matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/06/85)
> By Matt's reasoning (in which you can state that someone isn't "equal" > if doing so causes you harm), we can simply claim that women "shouldn't" > be treated equally, because doing so would cause problems. [RICH ROSEN] This is a part of Mr. Rosen's article to which I did not respond earlier, so I will respond now: AT LAST MR. ROSEN HAS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! He understands precisely what I mean when I say that the feminist principle of equality cannot be taken as an absolute, because to do so would cause problems. IF APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE IN A PARTICULAR AREA WOULD CAUSE MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD, THE PEOPLE HAVE A *RIGHT* NOT TO APPLY IT IN THAT AREA. Isn't that just common sense and good civics? Example 1: ABORTION. Now, there are many arguments for abortion on demand not based on equality. But if the only justification for abortion on demand were the so-called "equal access to pleasure" for women and men, we would weigh the benefits of equality to the 1.5 million women who get abortions against the damages of death for the 1.5 fetuses who get aborted. If we then concluded that the evil of 1.5 million fetal deaths outweighed the relief provided to the 1.5 million women, this would be an area where the value of EQUALITY would have to yield to the value of LIFE. Example 2: MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. As I've written before, feminist- inspired easy-divorce legislation has backfired. Designed to "liberate" those women whose marriages were not allowing them enough room to "grow" and "fulfill themselves," this legislation has done so -- for SOME women. Far more women, however, who were benefiting from the legal protection of divorce-only-for-cause, have lost that protection, they and their children suffering a drastic drop in living standards after divorce. There you go -- equality in the opportunity to leave a marriage has hurt more women than it has helped. In this area, the value of EQUALITY should yield to the value of PROTECTING THE WEAK. My point is, and always has been, that if you take ANY value, even the ones I believe in (viz., Truth, Justice, Freedom, Ivy and the American Way), and hold it as an absolute, nullifying any competing values that get in its way, you can do more evil than good. -- Matt Rosenblatt ---------- "Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of Light and Darkness, For the Good or Evil side." -- Lowell
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (11/07/85)
In article <2873@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: >the value of EQUALITY would have to yield to the value of LIFE. What is the value of life? >than it has helped. In this area, the value of EQUALITY should yield >to the value of PROTECTING THE WEAK. Jesus said that the meek shall inherit the Earth. I don't think they need your help, Matt. Frankly, I'm a little tired of being protected. The authorities tell me that I can't drink alchohol -- for my own good. I suppose you would lobby to protect me from the perils of ethanol as well? >My point is, and always has been, that if you take ANY value, even >the ones I believe in (viz., Truth, Justice, Freedom, Ivy and the >American Way), and hold it as an absolute, nullifying any competing >values that get in its way, you can do more evil than good. Hmmm. You mean like nullifying the value of EQUALITY? -- -Charles
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/85)
>> By Matt's reasoning (in which you can state that someone isn't "equal" >> if doing so causes you harm), we can simply claim that women "shouldn't" >> be treated equally, because doing so would cause problems. [RICH ROSEN] > This is a part of Mr. Rosen's article to which I did not respond earlier, > so I will respond now: > AT LAST MR. ROSEN HAS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! He understands precisely > what I mean when I say that the feminist principle of equality cannot be > taken as an absolute, because to do so would cause problems. IF APPLYING > THE PRINCIPLE IN A PARTICULAR AREA WOULD CAUSE MORE DAMAGE THAN GOOD, > THE PEOPLE HAVE A *RIGHT* NOT TO APPLY IT IN THAT AREA. Isn't that just > common sense and good civics? [ROSENBLATT] No, of course not, it's self-centered Rosenblattism at its finest!!! The perfect example is slavery in this country. By Matt's brilliant reasoning, the fact that allowing black slaves to be freed would cause damage to plantation owners and to the southern economy at large OVERRODE the slaves' rights to be free. I've said this a thousand times: those who complain about how these newfangled ways of giving freedom to all people would take "freedom" (i.e., exploitative privileges and benefits) away from THEM are nothing but selfcentered boors who feel that their rights to their precious benefits at the expense of other people outweigh the rights of those other people. The crass vulgar insensitivity of this is appalling, but of course given your other "ideas" it is not surprising. Have you and Don Black formed that club yet? You and he talk so much alike it isn't funny. > Example 1: ABORTION. Now, there are many arguments for abortion on > demand not based on equality. But if the only justification for abortion > on demand were the so-called "equal access to pleasure" for women and men, > we would weigh the benefits of equality to the 1.5 million women who get > abortions against the damages of death for the 1.5 fetuses who get aborted. Of course, we have never considered the "benefits of equality" for rocks that get munged in the course of roadbuilding, or cattle that get slaughtered for food. Perhaps because they are not entitled to "human rights". Just as a non-viable fetus is not entitled to human rights. (So odd that you never responded to the points regarding the decision of the Arizona Supreme Court, or other related points about viability, great legal eagle that you are.) > If we then concluded that the evil of 1.5 million fetal deaths outweighed > the relief provided to the 1.5 million women, this would be an area where > the value of EQUALITY would have to yield to the value of LIFE. Can you give us a reason to do this in light of the non-viability of said fetuses? And I mean a VIABLE reason, not just your "disgust"... > Example 2: MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. As I've written before, feminist- > inspired easy-divorce legislation has backfired. Designed to "liberate" > those women whose marriages were not allowing them enough room to "grow" > and "fulfill themselves," this legislation has done so -- for SOME women. > Far more women, however, who were benefiting from the legal protection of > divorce-only-for-cause, have lost that protection, they and their children > suffering a drastic drop in living standards after divorce. There you go > -- equality in the opportunity to leave a marriage has hurt more women > than it has helped. In this area, the value of EQUALITY should yield > to the value of PROTECTING THE WEAK. Odd that you know so little about divorce. Easy divorce only takes place with the willing consent of both parties. Of course, you neglect in your statistics the number of women who left marriages to disturbed or abusive husbands, claiming in your usual anti-feminist (let's face it, anti-women) attitudes that such divorces are motivated by desires to "grow" and "fulfill themselves" (your quotation marks make the whole idea of women seeking their own destiny sound so very flippant---what ARE you afraid of?). You find the possibility of women finding more opportunity to leave such relationships a negative. Why? > My point is, and always has been, that if you take ANY value, even > the ones I believe in (viz., Truth, Justice, Freedom, Ivy and the > American Way), and hold it as an absolute, nullifying any competing > values that get in its way, you can do more evil than good. But you have, of course, NEVER to this date shown one example of where more "evil" IS done as a result of promoting equality. All you have shown is that your perspective is that anything that inhibits your existing "rights" is deemed universally evil. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
myke@gitpyr.UUCP (Myke Reynolds) (12/28/85)
(Ray Frank) writes: >The word 'baby' only seo those very few who seem to want >to make an issue out of words that don't serve their own personal interests. >I, on the other hand could'nt care less if using the word 'baby' offends any- >one, that is their own problem and doesn't concern me. Great. Who cares? Why did you post this.. -- Myke Reynolds Office of Telecommunications and Networking Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!myke "Drawing from my fine command of the english language, I said nothing."