked FF. A time travel story that actually works.

So, did Heinlein write the most time travel books of all authors ? Six
? Seven ?

Lynn

On 4/29/2024 6:06 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>
>>> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>
>> Farnham's Freehold.
>> --scott
>>
>
> That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>
> I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
> gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>
> The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

I like SC also. The ray tubes are cool.

Lynn

On 4/29/2024 4:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "To Sail beyond the Sunset" by Robert A. Heinlein
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Sail-beyond-Sunset-Author-published/dp/B00GX3I1YU/
>
> Book number eight in a very loose series of eight science fiction books.
>  There are also many short stories and novellas that are a part of the
> universe.  I reread the well printed and well bound MMPB published by
> Ace in 1988 that I bought new in 1990 (I think !).  I plan to reread
> "The Rolling Stones" and "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" soon.  I have
> going to pass on rereading "The Number Of The Beast".
>
> This book starts with Maureen Johnson Long, the mother of Lazarus Long,
> waking up in hotel with a dead man in bed with her.  And the cat who
> walks through walls, Pixel.  She is subsequently arrested for murder and
> finds out that she has been kidnapped and purposefully put into this
> situation in a quite nasty time line where the First Prophet was never
> deposed in the year 2100 like Lazarus Long's original time line.
>
> If you are offended by sex, and I mean lots of sex, in a book then I
> would advise you to stay away from this book and series.  Except for the
> first book in the series, "Methusalah's Children".  All of the books,
> except the first book, have group marriages in or mentioned in them
> which was first expounded by Heinlein in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress"
> book.
>
> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
> changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>
> The rather loose book series is (there may be more):
> 1. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
> 2. The Rolling Stones
> 3. Methuselah's Children
> 4. Time Enough For Love
> 5. The Number Of The Beast
> 6. The Pursuit Of The Pankera
> 7. The Cat Who Walks Through Walls
> 8. To Sail Beyond The Sunset
>
> There is a rather excellent timeline of Heinlein's books at:
>    https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/579486/
>
> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
> is Heinlein's worst novel.  I disagree.
>    https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>
> My rating:  5 out of 5 stars
> Amazon rating:  4.7 of out 5 stars (263 reviews)
>
> Lynn

And I forgot to mention that this was Heinlein's last written book.
But, there were two Heinlein books published after this book, "For Us
The Living" that Spider Robinson finished. And "The Pursuit of the
Pankera" which was finished but needed putting together by several editors.

Lynn

On 2024-04-30, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/2024 4:29 PM, -dsr- wrote:
>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>
>>
>> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>
>>
>> -dsr-
>
> There is no such NUMBER OF THE BEAST.

But is there a Pursuit of the Pakora?

-dsr-

On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.

So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>
>>>What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>
>>Farnham's Freehold.
>>--scott
>>
>
>That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>
>I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
>gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>
>The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

I liked that one.

On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>
> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?

I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

Lynn

On 4/30/2024 5:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>> changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>
>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>
> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>
Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>
>>>What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>
>>Farnham's Freehold.
>>--scott
>>
>
>That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>
>I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
>gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>
>The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.

Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.

That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.

Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.

John Savard

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:51:45 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 4/30/2024 5:15 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980.  Technology changed radically in that time
>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>
>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>
>> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>
>Which are generally what determine and drive laws.

True, but it is an entirely possible position to take, for example,
that a society ought to _practice_ chastity, as that would be better
for it, without trying to impose it by law, by criminalizing
homosexuality, adultery, and so on.

Similarly, we would be better off if we didn't need laws against
psychoactive substances since there were very few people around who
felt any temptation to abuse them.

So if negative social attitudes towards wrong use of sex and drugs
were *widely enough shared* that would be great.

What would be terrible, on the other hand, is if hardly anyone took
avoiding drugs or responsible sexuality seriously, but they very
cheerfully used the full force of the law to enforce virtuous
conduct... on people in other groups who were vulnerable, but not on
themselves.

So he made a very important distinction in his point.

John Savard

In article <nbp33j5auirk4n86p8jfdmu7tb2sgfskhr@4ax.com>,
John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>>-dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>>On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>>
>>>>What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>>
>>>Farnham's Freehold.
>>>--scott
>>>
>>
>>That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>>
>>I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
>>gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>>
>>The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
>
>Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
>third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
>That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
>
>That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
>Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
>forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
>both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
>
>Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
>_really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
>natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
>something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
>Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
>"not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
>other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
>
>John Savard

I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 5/1/2024 5:18 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <nbp33j5auirk4n86p8jfdmu7tb2sgfskhr@4ax.com>,
> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>>>
>>>> Farnham's Freehold.
>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>>
>>> That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>>>
>>> I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
>>> gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>>>
>>> The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
>>
>> Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
>> third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
>> That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
>>
>> That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
>> Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
>> forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
>> both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
>>
>> Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
>> _really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
>> natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
>> something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
>> Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
>> "not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
>> other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
> a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
> like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".

