RE: Compassion

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

John Harrell, et. al.

First off I would like to apologize for some of language in my last 
vision2020 post on this subject regarding John Harrell.  It verged on use of 
the very sort of labeling and name calling of people that I have
stated should be avoided on vision2020, or anywhere for that matter.  
However, I did suggest that this abandonment of civility is the sort of 
thing that happens in the heat of battle on these social/political issues, 
however much we try to be civil and respectful.  Then I proceeded to prove 
my own point with my own words!  If only I was perfect.

Like I said, Mr. Harrell, we have a fundamental disagreement that I think 
will not likely to be resolved on vision2020.

As to your question of standing up for the children, I partially answered 
this question in my last rather "heated" post.  I think we just 
fundamentally disagree on this issue, so I won't expand on it anymore.

Yes, I do object to women being labeled "sluts" in any circumstance.  Even 
if I agreed with you that women going around topless in downtown Moscow was 
a serious wrong of some sort, I would still object to calling them "sluts."  
If I was you I would offer a public apology for this sort of degrading name 
calling regarding women's sexuality.  If you have apologized, great!

In closing I would like to ask you a question.  What is the word that would 
refer to a man that was engaging in the sort of conduct that inspired you to 
call certain women "sluts?"  I think you will discover we do not have a word 
in very common usage that refers to men in this exact same manner.  Then do 
you not see how our culture penalizes women in a pejorative and unfair and 
ugly manner for behavior that men are allowed to engage in without the same 
sort of social penalty?  Are you willing to single out men in the community 
who are "sowing their wild oats," as we kindly put it, and label them with 
the same strong social censure implied by the word "slut?"

I could go on and on with the issues of gender and sexuality and the control 
of men over women etc. but...

