 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:54 AM Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it. Yeah, my fault I suppose. It was supposed to be a shining example of how people can step over the line of respectability and respectfulness and now it's taken on a life of its own. But I'll tell you what. We're discussing it within a context of trying to behave ourselves. Not too uncivilised so far. Start yet another thread on abortion and the sound of yawns will be rapidly superseded by the sound of shit hitting fans. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:46 AM If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart" There ya go. Exactement the kind of misrepresentation I rail against. That is not my view of life, and I've posted enough times of the wonderful diversity, beauty and complexity of life on earth for you to know that. Life on Earth is that way exactly because of the struggle for existence, including competition for eggs by billions of sperms, predation, starvation and disease. That is a fact and is regardless of my personal take or my cynical (and tongue-in cheek) take on God's attitude to life. I also note, in the sentence above, the sneaky inclusion of a bit of false (or at least very debatable) equivalence. A nice tactic of the kind prevalent among anti-abortionists and not one to further the discussion in any constructive way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Suzy Sock Puppet Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it. GUEST, I didn't find your remark particularly relevant, misogynist more like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM ""Steve...I know you're a decent guy, and I more or less agree with you MOST of the time, but, in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?"" Is it OK to call someone a luddite? It may not have occurred to you Ake, but pretty soon we are going to need to spread out to other worlds, as we have used up most of the resources of this one. Any such migration will require technology a quantum leap ahead of anything we have now, and our research into the origins of the universe just might supply the answers. I don't believe that standing still and waiting for God to provide is going to help in the slightest, and neither do you. Or does your interest in the human race not extend to those you leave behind? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:05 AM I won't debate the issue of the point at which human life begins because it is not a debate that will ever, in a million years, get us anything like close to consensus and I've banged my head against a brick wall too many times on that one. I also won't let myself get sucked into a debate about abortion time limits. Inevitably, that one gets my goat because of the sheer dishonesty of the anti-abortion lobby in campaigning to have it shortened, when they really ought to be taking the position of having it banned altogether if that's what they really think. Playing tactics of that sort with abortion is disgraceful. Of course, there is a discussion to be had about time limits, but I'm not joining in with it if those evangelical scumbags start sticking their oar in. Yes there are revolting practices surrounding abortion and I'll face up to that. But let's not forget that many of those revolting practices involve ignorance and poverty and knitting needles and you can make up as many laws as you like and preach morals at women until the bloody cows come home and you will always have those. More so if the laws are toughened, a dilemma never confronted by the anti-abortion brigade. The answer lies in education, especially of boys and men, free contraception and driving out discrimination against girls and women wherever it arises. Easy to say, I know, but read my lips: unless we address that, abortion will continue to be rife. Moralising popes and nuns, preachers of abstinence and dealers in ignorance are the champions of abortion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:36 AM The reason I mentioned science in the context of "beginning of life" is that Steve seems to be rather inconsistent in his use of science as a benchmark. If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart" There are no more simple issues than there are good songs these days, hense we should be prepared to debate all views whether we find them "obnoxious" or "hypocritical" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:37 AM Steve. I hear you but I don't think it lamentable to not have a view on the point a life begins. It would be subjective to say the least. Enough of those views in the system already. No. The moral argument I would and have had to discuss is vulnerability of young women, the popularity of termination as a contraception in the social sense and issue of having a service that can be readily accessed but not easily abused. Ireland has recently woke up to a high profile example of what happens when polarised views become the society norm. On the other end of the scale, in rural parts of China, WHO found babies being aborted at the point of birth by injecting formaldehyde into the skull of a crowning baby. If ever a subject needed a middle ground to remain the norm, this is it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:29 PM I agree with what Bobert said. I have been (and am still) in a similar position, and have a distinct aversion to being followed from thread to thread and insulted and lied about. After so much, it's pretty hard not to lash back. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM I'm okay with it, Steve... I forget sometimes what the thread is about and just respond to the last few posts... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM Well, Bobert and McGrath, I could apologise for raising controversial issues in this thread that might appear not to belong. But I was simply trying to show where the bounds of respectability are in discussions. I used abortion and religious faith as examples where there should be clear demarcation between your views and the enforcement of your views. Having views that we can fearleesly espouse is one of the greatest achievements of the free world. What we're talking about here, though, is the manner in which you force those views on other people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:14 PM I don't invalidate people but I know when it's time to shake the dust off my robe when people stalk me and are obsessed with me... Yeah, I am very passionate about my views/values and I attract a lot of people who see me as some kind of dogmatic person who they need to obsess over... I have tried to live with them and be respectful but there is a point when you become a center of someone else's obsession that you just have to cut them loose... It's not good for them and not too much fun for me, either... Most people here know the people who have obsessed on me over the years... It's not a secret... I even started a thread about being stalked... This discussion is about "boundaries"... Stalking and obsessing steps way over that line... Yeah, I get torqued at these people... I mean, I see no reason for anyone to go 100 posts in a row that attacks "Bobert"... I apologize to the Mudcat community, in general, for the times when I have had enough of these people and "go off"... Believe me, I'd rather just have a discussion without these people's issues... