Re: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems

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

Tony et. al.

I'm the man with a few questions for some who have posted on vision2020 that 
they have the ULTIMATE ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARD
everyone should follow, and that if someone disagrees with this "absolute" 
standard, they are advocating relativistic moral chaos and anarchy.  My 
questions suggest relativistic cracks in the edifice of the so called 
"absolute" moral standards advocated.

I'm not the man who will willingly let my questions be diverted by other 
different questions, unless you are VERY funny, in which case you may 
succeed!  Lenny Bruce could turn the "absolute" morals of society upside 
down, and be gut splitting hilarious in the process.

Ted


>From: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
>Reply-To: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
>CC: <canorder@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist 
>Problems
>Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 18:36:34 -0700
>
>Ok,Ted
>I'm trying to be funny. What are you trying to be ? The man with the
>diagnosis or the man with the solution ?
>  Tony
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>; <mohrc@moscow.com>
>Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:56 PM
>Subject: Re: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist
>Problems
>
>
> >
> > Tony et. al.
> >
> > I wonder what you really think about my main thesis, that relativistic
> > issues are inescapably involved in any ethical system.  Maybe you are
>trying
> > to be funny, but how you answer this question is central to many of the
> > problems humanity is facing.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > >From: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
> > >Reply-To: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
> > >To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >CC: <canorder@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to 
>Relativist
> > >Problems
> > >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:55:29 -0700
> > >
> > >Hey Ted & Others,
> > >It was meant to be funny, Pretty funny stuff anyways.
> > >Tony
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
> > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>; <mohrc@moscow.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 7:19 PM
> > >Subject: Very funny!: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist
> > >Problems
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey Tony and others:
> > > >
> > > > There is no connection between your reply and what I wrote.  But 
>your
> > >reply
> > > > is funny, I guess.  I never even remotely suggested the actions you
> > >outline.
> > > >
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: "Tony Mohr" <mohrc@moscow.com>
> > > > >To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, 
><vision2020@moscow.com>
> > > > >CC: <canorder@moscow.com>
> > > > >Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
> > > > >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 07:47:54 -0700
> > > > >
> > > > >Lets just tear up all the rule books, burn everything anyone
>percieves
> > >as
> > >"
> > > > >religous ", eliminate the police force & let everyone
> > > > >live in " harmony" doing what is right & true in thier heart of
>hearts
> > >&
> > > > >see
> > > > >how that warm fuzzy goes...........
> > > > >Tony Mohr
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
> > > > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > > > >Cc: <canorder@moscow.com>
> > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 6:06 PM
> > > > >Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist Problems
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Visionaries:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are some who have exaggerated and misstated what I said
>about
> > > > >human
> > > > > > feelings and common sense ethics.  Let me explain in some detail
> > >what
> > >I
> > > > >mean
> > > > > > about human feelings in the context of this debate on ethics and
> > > > >relativism
> > > > > > vs absolutism, and expand more on why I think relativism effects
>all
> > > > >ethical
> > > > > > systems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To start with the latter issue first,
> > > > > > I clearly stated that I am aware of the difficulties in proving
> > >ultimate
> > > > > > right and wrong in ANY ETHICAL SYSTEM!  You have similar logical
> > > > >problems
> > > > > > (relativism among them) with proving your ethical system is
>absolute
> > >and
> > > > > > true as anyone does, no matter what they claim is the source of
> > >their
> > > > > > ethical system, be it the Bible, the US Constitution, or
>guidelines
> > > > >based
> > > > >on
> > > > > > human feelings.  Let me explain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Consider the issue of the death penalty.  There is major
> > >disagreement
> > > > >within
> > > > > > the range of views expressed by Christians on this issue.  Some
> > > > >Christians
> > > > > > are nearly pacifists in applying the teachings of Christ and the
> > > > >Commandment
> > > > > > "Thou Shall Not Kill" to the death penalty!  They ABSOLUTELY
>regard
> > >it
> > > > >as
> > > > > > wrong.  Other Christians support the death penalty and will 
>quote
> > >other
> > > > > > principles of ethics from the Christian tradition to support the
> > >death
> > > > > > penalty.  They ABSOLUTELY regard it as right.  WHAT IS YOUR
> > >STANDARD?
