Re: Objective standards: Enjoy The Beautiful Summer Weather!

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

EEvans:

Do you approve of the nudity ordinance just passed by the Moscow city 
council?  If so, do you think it involves legislating culturally relative 
norms?  Why or why not?  You responded to the statement I made in a post on 
vision2020 that the new Moscow nudity ordinance was just legislating 
culturally relative norms.  Now you ask why should anyone listen to my 
reasons?   You are listening enough to reply, so why don't you answer that 
question?

You are merely making abstract philosophically based objections to the 
logical difficulties ANYONE will have (including you!) who tries to PROVE 
their ethics are correct and someone else's differing ethics are false.

I never stated I think it impossible to have objective standards across all 
times and cultures.  I merely pointed out that with SOME cultural norms, a 
good case can be made that they are relative and subjective.  You don't 
think there are objective standards across all cultures and times that 
command whether women wear pink or blue dresses, or whether men wear pink or 
blue shirts, or do you?  I think the issue of topless women is like these 
examples.  It is a culturally relative norm, and yes, I do disagree with 
people who think the ordinance does not have inconsistencies.  What makes me 
right and others wrong?  If you would explain why my logic is incorrect on 
this issue, we could have a debate on this matter.  Perhaps I AM WRONG!

I do think the US Constitution, which is the guide for the body of law 
currently governing this society, does suggest there is a problem with 
legislating the illegality of women going topless while allowing men the 
freedom to do so.  Discussion can further illuminate what this debate is 
about.  That's ostensibly what we are attempting to do here.

Why should anyone listen to my reasons?  I thought one purpose of vision2020 
was to have debate etc. on issues of importance for Moscow and Latah county. 
  I am not asking you specifically to listen to my reasoning's.  YOU 
RESPONDED TO MY STATEMENT that the ordinance was legislating culturally 
relative norms.  If you do not chose to listen to my reasoning, don't 
specifically respond to my post!  I would respond to anyone, if I have the 
time, who addresses one of my posts in a reasonable manner.

Perhaps you would like to debate why human beings bother to communicate with 
one another, because you make peculiar queries about why people should 
listen to arguments posted on vision2020?

I conclude you do not wish to address the main arguments I have made, so...

Enjoy the beautiful summer weather!

Ted

>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Objective standards
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:53:41 GMT
>
>Ted Moffett et. al.,
>
>By your last post it sounds like you don't think we can have absolute,
>objective standards across all times and cultures.
>
>Why then do you insist your own cultural norm is correct and the one on the
>books is not? You might believe the one on the books is inconsistent, but
>obviously there are many folks who don't think that's the case. What makes 
>you
>right and them wrong, and furthermore, why should anyone listen to your 
>reasons?
>
>And why do you care what my viewpoint is?
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ed Evans
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com