V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (01/24/85)
If Paul has indeed discarded his past formal Christain training then so be it. But this does not weaken the strength of his arguments nor does it weaken my respect for them. Paul mentioned the natural law as the basis of his arguments since he did not quote religious sources. Lest you think that the natural law is a figment of his and my imagination check various philosophy books on the natural law. There should be much available. No I'm not going to quote any texts since the ones I read have the Imprimatur. And this seems to be an objection to some netters. Fine, use alternate sources which are not theologically based for materialon the natuarl law and I think you'll find reasonable arguments similiar to Dubuc's. I'm still going to stick up for Christain based opinion on this subject. It is at least as valid as the atheistic viewpoint. I do not have contempt for our mixed society. The other guys have the right to be wrong. But I am NOT going to keep my mind and conscience in a constant flux trying to redefine a moral system without absolutes for every problem that pops up in society. When I try to prove a point I refer to higher sources whom I have accepted. It makes it easier for the reader to retrace my position since none oh the sources are secret. One of the problems with using natural law arguments IN SHORT postings is that while the natural law should be OBVIOUS to all observers, it is not because of the fallen state of man. Ideally Rosen and I should be able to apply the natural law to the same problem and come with the same solution. ( You've seen how succesful the two of have been--- :-) ) That's why I don't use it in arguments. I don't quite understand how Rosen thinks that I am against the individual. The WHOLE purpose of this porn question was the problem of degradation of the individual since it was well argued that if porn degraded (evidently the jury is still out..:-) ) then it degraded both sexes. The subject has since moved to censorship, religion, politics and academic integrity and morality. NOT BAD!! But this should prove that it touches a basic point of humanity. One needs a comprehensive world view to handle it. I have one and so does Rosen. We do seem to be anti-thetical though. Both are legal in this country, fortunatly. Rich and I have gone round before in net.abortion with the same results (and style I might add... I can't stand his posturings either...but at least it's obvious to every one else... :-) ) ... Anti-thetical positions do that. I claim that the individual is subordinate to a higher authority and that authority has a position on morality and this position explains the evil of pornography and the beauty of sexuality. The higher authority is NOT SOCIETY. It is God and His Church. It is also the case that while I am subordinate to my God I am NOT diminished by this. A further discussion should be in net.religion. I think Rich misunderstands the role and importance of the individual to religions. It is the religion's purpose to save the individual for eternity. There are earthly benefits accrued such as good order but also affirmation of basic human rights. I understand Rosen's objections and fears over individualism being lost. As I said it is difficult to understand the Christian view without deep study if you are not one. It can be done however. This does not mean that you will become a Christian Rich..no matter how much water I throw on you :-). Christianity involves all planes of man's existence simultaneously. AS FOR BEING RIGHT!!!!! HERE IT COMES FOLKS :-) As I said this is persuasive argument both of us can't be right. Use your conscience. Christians have a high regard for the conscience even when it is wrong. (Even you Rich.. That's why Arndt likes you :-) I'm sorry Paul but I can't accept the solution of censorship, morally correct that it is. Remember A GOOD ACT that leads to evil is not allowed either. St. Paul mentioned it I believe and it has been taught consistently. Aren't you glad we solved the problem?????? :-) See you all in net.abortion or psu.ai.ethics. Vince
nap@druxo.UUCP (Parsons) (01/28/85)
> Christianity involves all planes of man's existence simultaneously.
Does this mean Christianity doesn't have anything to do with the planes of
my existence (since I'm not a man)? Or does it mean that Christianity
considers the male to be the norm and I'm part of the deviation from that
norm?
Does "Christianity" care that women are made to feel that they are not
significant in God's view when the term "man" can be used to mean either
"human" or "male" according to the whim of the author and/or reader?