> > > > >Prove
> > > > > > to me that you have the ultimate answer to the quandary 
>Christians
> > >find
> > > > > > themselves in regarding the death penalty, and why YOUR STANDARD
> > >SHOULD
> > > > >BE
> > > > > > BINDING?  If you pick the wrong ethical action and it is against
> > >God's
> > > > >will
> > > > > > your standard will be false and is not therefore not binding,
> > >according
> > > > >to
> > > > > > your assumptions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These are some questions asked by some in this debate to stymie
>the
> > > > > > "relativists," but ironically they apply just as well to those
> > >asking
> > > > >the
> > > > > > questions.  This same relativistic problem exists among 
>Christians
> > >on
> > > > > > homosexuality.  You can find Christian churches that do not
>condemn
> > > > > > homosexuals as sinners.  They have one interpretation of 
>Christian
> > > > >ethics.
> > > > > > You know with what fervor other Christians condemn homosexuality
>as
> > >a
> > > > >major
> > > > > > sin.  Again we have a relativistic debate WITHIN CHRISTIANITY
> > >ITSELF.
> > > > >Why
> > > > > > should I believe that one side or the other has the ultimate
>answer
> > >on
> > > > >this
> > > > > > issue of homosexuality?  WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD AND WHY SHOULD IT
>BE
> > > > >BINDING
> > > > > > ON ME?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And of course there is the problem of proving one Religion to be
> > >more
> > > > >true
> > > > > > and absolute than another.  Usually the claim is made that what
> > >makes
> > > > >one
> > > > > > religion absolute and another not is the theory of "revelation."
> > >God's
> > > > >word
> > > > > > is revealed truly to the true prophet or representative of God,
>and
> > > > >falsely
> > > > > > to the false prophet.  This is how religious absolutists "PROVE"
> > >there
> > > > >is
> > > > >no
> > > > > > ethical relativism in their system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do you prove who is or is not a true divine revealer of 
>God's
> > >word?
> > > > > > WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?  You are using circular logic when you 
>use
> > > > > > Christianities principles and beliefs to prove itself absolute.
> > > > >Muhammad
> > > > > > was a false prophet?  How can you prove this? If I am a believer
>in
> > > > >Muhammad
> > > > > > as a divine prophet, why should your standard that the religion
> > >Islam
> > > > >based
> > > > > > on his teachings is false be BINDING ON ANYONE?  Can you prove
>that
> > > > >Muhammad
> > > > > > was not divinely inspired?  You can put two scholars of Religion
> > >from
> > > > >Islam
> > > > > > and Christianity in a room and the debate on the divine 
>revelation
> > >of
> > > > >the
> > > > > > Koran vs the Bible etc. will rage on and on.  Belief in the
>"proof"
> > > > >provided
> > > > > > will certainly be dependent on previous decisions of faith!  
>Doug
>W.
> > >did
> > > > >not
> > > > > > respond to this problem in his reply to my vision2020 posts on
>these
> > > > >issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now regarding the "common sense ethics" issue,
> > > > > > what is the problem with pointing out that for the vast majority
>of
> > > > >people
> > > > > > friendship and love are preferable to killing and hatred?  Do 
>you
> > >think
> > > > >this
> > > > > > is a false statement?  This statement given as a basis for 
>"common
> > >sense
> > > > > > ethics" is not as "provincial," as Doug W. suggests.  In 
>cultures
> > >all
> > > > >over
> > > > > > the world representing many religions there are laws against
>murder.
> > > > >Are
> > > > > > you against letting people determine their own ethical standards
>at
> > >the
> > > > > > ballot box rather than from some imposed "overarching 
>authority?"
> > >Are
> > > > >you
> > > > > > afraid that if we determined laws to govern society by the vote,
> > >that
> > > > >people
> > > > > > would vote for killing, rape, lying, stealing, fraud and general
> > >mayhem
> > > > >as
> > > > >a
> > > > > > good basis for society?  I think perhaps you have a lack of 
>faith
>in
> > >the
> > > > > > good sense of average people.  Not a comforting point of view 
>for
> > > > >someone
> > > > > > living in a Democracy.  The fact that there are mass murderers 
>in
> > >the
> > > > >world
> > > > > > does not prove that common sense ethics are totally worthless, 
>as
> > >Doug
> > > > >W.
> > > > > > suggests, anymore than witch burning and the Inquisition proves
>that
> > > > > > Christian based ethics are worthless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No one is determining that MY common sense ethic is the one
>everyone
> > > > >should
> > > > > > follow.  I did not write a single law currently on the books in
>the
> > >USA.
