vision2020
RE: Compassion
Hello Mr. Ted Moffett,
In response to the your following questions:
> 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 agree that society has placed a double standard regarding women and men and
the behaviors that they engage in. But I believe that ALL fornicators engage
in ugly behavior regardless of whether they are men or women and the both
deserve the same labels - although fornication between men and men are actually
given another biblical term. No, I am not willing to *single* out men in the
community who are "sowing their wild oats." How about being inclusive and label
women and men that are fornicators as sluts. In my original post, I used the
term in the context of the issues that have been placed before us regarding the
slutty behavior of women exposing themselves downtown in public, and therefore
did not see the need to go into the details as you have requested above.
Nevertheless, I still desire that the rights of innocent children and not those
of dirty women would prevail in Moscow. The rights of a child to walk downtown to
buy candy at a store should not require a child to have to endure a hostile
sexual environment in public downtown Moscow - just like we dont expect hostile
sexual workplaces.
I still see this issue as coming down to:
Rights of dirty women
vs
Rights of innocent children
I would rather be for the children.
Cheers!
John Harrell
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Back to TOC