Do Christians care that women are hurting because of sexist language? If
they are so lacking in compassion for the pain and anguish caused by a
sexist society (including sexist language), can anyone believe that their
"Christ" is compassionate? Or is "healing the wounded" restricted to
males? Or to only certain kinds of wounds? Maybe that's it...maybe it
is just "spiritual" pain they care about.
Nancy Parsonsrdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/31/85)
> > Christianity involves all planes of man's existence simultaneously. > > Do Christians care that women are hurting because of sexist language? If > they are so lacking in compassion for the pain and anguish caused by a > sexist society (including sexist language), can anyone believe that their > "Christ" is compassionate? Or is "healing the wounded" restricted to > males? Or to only certain kinds of wounds? Maybe that's it...maybe it > is just "spiritual" pain they care about. > > Nancy Parsons I don't know what's really eating you, but you can't possibly be suggesting that it's Christianity that causes all of the ills women must endure today. It was certainly used to reenforce the second class status of women for many years, but that status was established when a woman couldn't hunt, or get fire from a waring clan for the cave, or keep from getting pregnant. I, for one, detest ANY attempt by ANY group that will cause inequality (with exceptions like war, etc.). BTW, remember that MANY women do not support the idea of equality with men. People like Phyllis Shaffley (sp?) are not part of some fringe group. They speak for MILLIONS of WOMEN. What people like you and I need to do is to make sure they don't speak for everyone! Remember that a supporter can be found in many areas. Don't chase them away by assuming that since they are a member of such a diverse group as "Christians" that they must all be the enemy. The above is based on the idea that you want equality of the sexes. The tone of your attack makes me wonder if you don't think one or the other must be "second class". *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/03/85)
Well Rob, I see you have fled across the news groups in an attempt to elude me. Alas I have found you and must once again respond. > I don't know what's really eating you, but you can't possibly be suggesting > that it's Christianity that causes all of the ills women must endure today. > It was certainly used to reenforce the second class status of women for > many years, but that status was established when a woman couldn't hunt, or > get fire from a waring clan for the cave, or keep from getting pregnant. I suspect women could always hunt. (excluding blind paraplegics) Society probably didn't allow them to. Possibly this isn't the point you intended. Get fire from a waring clan for the cave? I must advise you not to see "Quest For Fire" again until you are less impressionable. I think effective methods of birth control came after Christianity, at least on earth. Hopefully you will explain what these random examples have to do with the claim that Christianity reenforces the second class status of women. > I, for one, detest ANY attempt by ANY group that will cause inequality (with > exceptions like war, etc.). Are you saying that you don't detest wars that cause inequality? Do you detest wars that cause equality? Please explain. > BTW, remember that MANY women do not support the idea of equality with men. > People like Phyllis Shaffley (sp?) are not part of some fringe group. They > speak for MILLIONS of WOMEN. What people like you and I need to do is to > make sure they don't speak for everyone! Remember that a supporter can be > found in many areas. Look now, the fact that you have gone on for several sentences is no reason to totally forget the original point. > Don't chase them away by assuming that since they are > a member of such a diverse group as "Christians" that they must all be the > enemy. Perhaps there is minor jump in logic here. > The above is based on the idea that you want equality of the sexes. The tone > of your attack makes me wonder if you don't think one or the other must be > "second class". Is the part where you tie all this together into a salient point coming in some future article? -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/06/85)
> Well Rob, I see you have fled across the news groups in > an attempt to elude me. Alas I have found you and must > once again respond. > I suspect women could always hunt. (excluding blind paraplegics) Society > probably didn't allow them to. Possibly this isn't the point you intended. > Get fire from a waring clan for the cave? I must advise you not to see > "Quest For Fire" again until you are less impressionable. > I think effective methods of birth control came after Christianity, at > least on earth. > Hopefully you will explain what these random examples have to do with > the claim that Christianity reenforces the second class status of women. > Are you saying that you don't detest wars that cause inequality? > Do you detest wars that cause equality? Please explain. > Look now, the fact that you have gone on for several sentences is no > reason to totally forget the original point. > Perhaps there is minor jump in logic here. > Is the part where you tie all this together into a salient point > coming in some future article? > -- > The Watcher > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf David, what a silly article. This makes no sense at all. Oh, I see. I wasn't supposed to take the statements out of context. I was supposed to read the article as a whole. Silly me! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/08/85)