> > > > > > But you can be assured that some of the laws on the books were
> > >written
> > > > >by
> > > > > > the "common sense ethics" of some legislator or judge somewhere!
> > >You
> > > > >must
> > > > > > admit this is true in some cases!  In reality right now for both
>of
> > >us
> > > > >what
> > > > > > is determining the laws we live by is a complex web of religious
>and
> > > > > > governmental traditions, the US Constitution and amendments 
>etc.,
> > >court,
> > > > > > legislative and executive decisions, and law enforcement 
>actions,
> > >many
> > > > >of
> > > > > > which are contradictory and controversial.  Most people find 
>some
> > >laws
> > > > >to
> > > > >be
> > > > > > against their values.  Welcome to the real world of democracy
>where
> > > > > > compromise and disagreement both work hand in hand to attempt to
> > >come
> > >up
> > > > > > with a system that tries to make the most people happy but ends 
>up
> > >not
> > > > > > completely pleasing anyone.  This system has taken human beings
> > > > >thousands
> > > > >of
> > > > > > years to develop, and many people think it is the best approach 
>to
> > > > > > organizing society, with all the conflicts and disagreements 
>among
> > >human
> > > > > > beings that are unavoidable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The claim that there is an absolute ethical standard that is
>without
> > > > > > contradiction or cases involving relative issues is a grand 
>dream
> > >which
> > > > >as
> > > > > > far as I can see is just that: A DREAM, NOT REALITY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But back to human feelings.....  As a matter of fact, I am
> > >completely
> > > > > > correct in my statement about human feelings being the basis for
> > >many
> > > > >human
> > > > > > actions, not some "overarching authority!"  There are people who
> > >will
> > > > >help
> > > > > > others (for example, pull them out of a burning house, or jump 
>in
>a
> > > > >river
> > > > >to
> > > > > > save someone drowning) in moments of need who are not compelled 
>to
> > >do
> > >so
> > > > >in
> > > > > > their own minds by any law or ethical rule or fear of 
>consequences
> > >in
> > > > >this
> > > > > > life or any other you care to imagine.  Why do they do this?
> > >Because
> > >of
> > > > > > human feelings of empathy and compassion!  They don't sit back 
>and
> > > > >calculate
> > > > > > how their actions are compelled by some ultimate overarching
>ethical
> > > > > > authority.  They act directly and quickly based on a feeling to
> > >help.
> > > > >These
> > > > > > cases are well documented.  Does this mean you can build an
>ethical
> > > > >system
> > > > > > dealing with all cases on just people responding to their 
>feelings
> > >at
> > > > >the
> > > > > > moment?  Of course not!  It is clear that there are cases, no
>matter
> > > > >what
> > > > > > your ethical principles, when the right ethical choice will mean
> > >going
> > > > > > against the impulses of emotion or feeling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ted
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: Brian Gibbs <canorder@moscow.com>
> > > > > > >To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: Every Ethical System Subject to Relativist 
>Problems!
> > > > > > >Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:48:04 -0700
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Hi Ted,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >It never ceases to amaze me that the folks that want to 
>criticize
> > > > > > >Christians for having an absolute standard, refuse to 
>acknowledge
> > >that
> > > > > > >their own standards of "ethical conduct [be] based on human
> > >feelings"
> > > > > > >allows ANYONE to do WHATEVER they want. Just because they 
>"feel"
> > >like
> > > > >it.
> > > > > > >You are doing just what you accuse the Christians of doing. You
> > >can't
> > > > >say
> > > > > > >that a person has to be nice. You are basing your standards on
> > > > >feelings.
> > > > > > >Everyone has different feelings. If your standard is always 
>what
> > >YOU
> > > > >feel,
> > > > > > >who's to stop ANYONE (let's say a man in this case) who thinks
>it's
> > > > >okay
> > > > >to
> > > > > > >walk up down in the Palouse Mall without any clothes on, from
>doing
> > >so?