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Janie Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:59 PM Thanks Bill D. for your remarks about the usage of the term validity. I couldn't figure out how to say it in less than 3 paragraphs. If I invalidate a person because of their ideas, I am making what amounts to a moral judgment about that person. I am conveying that person has less intrinsic value than do I or do others whose ideas and views I find less objectionable. I am implicitly communicating that people who don't think like me are worth less than people who do think like me. I am implying they have less right to exist and be than do I. Whether I believe that or not, that is the message I am conveying. There are people I deeply dislike and don't have much respect for. That doesn't make me better than them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:54 PM I agree, McG... My bad for getting sucked into a sidebar... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM I could well have plenty to say, on all kinds of topics, but I don't think this thread is the right place for it. And if that was an implication of the words of Steve which I quoted, I wholly concur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:24 PM Most of the aNTI CHOICE typesI've seen are: 1. Men 2. Women past child bearing age 3. Women too ugly to get laid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bobert Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM Pro-Lifers want to strip Food Stamps which are used to feed babies born to poor people... Pro-Lifers want to end public education so that baby will grow up without the skills to get a job, end up on the wrong side of the law and then incarcerated... Pro-Lifers are for the death penalty... Exactly where is the "pro" in their pro-life world views??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: kendall Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:22 PM I miss the old mudcat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Don Firth Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM I'm given to snort at the expression "Pro-Life." I've known too blasted many "Pro-Lifers" who are rabidly opposed to abortion, and often birth control as well, who don't give a don't give a bloody damn what happens to mother and baby after the baby is born. "Pro-Lifers" that I've met have mostly been very Right-Wing and often into fundamentalist religions as well, and while adamantly opposed to abortion and birth control, are also opposed to any social programs such as welfare or social security. "Get 'em born, then let 'em starve," seems to be their modus operandi. PTUI!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:38 PM You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way! And worse, if you try, you lose the debate, which never belonged on their side anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life. It's a typical and lamentable example of how we've allowed moralisers to define the argument. We can, and do, argue 'til we're blue in the face about "when life actually begins" (ake's at it again on this thread, I see). But it is a pointless argument without end. For years now I've refused to engage with it. Even if we could get a definition that we could all agree with (you'll see winged piggies overhead the same day), it would not alter the abortion debate one jot. Big religion loves to ride on the wave of a two thousand-year-old default. Well abortion has been around for much longer than that. Women having abortions has been the default for centuries. It's a very bad thing and we, as civilised human beings, women and men alike, need to address it. But if we fail to address it purely as a practical matter we will inevitably lapse into misogyny. I'll talk about this with people of good will who leave their morals at the door. All the rest are misogynistic scoundrels, and I don't mind telling 'em so. "Pro-life"? Don't make me laugh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bill D Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM "Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?" Perhaps...but that is not really the issue that most who oppose abortion are concerned with. There is the usually unspoken assumption that some sort of 'soul' enters that Morula. This is a religious assumption which not everyone agrees with. There is a secondary issue about when that collection of cells becomes a 'human' and can survive outside the womb. Even then, there are VERY complex issues which depend on medical facts and culture. You want one? Read about triploid. I have firsthand experience with that one. You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:12 PM Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter. The creation of life should always be taken seriously. There is no creation of life any more than there is creation of anything else. Life is a continuum and has been for 3.5 billion years. You see, what you're trying to do here is use fine words to legitimise some notion you espouse. Life on earth may be wonderful but it is also a mundane and commonplace thing. There is nothing about life that is more sacred than anything else that's wonderful about the universe. The biggest of all wasters of life is God. 99.9999% of "created" organisms bite the dust before they see the light of day, and 99.999% of those who do make it struggle with competition, disease, famine and ruthless predation. It's quite clear that God takes life far less seriously than even the worst human being. Stalin and Hitler had nothing on God when it comes to wasting life. As for abortion, well it's always been with us. The world we live in is still basically one in which men tend to have their wicked way with women. Therefore women, as ever, have needed to shed their unwanted foetuses. There is an anti-abortion movement, led by religion, that