[Vision2020] "Domination, Aggression, Extinction"
Ted Moffett
ted_moffett@hotmail.com
Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:33:04 +0000
Don, et. al.
It appears we are talking past each other on the issue of self
determination. How typical of human beings, and an example of the lack of
broad understanding and open-mindedness that is one of the reasons humanity
is at each others throats...
Here are three words to consider to emulate your three word formula for
life, but with a very different outcome:
"domination, aggression, extinction"
I see human life in the context of being a part of "nature" where we must
humbly recognize our dependence upon and interdependence with other life
forms and the environment on earth, which conditions the biology and mind of
human beings and sets limits upon on the freedom of the individual to
control and/or dominate other human beings, life forms and the environment.
I suggest that your view is more akin to the ideology of humanity as the
dominator of life on earth, oriented towards control and exploitation of
nature and other human beings, with the individual a self determining free
agent that has the right, even the duty, to impose their will upon other
life forms and the environment. Perhaps you do not agree that your view of
total "self determination" and "freedom" for the individual has the negative
connotations suggested above. Interestingly, my view is more akin to the
"feminine" spiritual mentality, and yours, if I am correct, is more akin to
the "masculine" spiritual view. This fits how we have been structuring our
thought on feminism and women's rights, does it not?
Ted
>From: Don Kaag <dkaag@turbonet.com>
>To: Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why doesn't the Sisterhood learn to shoot?
>Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 06:21:27 -0800
>
>Ted:
>
>"improvise, adapt, overcome".
>
>Don Kaag
>
>On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 11:51 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>>
>>Don:
>>
>>While I can see where you are coming from and agree with much of what you
>>say, I think there is a contradiction in your worldview that you do not
>>recognize. To be brief, you do believe that force can make a person, or a
>>government, conform to the agenda of the agency applying the force, do you
>>not? As a former military man who recognizes the necessity and efficacy
>>of the use of force, I do not see how you can but agree with what I just
>>wrote. Therefore, does it not follow that no matter what forces a self
>>determining mature adult person musters, superior force can defeat them?
>>Therefore it also follows that a women who faces a man willing to inflict
>>enough pain and suffering can bring such a women to defeat, and if said
>>man is clever enough, he can use methods that will bring the likelihood of
>>his being stopped by whomever, the police, friends of the women, social
>>services etc. rather unlikely. Consider a man who threatens to kill the
>>women's children, or track the women down and kill her, wherever she goes,
>>if she turns the man into the police, even if he has to wait out a prison
>>term before he carries out his revenge.
>>
>>You may think these examples are extreme and rare, but they do exist far
>>more often than they should, and make my point, which is in contradiction
>>to your rather peculiar claim that women should not "complain," because
>>they are the ones turning themselves into victims. Get real, will you!
>>People can be victimized against their will when they are very motivated
>>to not let it happen.
>>
>>Let's launch a campaign of zero tolerance against brutal men
>>who abuse women! Then we would see men "complain" about women's rights
>>being out of control, which is the attitude many men take > today.
>>
>>I hear you complaining about women who are just trying to gain attention
>>to a very serious social problem. What is the problem in trying to raise
>>the issue of violence against women and the damage it does? If you are
>>serious in your statements and are not just disputing various points for
>>the sake of a good argument, etc. I wonder why you are complaining about
>>this?
>>
>>Your insistence on total self determination for adults does not fit the
>>facts of human life, psychology and biology. No one is a self made human
>>being, and being an "adult" does not suddenly confer special powers that
>>create a being of total self control over the forces in life. Many people
>>do not work to get what they have, it is handed to them on a silver
>>platter, and many other people work their asses off and still get screwed
>>over in one way or another. To deny this is to deny the facts. No one is
>>totally a controller of their own destiny, and if this is the American
>>dream, as you state, well, the world is full of dreamers that are out of
>>touch with reality. Of course I am not saying that self determintion and
>>hard work are not good values, but they are only part of the picture of
>>human life.