> > > > >Or
> > > > > > >from lynching blacks, reds, greens, or whites? After all, "It 
>is
> > >what
> > > > >they
> > > > > > >feel, not what they think, not rules imposed by some 
>overarching
> > > > > > >authority!" And who determines that your "common sense ethic" 
>is
> > >the
> > > > >one
> > > > > > >ALL of us should follow? As soon as you say we are going to 
>with
> > >this
> > > > >one
> > > > > > >and not that one, you have set up a standard. And so if MY
>standard
> > >is
> > > > > > >different than yours, who are you to say that we have to go 
>with
> > >yours
> > > > >and
> > > > > > >not mine? As Douglas asked in his post..."But if you have a 
>fixed
> > > > >standard,
> > > > > > >then please tell us what it is, and why it is binding on the 
>rest
> > >of
> > > > >us?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Brian
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >At 11:47 PM 8/1/02 +0000, you wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>Douglas et. al.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Round and round we go...
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Douglas's ethical absolutes have no more logical and factual
>basis
> > >for
> > > > > > >>being true "absolutes" than his faith that they are!  In fact
>the
> > > > > > >>Christian standards of ethical conduct are also relative to 
>your
> > > > > > >>interpretation of the Bible and whatever theological 
>assumptions
> > > > >related
> > > > > > >>to Christianity you happen to believe in.  You can find 
>numerous
> > >sects
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >>Christianity, now and throughout history, with significantly
> > >differing
> > > > > > >>ethical standards, that will argue or have argued vehemently
>that
> > >they
> > > > >are
> > > > > > >>the true representatives of Christianity, and the other
>Christian
> > > > >sects
> > > > > > >>are not.  There are Christian groups who advocate extreme 
>racist
> > >or
> > > > >sexist
> > > > > > >>views, are there not?  And they claim they have the absolute
> > >truth,
> > >do
> > > > > > >>they not?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>How do you decide which group has the correct view?  We are 
>back
> > >to
> > > > > > >>"gumby" relativism, though the true believers will say they 
>have
>a
> > > > >hotline
> > > > > > >>to God that makes their particular view the "true" one.  The
>claim
> > >of
> > > > > > >>revelation from God is the lynch pin that guarantees the
>absolutes
> > >of
> > > > > > >>Christianity.
> > > > > > >>But there are numerous claims, Christian and non-Christian, to
> > >have
> > > > >the
> > > > > > >>true revealed standards of God, and these standards differ.
>With
> > >this
> > > > > > >>logic I can claim to have a hotline to God and ethical
> > >"absolutes,"
> > > > >and
> > > > > > >>justify anything I want to do, any kind of "holy" war or
>campaign
> > >of
> > > > > > >>salvation against the unbelievers, which has happened numerous
> > >times
> > > > >in
> > > > > > >>the history of Christianity.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>No, Douglas, the US Constitution is no more subject to the
> > >criticism
> > > > >that
> > > > > > >>it is hopelessly relativistic than your own so called 
>"absolute"
> > > > >documents
> > > > > > >>you refer to for your "absolute" values.  Your claim that the 
>US
> > > > > > >>Constitution could evolve to where lynching blacks becomes a
>civic
> > > > >duty
> > > > >is
> > > > > > >>way over the top and not reasonably defensible.  And on the
>other
> > >side
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >>this issue, there are many statements in the Bible that lead 
>to
> > >some
> > > > > > >>rather fantastic and disturbing ethical consequences!  And
> > >Christians
> > > > >use
> > > > > > >>these statements to justify extreme views!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>We are all in the same quandary, I am afraid, insofar as no 
>one
> > >can
> > > > >PROVE
> > > > > > >>their ethical standards are absolute and unchallengeable.  But
> > >what
> > >is
> > > > > > >>wrong with a common sense ethics that simply points out that 
>for
> > >the
> > > > >vast
> > > > > > >>majority of people, friendship and love are preferable to
>killing
> > >and
> > > > > > >>hatred, that honesty leads to a better society than one based 
>on
> > > > >everyone
> > > > > > >>lying, that respecting the feelings of others leads to a 
>higher
> > > > >quality
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >>relationship that one based on domination and exploitation?  
>And
> > >can't
> > > > > > >>these notions of ethical conduct be based on human feelings
>rather
> > > > >than
> > > > > > >>abstract principles derived from documents?  Anyways, this is
>just
> > >a
> > > > > > >>suggestion regarding what really keeps people from being ugly
>and
> > > > >nasty!
> > > > > > >>It is what they feel, not what they think, not rules imposed 
>by
> > >some
> > > > > > >>overarching authority!