is a reaction to this. But the anti-abortion movement (including the Catholic Church) does not want to see a reduction in abortions. If they did, they would espouse the need for free contraception, contraception advice and good education for relationships in schools. But they don't want any of this. A reduction in abortion numbers would emasculate the anti-abortion movement and loosen the grip of the Catholic Church on women. That would never do (if you don't believe me, research the teachings of Mother Teresa, who preached ignorance as a virtue and who will, undoubtedly, soon be sainted). Good education for personal relationships that helps both boys and girls to respect themselves and each other, along with free supply of and free advice on contraception, would reduce the abortion numbers drastically. It's a question of training and funding. That's a practical matter. Leave your bloody "morals" at the door before you come in. They just get in the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM I can if you want me to, McGrath. If you have nothing to say, don't say it, old chap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM We are all an accumulation of cells Richard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM I don't believe that women should be subservient to anyone - certainly not to an accumulation of cells. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM " I won't blather on again about my views on that." No? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:26 PM Perhaps the figures for abortion where the mothers life is at risk, could be compared to abortion for other reasons. I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket not wanting to bog down Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life. The medical profession debate the word tenable and those with a moral aspect to offer debate the word life. Having been involved in the nationwide unannounced inspection week of all England's registered termination facilities a couple of years ago, I am at one with the report published from our work that said regardless of other debates, The Abortion Act 1968 requires serious review with regard to consent and second medical opinion. The quality patients receive was similar to any other service, but the ambiguity the act gives can be construed too widely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM Of course Ian, IF there are two lives at risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Bill D Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:50 PM (a side point about definitions... "valid" is a word that has been so often used in widely varying ways that most don't even realize that it really ought to be used in fairly technical ways ...in legal documents ..."a valid title" ...or in logic to mean a conclusion which follows from certain premises. Thus, it is possible to have a 'valid' argument which is totally false.) Valid shouldn't be used to just mean 'okay' or 'acceptable'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket sans moral dimensions Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM So should the preservation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter. The creation of life should always be taken seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket musing Date: 01 Aug 13 - 12:48 PM If you wave your cock about and get arrested you are doing it wrong Bridge. Most of us get begging letters.... People wave their religion around when they feel we all have to be as them. The ones who do so have no concept of how annoying they are, as they have a mission to save heathen bastards like me and embarrass people who are comfortable with their faith and see no need to try and convince anybody. And don't get me started about banjo players... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM By the way, to pick up on an earlier part of the conversation. Bobert, I wasn't suggesting it's ok for non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) to come to Mudcat to cause trouble. I was just suggesting that not all of us who love folk music of various types are musicians. I probably post upstairs more than downstairs, but I'd hate to have to stop posting just because I can't bash out more than a few basic chords... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM If you control the door you have the power. The inhibiting factors are manageable and overcomeable for many people via evidence-based approaches such as CBT. If you're too polite to close the door on Mormons, I'd suggest the problem is going to be debilitating in other areas of life. Meanwhile, if the hallelujah bloke is offensive to thine ears, cut them off. Or short of that, go to the bar when he plays or at least refrain from joining in. None of these things will destroy us. There is a level playing field in some circumstances, not in others. Sometimes you have to use whatever tools are available to you to make sure it is as level as you can make it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:03 AM It's fine until you are doorstepped by a Mormon or Xtian "Scientist" and politeness inhibits your slamming the door on their nonsense. It's fine until you go to a "folk club" and find every song one bloke does expects you to be joining in yelling "Halleluja". It's fine until (etc, etc, etc). In short - No it's not fine. You wave your cock about, you mostly get arrested. You wave your religion about, you mostly don't. Level playing field, what level playing field? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:26 AM That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too. That's well put, with an economy of words I can only aspire to! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:19 AM Sometimes these things are not matters for moral judgement. The question of abortion is an entirely practical one as far as I'm concerned, for example. The only reason we have an anti-abortion movement is that abortion has always existed. The so-called pro-lifers have turned, nefariously in my view, a medical and practical issue into a bogus moral matter, and they employ all the dishonest tactics to make it appear so, particularly with regard to their use of emotional language and the hectoring of vulnerable women. Do I have evidence for this? Why, yes: nothing the anti-abortion lobby does ever actually reduces abortion. In fact, quite often the anti-abortionists also rail against the very measures that would cut the numbers. Think of Mother Teresa, queen of all anti-abortionists, preaching that ignorance is a virtue and her Church teaching that contraception is wrong. The way to cut the numbers is glaringly obvious: education. I won't blather on again about my views on that. The same applies to Akenaton's disingenuous pleadings over his homophobic ranting about disease among gay people. It is a purely practical issue. The answer lies in education. It always does. But he ignored me when I made that case and he now tells me it was because I didn't know what I was talking about! Nothing as suspect as someone with an agenda... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM "The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic." I suspect that this is something where there is general agreement. There might of course be differences about the implications to be drawn from it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:48 AM Some fundamental facts about threads in public forums (as opposed to online chats) are often not sufficiently taken into account:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Spleen Cringe Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:41 AM Having said that I think on one level all views are equally valid - insofar as everyone tends to think their own views are essentially correct. Whether there is hard evidence that a particular view is objectively wrong is usually neither here nor there to the holder of that view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Spleen Cringe Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too. But a line is stepped over when an element of compulsion creeps in - on the part of the individual or institutions - "I believe this so as a result you will do that". But for some reason when you point out this simple notion the sky falls in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Steve Shaw Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:07 AM All views, as Richard said, are not equally valid. I should like to make the distinction between holding a view that is just wacky and holding that wacky view and wanting the whole world to adhere to it. Personally, I regard any view that involves the existence of a deity as irrational. Wacky if you like. Whether or not you are ever able to be persuaded away from that view is up to you. That's entirely respectable. What is not respectable is telling people that you hold the truth, making your children go to mass or religious instruction or telling scientists that they are wrong about the origins of everything without any evidence of your own. The trouble is, these things are so deeply ingrained due to religion successfully making itself the world's default setting that it looks intemperate when some little voice pipes up to oppose them. Look at the example of herding children to Sunday Mass. What more benign family occasion could there be? You get nicely dressed and you meet other members of your community in a friendly and sociable setting, away from the daily grind. Very nice! But, inside that church, every prayer said, every hymn sung and every piece of the liturgy is replete with certainty about a God for whom there is not a scrap of evidence. That is at the heart of what you are really exposing your children to. As a responsible and loving parent you try to get the best school for your kids where the education is second to none. You want your children to come away with the the vital life skills of questioning what they are told, wanting knowledge and knowing how to get it. Yet you allow this big hole to appear in all that in which you expect them to accept the bogus certainties of your faith without question (try interrupting the priest to ask how he knows what he's asserting!). It doesn't matter how nice a fellow you are, that simply can't be right. It might look valid and respectable but that's because religion has had thousands of years to apply this benign patina to cover the nefarious activities such as homophobia, misogyny, fear of science and religious bigotry which lie just beneath the surface in most major religions. The respectable position would be to privately practise your faith, tell your children what you're up to and why, and let them decide what to do about it for themselves when they are adults. But, for some reason, this decent and reasonable path is viewed with horror. Janie, I have no quibble as to what values, beliefs or paradigms shape the thinking of individuals and I'm not making any moral judgements about them. Holding beliefs, even delusions, is the inalienable right of everyone. If how you act on those beliefs, treating them as certainties when they are not, impinges on other people, then that's a different matter altogether, and that's where respectability ends, no matter how benign the external appearance. Ed, do tell me where my logic failed in that post. McGrath, if I misrepresent someone in a post I expect to be pulled up for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:18 AM We are very fortunate that this little forum is full of intelligent people....probably brought here by a common love of traditional music. We should use this area of the forum to intelligently explore different ideas unconstrained by "political" influences If not we end up like facebook or twitter with everyone screaming their political stances at one another.....its too boring! Equality,Freedom, Democracy as we know them, are patently not above debate. At one time we had a rule about personal attacks on other members..why has it been abandoned? Cursing directly at other members should be discouraged by everyone, not only the mods, I dont like it and its obvious a huge number of other members dont like it either. Trying to suppress the opinions of other members presented in a logical manner, by personal abuse or intimidation, should also be ruled out of order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: akenaton Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:47 AM I agree with Rapparee....No opinion is "contemptuous" if it can be backed by a logical argument. Shouting, Racism, homophobia or any other words of contempt is not a rebuttal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:10 AM And 200 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:09 AM Hence I react! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:43 AM Any chance of signing up for a longer voyage? We've missed your agenda led pop at anybody who doesn't cuddle the little baby Jesus. Bridge. Fully agree, except the right to express a view is equal, and the reaction is the test of the validity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries' From: Richard Bridge Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:20 AM The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic. |