So its not racism once you call attention to it?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>
>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>
>I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.

That would be societal mores.

Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
by no religion.

In article <v0thcr$36l71$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 5/1/2024 5:18 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <nbp33j5auirk4n86p8jfdmu7tb2sgfskhr@4ax.com>,
>> John Savard <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 29 Apr 2024 23:06:54 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <v0p8j7$hg7$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <slrnv3049f.5kk.dsr-usenet@randomstring.org>,
>>>>> -dsr- <dsr-usenet@randomstring.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jo Walton, the Heinlein apologist, says that "To Sail beyond the Sunset"
>>>>>>> is Heinlein's worst novel. I disagree.
>>>>>>> https://reactormag.com/heinleins-worst-novel/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would you nominate as Heinlein's worst novel, then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Farnham's Freehold.
>>>>> --scott
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That one usually gets called out. I thought it was, enh, ok.
>>>>
>>>> I have yet to read it, but the trunk novel, _For Us The Living_
>>>> gets a lot of votes as well though that may not be fair.
>>>>
>>>> The other one usually listed is _Sixth Column_.
>>>
>>> Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, with Starship Troopers a distant
>>> third, are indeed Heinlein's most controversial or unacceptable works.
>>> That wouldn't necessarily make them his most badly written works.
>>>
>>> That a "Heinlein apologist" might find it easier to make excuses for
>>> Number of the Beast than To Sail Beyond the Sunset... well, I've
>>> forgotten too much about those works, though I think I enjoyed them
>>> both when I rad them, to have a useful comment.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, it has been argued that Farnham's Freehold wasn't
>>> _really_ racist. It's true that it didn't depict cannibalism as a
>>> natural tendency, for genetic reasons, of America's black people, just
>>> something imported by foreign black people who were also converted to
>>> Islam. I don't think that, though, is quite enough to qualify it as
>>> "not racist", since saying false bad things about foreign people of
>>> other races still qualifies, not just American people of other races.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>>
>> I think the main argument for calling FF not racist is that it is
>> a depiction of the "The shoe is on the other foot and how do you
>> like them apples?" like Harry Belefonte's "White Man's Burden".
>
>So its not racism once you call attention to it?
>

I don't think that's the argument at all in either of those cases.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>
>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>
>>I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>
>That would be societal mores.
>
>Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>by no religion.

No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.

Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
of the society holding to them.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that =
>time
>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>>=20
>>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>>
>>>I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>
>>That would be societal mores.
>>
>>Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>>Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>>by no religion.
>
>No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.

No, I meant what I wrote.

On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>>
>>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>>
>>> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>
>> That would be societal mores.
>>
>> Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>> Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>> by no religion.
>
> No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
>
> Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
> of the society holding to them.

It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
the term religion.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.
-- J R R Tolkien

On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>>>
>>>> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>>
>>> That would be societal mores.
>>>
>>> Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>>> Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>>> by no religion.
>>
>> No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
>>
>> Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
>> of the society holding to them.
>
>It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
>the term religion.

Don't see why.

Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
of course.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>>>
>>>> That would be societal mores.
>>>>
>>>> Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>>>> Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>>>> by no religion.
>>>
>>> No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
>>> of the society holding to them.
>>
>> It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
>> the term religion.
>
> Don't see why.
>
> Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
> of course.

Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!

Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:17:10 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/2/2024 8:50 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 1 May 2024 17:50:19 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>> <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 May 2024 at 16:40:59 BST, "Paul S Person"
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 May 2024 14:13:23 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 8:54 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-29, Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The book is also an in depth examination on how society in the USA
>>>>>>>> changed from 1880 to 1980. Technology changed radically in that time
>>>>>>>> and so did societal morals about sex and drugs, not for the better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are in favor of criminalizing sex and liberalizing drugs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not comment on laws, I commented on societal morals.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be societal mores.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which are arbitrary. Yours are informed by your religion.
>>>>> Others are informed by their religion. Some are informed
>>>>> by no religion.
>>>>
>>>> No acknowledged or no recognized religion, that is.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it could be argued that societal mores /are/ the true religion
>>>> of the society holding to them.
>>>
>>> It could, but it would be a terrible argument that misuses and confuses
>>> the term religion.
>>
>> Don't see why.
>>
>> Well, unless you are restricting "religion" to "organized religion",
>> of course.
>
>Religion: Thou shalt not kill because someone you can't see or hear said so!
>
>Social Mores: Don't kill because it takes away the benefits to our
>society of the one killed, harms others emotionally and causes a
>degradation of the social network that benefits all of us.

Social mores aren't thought out, never mind intellectuallized. There
is no "because". Other than "because that is how we behave".

Folk religion -- what people actually believe, which may or may not
correspond any organized religion they may adhere to.

Intellectualization -- a truly pointless exercise in futility.

I see a woman telling her young daughter not to run -- because it's
not ladylike. Do you really think that not being ladylike is a
/reason/? I think it's simply something to say to control the child's
behavior -- a social more.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"