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Ted
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> > > > > > >>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>>Subject: Catching up
> > > > > > >>>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:56:46 -0700
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > >>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > >http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Received: from mc2-f31.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.237.38]) by
> > > > > > >>mc2-s2.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft 
>SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
> > > > > > >>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:54:50 -0700
> > > > > > >>Received: from whale2.fsr.net ([207.141.26.23]) by
> > > > > > >>mc2-f31.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft 
>SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905);
> > > > > > >>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:50:51 -0700
> > > > > > >>Received: from whale2.fsr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
> > > > > > >>         by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id
> > > > >g6VJt4vX073274;
> > > > > > >>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > > >>         (envelope-from vision2020-request@moscow.com)
> > > > > > >>Received: (from slist@localhost)
> > > > > > >>         by whale2.fsr.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id
> > >g6VJt4pB073259;
> > > > > > >>         Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > > >>Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > > >>X-Authentication-Warning: whale2.fsr.net: slist set sender to
> > > > > > >>vision2020-request@moscow.com using -f
> > > > > > >>Message-Id: 
><5.1.0.14.0.20020731122459.02f07280@mail.moscow.com>
> > > > > > >>X-Sender: dougwils@mail.moscow.com
> > > > > > >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> > > > > > >>Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:56:46 -0700
> > > > > > >>To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
> > > > > > >>Subject: Catching up
> > > > > > >>Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > > > > >>Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> > > > > > >>Resent-Message-ID: <-MWY5D.A.D2R.WCES9@whale2.fsr.net>
> > > > > > >>Resent-From: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>X-Mailing-List: <vision2020@moscow.com> archive/latest/2678
> > > > > > >>X-Loop: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>Precedence: list
> > > > > > >>Resent-Sender: vision2020-request@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>Return-Path: vision2020-request@moscow.com
> > > > > > >>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2002 19:50:53.0675 (UTC)
> > > > > > >>FILETIME=[94434BB0:01C238CB]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Dear visionaries,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Just got back in town after a week out, and had a fun time
> > >catching
> > > > >up.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>I agree with Kenton (!) about one post a day. What a good deal
> > >that
> > > > >would
> > > > > > >>be. Although I am a little concerned that a liberal wants to
>work
> > >out
> > > > >this
> > > > > > >>kind of a solution without the intervention of a regulatory
> > >agency,
> > >I
> > > > > > >>still support it, and after my comments below that's the last
>you
> > >will
> > > > > > >>hear from me today.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>If our constitution, laws, and ordinances are all evolving, 
>and
> > >there
> > > > >is
> > > > > > >>no over-arching ethical standard, then we have no basis for
>folks
> > >in
> > > > >one
> > > > > > >>part of the evolutionary process showing indignation at the
> > > > >inhabitants
> > > > >of
> > > > > > >>another portion of the process, regardless of what they are
>doing
> > >at
> > > > >that
> > > > > > >>other time. And if that is the case then we need to ditch all
>our
> > > > > > >>faux-indignation about Chinese folks having to live out of 
>town,
> > >women
> > > > >not
> > > > > > >>voting, segregation of races, and women having to keep their
> > >shirts
> > > > >on.
> > > > > > >>Who cares?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>If you are not relativists, then tell us what the standard is.
> > >Such
> > >a
> > > > > > >>standard would have to be better than your living elastic 
>gumby
> > > > > > >>constitution, because a standard that can evolve into any 
>other
> > > > >standard
> > > > > > >>isn't a standard at all. A constitution which could
>incrementally
> > > > >evolve
> > > > > > >>to the point where lynching blacks would be a civic
>responsibility
> > >and
> > > > > > >>duty is personally offensive to me, and I cannot believe that
>you
> > >all
> > > > > > >>persist in defending this. Why do you defend this?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>But if you have a fixed standard, then please tell us what it
>is,
> > >and
> > > > >why
> > > > > > >>it is binding on the rest of us.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>If you are open relativists, then open wide and swallow the
> > >reductio.
> > > > > > >>After all, it is your cooking, not ours.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>And this ties in to my one comment on the misrepresentations 
>of
>my
> > > > >writing
> > > > > > >>in Credenda. What I am represented as advocating, I actually
> > > > >repudiate.
> > > > > > >>But those who accuse me of this form of abusive sexism have no
> > >basis
> > > > >for
> > > > > > >>being indignant over any form of sexism. So, suppose me guilty
>of
> > > > > > >>maintaining that a wife should just lie back and take it. So?
> > >Suppose
> > > > >that
> > > > > > >>I do advocate spouse rape. Don't you?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com