[Vision2020] Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

Tue Apr 2 17:26:11 PDT 2013

Ted, you're absolutely right in saying that I took an oversimplified view of things when I was still a liberal.  By stating that the green movement has nefarious purposes, I was summing up the complexity of its agenda.  You're 100% correct to say that there are nefarious intents, persons and purposes across the spectrum of institutions, demographics, etc.  Thanks for the link.

________________________________
 From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
To: Judd A. Wilson <judd_allen_wilson at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "vision2020 at moscow.com" <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

Judd A. Wilson wrote:

"When I was a
 Democrat I thought the only reason conservatives opposed environmental 
regulations was because they were greedy businessmen who wanted to kill 
the planet."
------------------------------

This statement suggests that you adopted an oversimplified and very stereotypical view of "conservatives" when you were a Democrat, at least regarding "environmental regulations."

What prompted you to adopt this oversimplified negative stereotypical view of conservatives who oppose environmental regulations?  

It appears that you continue in this oversimplified stereotyping of other peoples views when you also wrote:

 "...the green movement was based on false premises and had a nefarious agenda of its own..."

"Nefarious agendas" can be discovered among individuals with widely differing worldviews, among those who believe in a "God" or do not, or among those who think sober objective science indicates there are very serious environmental problems that humanity must address, or do not, etc.  "Nefarious" human beings occupy positions in every major institution in society, in churches, courts, schools, military, among police, lawyers, businessman, democrats, republicans, libertarians, among evangelicals and agnostics and atheists et. al.

I am certain that many in powerful economic positions in the world of business sincerely believe that global warming, for example, is an exaggerated threat that does not justify certain economic costs of addressing the problem.  I would not condemn these people as "greedy business people who want to kill the planet" even though I think the preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic climate warming, and all it implies, is a grave threat to humanity and the biosphere as a whole.

For an analysis of the complexity and range of views on global warming, the following PDF from Anthony Leiserowitz at Yale University is at least a start... It certainly avoids the ridiculous stereotyping of people into "warmers" and "denialists" regarding the threat of global warming:

http://environment.yale.edu/leiserowitz/pubs_assets/ClimateRiskCommunication.pdf

A bio on Anthony Leiserowitz is at website below, which offers a link to the "Yale Project on Climate Change Communication," one of the best sources I have discovered for analysis on how to approach this vexing problem:

http://environment.yale.edu/profile/leiserowitz/
------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Judd A. Wilson <judd_allen_wilson at yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi, my name is Judd Wilson.  I'm one of the people who attended last night's meeting  and intended to speak in opposition to the gender discrimination ordinance.  
>
>
>This is my first time using this forum, but I saw my name bantered about here today (and several months ago when I spoke to the city council regarding the anti-child, anti-Christian billboard), so I figured I'd join the forum so we can have real dialogue.  
>
>
>As someone who grew up valuing free speech, journalism, transparency in government, personal kindness, and rational discussion, whenever I see people launching a salvo at another person whom they've never even met, nor given the opportunity for proper debate, I get the feeling that I'm seeing something out of a sci-fi movie.  That behavior is from another planet.  
>
>
>To the best of my understanding, whether you're coming at things from a Biblical, Reformation worldview or a naturalistic, Enlightenment worldview, we as Americans have the duty and opportunity to treat each other courteously, respectfully, and intelligently.
>
>
>For the record, I grew up a liberal Democrat, spent my youth as a progressive, and championed most of the views touted on this website (i.e., gun control, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, abortion rights, social programs, non-Biblical theology, and yes, even acceptance of homosexuality).
>
>
>So I'll say it once, and I'll probably have to say it again, but I chose what I believe and how I live after deliberate and intensive study, reflection and experience.  Isn't that the hallmark of a good, classical liberal?
>
>
>I am a Bible-believing, conservative Christian because that system of thought and way of life compelled my conscience as the only true and viable one.  I tried the other systems.  They failed the intellectual and experiential tests.  I would gladly wrap myself in the progressive, pluralistic, multiculturalist flag if I could do so without offending my sense of reason and commitment to intellectual honesty.  But as I said, they fail the test.  This is not meant as an offense to those of you who hold to those systems of thought and life, but it is an explanation of who I am and where I'm coming from.
>
>
>Please don't create some strawman of me or assume that I am like someone else who bears some resemblance to me or my views.  I know from personal experience that it is incredibly easy to do that.  When I was a Democrat I thought the only reason conservatives opposed environmental regulations was because they were greedy businessmen who wanted to kill the planet.  It never occurred to me that (a) the green movement was based on false premises and had a nefarious agenda of its own, that (b) there might be a better way to deal with actual cases of environmental abuse, or that (c) such regulations would cripple the families, businesses, and communities which make up America.  So let's make a deal: I'll do my part to give you the benefit of the doubt and a fair hearing, and you give me the same in return.  We can agree to disagree and still be civil; that's how mature adults handle life.
>
>
>I would like to invite any and all members of this forum to face-to-face conversations with me here in Moscow.  Hey, we can even videotape them and put them online.  Not debates, per se, but conversations about the things we share in common, and the things we happen to have different views on, such as the ordinance which passed last night.  I'll bet that many, if not most, of the members of this forum were in favor of it.  I was not, so on that we disagree.  But I'll also bet that many, if not most, of the members of this forum were displeased with the way that the council precluded public comment before they approved the ordinance.  So was I, so on that we are in wholehearted agreement.  I applaud Mayor Chaney for speaking up for our First Amendment rights and for transparency in government.
>
>
>I've posted my entire comments on last night's debacle on my website, juddwilson.com, and I invite your comments.  I'll check that website more often than this forum, so if you need to get a hold of me that's your best bet.
>
>
>Thanks for taking the time to read this.  I look forward to good conversations.  
>Respectfully,
>Judd Wilson
>juddwilson.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130402/153076ec/attachment.html>