>>
>>Ted
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Don Kaag <dkaag@turbonet.com>
>>>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why doesn't the Sisterhood learn to shoot?
>>>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:21:47 -0800
>>>
>>>Ted:
>>>
>>>No one can make you a victim if you do not accept victimhood. We have
>>>laws in this country focused on that. My point, which I am sure that you
>>>will never concede, is that once a person---male or female---reaches
>>>adulthood, they are, or ought to be, responsible for their own actions
>>>and controllers of their own destiny. That's the American dream.
>>>
>>>It doesn't take physical strength, it doesn't take weapons or karate
>>>training. All it takes (Granted, it is a big "all"...) is guts, hard
>>>work, and an unwillingness to be pushed around. I am sick and tired of
>>>weenies whining about how the world, or the country, or their religion,
>>>or their significant other, push them around and don't recognize their
>>>"personness".
>>>
>>>If that's the truth, then they are responsible, as adults with a brain,
>>>to figure out how to stop it. They've got a brain, they are citizens,
>>>with access to a plethora of community support agencies and volunteer
>>>groups, they need to get up off of their asses and do something about it,
>>>rather than complain about how they are mistreated.
>>>
>>>And as far as the consequences you have listed---divorce, ostracism,
>>>rejection by their religion---here's a hot flash for you. TAANSTAFL.
>>>(There is no such thing as a free lunch.) In this world, you get what
>>>you work for and pay for. That is the same for everyone. If you want
>>>something badly, you must be willing to make the trade-offs to make it
>>>happen.
>>>
>>>Don Kaag
>>>
>>>
>>>On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 09:05 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don, et. al.
>>>>
>>>>Speaking of those "blinders" ... did you take them off? Or is this more
>>>>devils advocacy?
>>>>
>>>>So women who were raised in and married in a fundamentalist Christian
>>>>religion, are supposed to, according to you:
>>>>"...organize, take over and change the rules. Or change sects. Or
>>>>start their own sect. Or stop whining..." Right! They then face
>>>>possible divorce from their husbands, ostracism from the community they
>>>>have called home, and rejection from the God they sincerely believe is
>>>>the true God who has ordered through the divine word of the Bible that
>>>>women are to be obedient to their husbands. Consider the Southern
>>>>Baptists, for an example of this approach.
>>>>
>>>>The options you outline are easy to advocate, difficult to practice.
>>>>
>>>>Also consider Catholicism. You can forget the "take over and change the
>>>>rules" possibility. When do you think the Pope will be a women? Or
>>>>that women will be doing Mass? Patriarchy at it's most
>>>>institutionalized!
>>>>
>>>>And it's easy to say but much more difficult to tell someone to abandon
>>>>their faith.
>>>>
>>>>As far as "whining" goes, many of these women DON'T WHINE. But that
>>>>does NOT mean that men are not a factor in the social forces involved in
>>>>influencing these women to neglect competency in self defense. And that
>>>>these same men do not tell these same women that they will defend them,
>>>>don't worry darling!
>>>>
>>>>This is all I was saying, stating what is a sociological fact, that you
>>>>seemed to overlook: men actively are involved in influencing many women
>>>>to be helpless and dependent, and not only via the influence of male
>>>>dominated religion. How many tough macho men just dig defending their
>>>>smaller weaker women friends, and tell them as much?
>>>>
>>>>Are you going to assert that men to not engage in these behaviors?
>>>>
>>>>The flip side of this psychology involves the opposite behavior of men
>>>>defending "helpless" women, but often is oriented toward again inducing
>>>>helplessness and powerlessness: the shocking number of women who face
>>>>physical violence from men, and if they fight back they just get it
>>>>worse. Are you aware of the rates of violent rape and domestic violence
>>>>against women in America? And that much of this violence does induce a
>>>>psychology of helplessness? Oh, I forgot, women are all expected to be
>>>>super women karate weapons experts and kick ass, I take it? The
>>>>military solution is just what America's families need to solve the
>>>>problems of domestic violence against women. Give me a break...
>>>>
>>>>Ted
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
>>>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
>>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963