Ted
>From: John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>
>To: Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, sunilramalingam@hotmail.com,  
>ddouglas@pacsim.com
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: RE: Compassion
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Mr. Ted Moffet,
>
>I applaud your efforts to stand up for women, even those that desire to
>walk around downtown exposing themselves to children, but your efforts
>are misguided.
>
>These women are walking around public downtown exposing themselves to
>children, and everyone else, including all the high schools boys,
>college men, etc. etc. Someone once said, public restrooms are always
>the dirtiest.
>
>Shouldn't you first be standing up for all the children? If you have a
>need to take a stand, how about your efforts be directed towards standing
>up for all the children first! If women want to parade around exposing
>themselves in front of children, they can do it in front of their own
>children - not in front of mine, against my will.
>
>If it has webbed feet and quacks...
>
>Cheers!
>John Harrell
>
>
>--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > John Harrell:
> >
> > The misunderstandings between David Douglas and I, and between you and 
>I,
> > will not be completely resolved by any amount of qualification or
> > clarification.  As I stated to David Douglas, let's agree to disagree, 
>but
> > respect the others point of view.  I know this is an idealistic notion 
>that
> > will be abandoned in the heat of battle, whether the battle is one of 
>words
> > and ideology in action in the social/political sphere, or a battle in 
>actual
> > violent warfare.
> >
> > I know of many beautiful women who go totally naked in front of 
>children,
> > and I am glad they do, for they are teaching children that there is 
>notion
> > wrong or immoral with the human body, especially the female body, which
> > after is the source of all humanity.  If I was present when you called 
>ANY
> > women a "slut," I can assure you you would get a response commensurate 
>with
> > my disgust at your anti-life neurotic misogynist nonsense.
> >
> > Let's just agree to disagree, but keep your simple minded insults 
>against
> > women to yourself, any women anywhere under any circumstances.  Do you
> > realize that your attitude is the real obscenity here, not the simple
> > presence of a female human body on a city street?
> >
> > I have it straight.  Now do you?
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> > >From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> > >To: johnbharrell@yahoo.com, ted_moffett@hotmail.com, 
>ddouglas@pacsim.com
> > >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >Subject: RE: Compassion
> > >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:08:28 -0700
> > >
> > >John,
> > >
> > >If a woman is cited or arrested for wearing clothes that reveal too 
>much
> > >cleavage under the ordinance, will you describe her with the same word 
>you
> > >used for the carwashers?
> > >
> > >Sunil
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>
> > >>To: Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, ddouglas@pacsim.com
> > >>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > >>Subject: RE: Compassion
> > >>Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
> > >>
> > >>Wait a minute Mr. Ted Moffett,
> > >>
> > >>I did not express a rude and insulting attitude towards "women", as in
> > >>all the females.
> > >>
> > >>I was reflecting on the character regarding the behaviour of some 
>women
> > >>that feel it is necessary to expose themselves in front of all the
> > >>children in a downtown area.
> > >>
> > >>Please try to keep it straight. Or another misunderstanding could 
>occur
> > >>as similar to what we have all been witnessing between you and David
> > >>Douglas.
> > >>
> > >>Cheers!
> > >>John Harrell
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > David:
> > >> >
> > >> > I am glad you do not agree with the rude and insulting attitude
> > >>expressed by
> > >> > John Harrell towards women.
> > >> >
> > >> > The ethical issues you raise are important and complicated.  We 
>could
> > >> > discuss them for years and not completely resolve the factual and
> > >>logical
> > >> > difficulties involved which are of the highest order.  If you are
> > >>really
> > >> > interested in studying a non-religiously based ethical system, read
> > >> > Principia Ethica by G. E Moore.
> > >> >
> > >> > I suspect you will try to argue that only your theistic ethical 
>system
> > >>can
> > >> > be correct, while my agnostic or atheist system has no compass by 
>which
> > >>to
> > >> > judge ethical direction.  Why don't we just agree to disagree?  But
> > >>allow me
> > >> > the dignity as a human being of having my opinion on ethical 
>matters.
> > >>I do
> > >> > not completely deny you the validity of many of your ethical 
>beliefs, I
> > >>am
> > >> > sure.  So why must you insist, as it seems you are, that I have no
> > >>basis for
> > >> > making any ethical judgments?  Here I sense the arrogance of the
> > >> > fundamentalist who must be right and all other views that challenge
> > >>must be
> > >> > wrong!  Excuse me if I misjudge you.
> > >> >
> > >> > As far as my statement about accepting the validity of and 
>sacredness
> > >>of the
> > >> > many valuable cultural and religious traditions of the human race, 
>this
> > >>is
> > >> > just what I mean, though not in the extreme way that you might be
> > >> > interpreting this statement.  To answer two questions at once, for
> > >>example,
> > >> > I accept that Doug Wilson can be right about many ethical issues 
>based
> > >>on
> > >> > his faith.  I admire many of the ethical teachings of Christ, so I
> > >>accept
> > >> > the validity of and sacredness of this tradition, but I do not 
>swallow
> > >>it
> > >> > whole without a critical and skeptical analysis of what faults 
>there
> > >>may be
> > >> > in Christianity.  I could go on and on listing numerous spiritual
> > >>traditions
> > >> > and what validity they have, but why labor the point?
> > >> >
> > >> > Perhaps I can suggest, if I may, a way out of the apparent 
>intractable
> > >> > quandary of the insane religious wars that plague the human race.
> > >> > When defining what is meant by "sacred" we will wade into very deep
> > >>waters
> > >> > very quickly that often do not lend themselves to precise logical
> > >> > clarification.  Some spiritual traditions, Buddhism among them, 
>make it
> > >>very
> > >> > clear that the true experience of the sacred is beyond definitions 
>and
> > >> > words.  If you are talking about the sacred this event is NOT 
>SACRED.
> > >>As
> > >> > far as my appreciation of the sacredness of the spiritual 
>traditions of
> > >> > Christianity, I am certain that I understand, again perhaps at a 
>level
> > >>of
> > >> > experience that transcends logical or verbal definition, the 
>exalted
> > >> > spiritual states of Hildegard Von Bingen that she expressed in her
> > >>music.  I
> > >> > know that because of my connection to music that I can assure you
> > >>plumbs the
> > >> > deepest wells of the human soul.  Please excuse my vanity and
> > >>pretension
> > >> > here, but I feel strongly that I know of one way to unify spiritual
> > >> > experiences across culture and religion.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think we are structured as human beings to feel religious 
>experience,
> > >>the
> > >> > experience of the "sacred," perhaps we are even hard wired in our 
>brain
> > >> > networks for a religious faculty of mind.  Thus music in all 
>cultures
> > >>is
> > >> > used to evoke the sacred based on this commonality of structure of 
>the
> > >>human
> > >> > mind.  There are other ways, I am certain, in which religious
> > >>experience is
> > >> > linked across religions.  Why not embrace the commonality of the
> > >>experience
> > >> > of the sacred across cultures?  Is this not a wise and humane 
>project?
> > >> > Would not this endeavor do much to stop hatred and war based on
> > >>religion?
> > >> > Humanity is not so at odds with itself as is commonly thought!
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, I suspect my ideas will not resonate with joy in your mind.
> > >> > Sorry....
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course I do not believe in many of the religious beliefs that
> > >>Hildegard
> > >> > held dear, nor do I buy into much of the mystical trappings of
> > >>Buddhism, but
> > >> > should that preclude an appreciation of the mystical sacred 
>dimensions
> > >>of
> > >> > the music of both Christianity and Buddhism?  And based on this
> > >>commonality
> > >> > can I not truly state, as I did, that I accept the validity of the
> > >>spiritual
> > >> > traditions of religions across the human race, to shorten my 
>statement?
> > >>  Of
> > >> > course, of course, I should have qualified my statement to indicate 
>I
> > >>do not
> > >> > mean ALL religious traditions to the letter, especially any 
>religious
> > >> > traditions that inflict pain and harm, such as forcing women under
> > >>threat of
> > >> > force to keep their lovely breasts all tied up and hidden from 
>public
> > >>view,
> > >> > which are actions that any humane ethical system would seek to 
>avoid.
> > >>But
> > >> > this is obvious!
> > >> >
> > >> > Read Principia Ethica!  You will not agree with it, but just maybe 
>you
> > >>can
> > >> > open your mind to another viewpoint!
> > >> >
> > >> > Ted
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > >From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
> > >> > >To: "'Ted Moffett'" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, 
><vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >> > >Subject: RE: Compassion
> > >> > >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:17:17 -0700
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Ted Moffet says:
> > >> > >
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
>http://sbc.yahoo.com




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com