> David, what a silly article. This makes no sense at all. Oh, I see. I > wasn't supposed to take the statements out of context. I was supposed to > read the article as a whole. Silly me! The reason my statements appear out of context is because you used the editior to remove all your mindless assinine inane word strings that I had responded to. Bob, you have made two major improvements: 1. You have learned to use the editor. Now all you need to do is to use the editor to remove the meaningless "REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE" that you include on each pointless article. 2. Even more important is the fact that you now realize yourself that your ridiculous ignorant drivel should not appear in print. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/11/85)
> > The reason my statements appear out of context is because you > used the editior to remove all your mindless assinine inane word > strings that I had responded to. Bob, you have made two major > improvements: > > 1. You have learned to use the editor. Now all you need to > do is to use the editor to remove the meaningless > "REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE" that you include > on each pointless article. > > 2. Even more important is the fact that you now realize yourself > that your ridiculous ignorant drivel should not appear in print. > -- > The Watcher > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf Mr. Fader, Have you been following Sharon (sp?) vs. Time or Westmoreland vs. CBS? No? One more posting to this international facility of the above type will make you very aware of what they are about. This is NOT a joke. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/12/85)
> > The reason my statements appear out of context is because you > > used the editior to remove all your mindless assinine inane word > > strings that I had responded to. Bob, you have made two major > > improvements: > > > > 1. You have learned to use the editor. Now all you need to > > do is to use the editor to remove the meaningless > > "REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE" that you include > > on each pointless article. > > > > 2. Even more important is the fact that you now realize yourself > > that your ridiculous ignorant drivel should not appear in print. > Mr. Fader, > > Have you been following Sharon (sp?) vs. Time or Westmoreland vs. CBS? > No? One more posting to this international facility of the above type > will make you very aware of what they are about. This is NOT a joke. Mr. Zarcone. Are you suggesting I sue you for libel because you reposted my article after modifying it? I am afraid I don't have that much time to waste on foolish people like you. Riduculous discussion like the above does not belong in this newsgroup. I am moving this to net.flame, I trust you are capable of following my example. P.S. Are you this international facility is not considered a joke? -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/14/85)
> > > > The reason my statements appear out of context is because you > > used the editior to remove all your mindless assinine inane word > > strings that I had responded to. Bob, you have made two major > > improvements: > > > > 1. You have learned to use the editor. Now all you need to > > do is to use the editor to remove the meaningless > > "REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE" that you include > > on each pointless article. > > > > 2. Even more important is the fact that you now realize yourself > > that your ridiculous ignorant drivel should not appear in print. > > -- > > The Watcher > > seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf > > Mr. Fader, > > Have you been following Sharon (sp?) vs. Time or Westmoreland vs. CBS? > No? One more posting to this international facility of the above type > will make you very aware of what they are about. This is NOT a joke. > > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** This exchange makes me nervous. A libel suit could prove disasterous to the whole net. Mr. Fader should realize that this type of gross rudeness doesn't help anything. Mr. Zarcone, you should realize that you can't win a libel suit unless you show damages, and that Mr. Fader's rantings reflect more on him than on you. I think the quality of usenet would be improved if most of us resolved never to respond to an insult, or at least to keep this type of thing in net.flame. Some people apparently get a big charge out of attempted public humiliation. But an insult is merely annoying (although sometimes extremely so), and responding to it only encourages the offender by proving that he or she really got to you. Even saying "you don't bother me" doesn't work. The best tactic is no response, as one ignores the taunts of a bully or hangs up on an obscene phone caller. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak