Peemm wrote: >> I wouldn't call it a positive view on women that females are weaker and >> more naive than males and therefore it is a mans job to protect women >> from all the evilness on this planet -- I would call it an EXTREMELY >> SEXIST view on women!!! > > But he never wrote that! You are putting words in his mouth. Anyhow, > hopefully Philip M. Jones is reading these posts, and if that is the > case, he might want to speak up for himself.
Quotes from Phillip's posts in this thread: >>>> Why is it worse for a woman to see a spam message than for a man? >>> >>> If it about Morgages or credit cards. Its Not. But the majority I >>> see is x-rated stuff. Some men get their jollies seeing junk like >>> that - NOT ME. However; that stuff would be downright offensive to >>> a Woman. Just think you as woman scaning message topics to read and >>> happen to open one showung a picture of a mans Tool, or a woman's >>> privates wouldn't you find that offensive? [...] >>> That may or may not be true. Sometimes the female may be tricked >>> into doing the photos. Sometimes they are in a relationship with a >>> Man and pose for him only. Then the cad sells the photo's. Those statements sound pretty sexist if you ask me. >> Are you saying that I have no emotional relations to other people? How >> can you possibly get that idea just by hearing me say that I think >> freedom and equality are good things? Or does the word "contractual" >> have some other meaning that neither me or my English dictionary are >> aware of? > > No, I'm not saying that. I don't know you that well. IF you were a porn > addict, I'd suspect that the emotional relations be more or less > disturbed, but you've really made me confused now, since it's obvious > that you don't wanna tell what you REALLY think about porn. Well, you > don't have to - let's skip the subject. Personally, I do not have a problem with porn, and do not consider it offending, but I am not a "porn addict" either. I agree that it seems likely that people who really are addicted to porn have problems with their emotional relations. > I was thinking a little about the French Revolution, since you use the > concepts of freedom and equality (but not brotherhood). One of the > inspirers of the ideas of the French Revolution was of course Rousseau, > which in 1762 published the manifest "Du contrat social" - "the social > contract" - describing in what way society and its leadership ought to > be organized to meet the citizens' need of freedom and security. A society where the state/leadership takes care of the average citizen's needs seems like a very nice solution, wouldn't you say? > The > conclusion was that you as a citizen and the state should be drawing up > a contract, regulating the relations between the state and the citizens. > My thought was that if you apply such a contract, not only between the > state and you, but in every private relation of every kind, then you > rule out every possibility of spontaneity and real change - and real > life. Why? Because then all important matters would have already been > decided upon when - so to speak - signing the contract. Absolutely. Life would be incredibly dull if your private relations was based on contracts. But mine isn't. What makes you think that they are? > Here is something I am very curious about; how come that you think that > I want to ban porn? I'm not sure -- I think it's because just most other persons I have talked to who are against pornography was in favor of making it illegal. But since you are not, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. > There is another, new thread "Look at that", where > the posters want to ban spam. Now, read this carefully: I don't even > want to ban spam about porn! In an ideal world, only very few people would send spam, and those that did would not be morons like Bernard Shifman, so there would be no reason to ban spam. But unfortunately this is not an ideal world, so I would like to see spam be made illegal. On a side note, I do actually consider porn spam to be worse than other spam, partly because even though I will only be as annoyed as I am with all other spam, I know that it will offend some of the recipients, and partly because spam is usually sent to as many email accounts as possible, including those belonging to small children. And it is definitely _not_ healthy for a 10-year old child to watch porn. > This is not a legal matter; this is a > matter of opinions, sympathies and antipathies. Regarding pornography, I agree. Regarding spam, I _would_ very much like to agree, but as I said, in this far from ideal world, there is simply too much spam for me to just ignore. > I don't believe in > calling for the police every time someone does something bad. I agree with you. >>> You've got it all mixed up, I'm afraid. I am not against freedom or >>> equality. From where did you get that idea? >> >> You are defending Phillip M. Jones though he repeatedly makes sexist >> statements. Sexism and equality does not play well together. > > Again, Philip M. Jones should speak for himself, but I would say that he > understands women in another way than you (or maybe I) do, and I don't > believe anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else what we are to > think about........etc. etc. Hehe... :-) I agree, of course, and I believe that even horrible things such as sexism and racism should not be illegal, since outlawing them will not solve the problems of sexism and racism, it will merely hide them. I will do my best to fight racism and sexism whenever I get the chance, but I will never attempt to force anybody to change their opinions -- that won't do any good. _Convincing_ them that they are wrong through debates and discussions is the only way to go. /Jonas
