Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

> Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is
> most understood by modern people.
> 
> A "bigot" is a racist, period.

I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think 
the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is 
inappropriate.

> > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.
> > 
> 
> You are a fool then.  Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing
> to do with bigotry.  A bigot is a racist, period.  That is TODAY'S
> correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than
> Webster.  Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool.
> The only god you will ever find is within yourself.

I do not begin to believe this is correct.  I happen to believe that 
sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense 
of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form 
of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of 
interest.

I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in 
any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, 
a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a 
number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did 
not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were 
subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception 
not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools.

 
> > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.

Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not 
in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe 
each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations.
That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented 
from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold.
They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later 
I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman.

> > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
> > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.
> > 
> 
> See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the
> argument.  You lose points for that.  Sexism is GOOD and right and
> justified.  I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car,
> and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities.

Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right 
to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are 
probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous 
and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc...
 
> > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
> > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
> > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
> 
> Look sonny, I am not out to win any points.  I have two Doctorates and
> 22 years of experience.   I speak with authority and only to those who
> have the intelligence to understand.   I was a perfect 4.00 in
> College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in
> the world.  Now let's face it:  Faggots are BAD news.  They are most
> always censors!  And that is the truth you can never get around.

I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have 
formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous 
behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight 
people.

 

  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

> Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not 
> in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe 
> each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations.
> That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented 
> from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold.
> They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later 
> I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman.

<flame-retardant suit on>

Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in 
some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that:

- The female <mechanic / scientist / engineer>, in addition to passing the
same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair
load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there.  The ones that
keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do 
whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder.

- If she has been in business for a while, this means she has attracted
and kept customers in spite of the attitude displayed in previous posts. 
There are no "quotas" in the marketplace. 

- I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference.  In my military
experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when
given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male
because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were
more pleasant to deal with. 

Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different
tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy
trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies?  Being told that they are 
*pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? 

Cynthia

===============================================================
		   Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng.
E-mail:     cynthb@iosphere.net  | PGP Key:  See Home Page
Home Page:  http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/
Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received.

        Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

Cynthia H. Brown wrote:
> - The female <mechanic / scientist / engineer>, in addition to passing the
> same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair
> load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there.  The ones that
> keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do
> whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder.
> - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference.  In my military
> experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when
> given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male
> because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were
> more pleasant to deal with.

I love working with girls, regardless of the job. I personally prefer
the ones who don't suck up to "the guys", and who don't subscribe to
what society prefers girls should do or look like.  Unfortunately,
most offices won't hire them unless they conform in ways that I feel
are offensive, so the really independent ones wind up mainly in low-
paying jobs or going it alone (i.e., driving a truck).

Nothing wrong with driving a truck, of course, but it would be nicer
still if they could co-exist alongside males in the majority of
workplaces without having to do female role-playing.

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:02:19 +0000
> From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, ichudov@algebra.com, dlv@bwalk.dm.com,
>     Freedom Knights <freedom-knights@jetcafe.org>,
>     alt.cypherpunks@news.demon.net, alt.cypherpunks.social@news.demon.net
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> 
>  
> > Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is
> > most understood by modern people.
> > 
> > A "bigot" is a racist, period.
> 
> I would have to differ with you there Dr. Grubor, although I think 
> the term Bigot being applied critically to your opinions is 
> inappropriate.
> 

Let us distinguish between the denotation an connotation of the word.
The later, being the more modern definition is more appropriate.
Webster's definition of bigotry is at least 75 years old.

> > > I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.
> > > 
> > 
> > You are a fool then.  Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing
> > to do with bigotry.  A bigot is a racist, period.  That is TODAY'S
> > correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than
> > Webster.  Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool.
> > The only god you will ever find is within yourself.
> 
> I do not begin to believe this is correct.  I happen to believe that 
> sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense 
> of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form 
> of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of 
> interest.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in 
> any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO, 
> a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a 
> number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did 
> not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were 
> subtle and well thought through. This is, of course, the exception 
> not the rule, and 99.9999% of all religious people are fools.
> 
>  
> > > > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.
> 
> Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not 
> in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe 
> each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations.

Exactly.  I know very few good female engineers, but I know a few good
config gals.  Females are just not meant for math and science.

> That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented 
> from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold.
> They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later 
> I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman.
> 
> > > Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
> > > have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.
> > > 
> > 
> > See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the
> > argument.  You lose points for that.  Sexism is GOOD and right and
> > justified.  I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car,
> > and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities.
> 
> Exactly, the poster has failed to recognise that you have every right 
> to discrimate as you do and are justified in doing so. They are 
> probably either homosexual and feel threatened or they are censorous 
> and feel they must protect people from being "defamed" etc...
>  
> > > If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
> > > people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
> > > censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
> > 
> > Look sonny, I am not out to win any points.  I have two Doctorates and
> > 22 years of experience.   I speak with authority and only to those who
> > have the intelligence to understand.   I was a perfect 4.00 in
> > College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in
> > the world.  Now let's face it:  Faggots are BAD news.  They are most
> > always censors!  And that is the truth you can never get around.
> 
> I agree, I have no prejudice against homosexuals. Rather I have 
> formulated a low opinion of them as a group due to their censorous 
> behaviour. I think it is because they feel threatened by straight 
> people.
> 

Indeed.  And it is because of this "threat" that they always feel that
they are so much into a clique and they are so apt to censor the
slightest alleged "homophobic" discourse.

>  
> 
>   Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
>        Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
>   Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
>        Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
>       Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
>      "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
>

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I do not begin to believe this is correct.  I happen to believe that
> sexism, not in the sense of believing women inferior but in the sense
> of believing homosexuals inferior can be, in some instances, a form
> of bigotry but it is merely a matter of semantics and not of interest.
> I wholeheartedly agree with the last point, anybody who believes in
> any form of deity or higher being (call it god if you like) is, IMHO,
> a fool. However, this has proven in history to be contradicted on a
> number of occasions, for example, Albert Einstein was a Jew but did
> not just accept without enquiry, rather, his religious views were
> subtle and well thought through.

I thought Einstein's ideas on social matters (incl. religion) were
naive and sentimental.  There's a difference in saying "I believe
there's a God" and "I believe in a God".  Of course, either way one
could be implying a hidden or unspecified set of agendas concomitant
with such a belief.

In the movie "Jesus Of Nazareth" is a classic example of why to
believe or not believe in a religion, i.e. things unseen:

At the end, the followers are in a small room, fearing for their
safety and all, and they say to Jesus "how is anyone going to
believe all this stuff" (or words to that effect), and Jesus replies
"because you are my witnesses.  Tell them and they will believe".

See how simple that was?