_TR_ wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:
> > howldog wrote:
> >> "bluesmama"  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> nah i dont buy it. both situations, both peeps are equally
guilty.
> >>>
> >>>So you don't think it matters more that he did something morally
> >>>objectionable and broke a vow as well, and she just did something
> >>>morally objectionable?
> >>
> >>
> >> nope. they're both bad. he made a vow, but she knew it.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I'm not being obstinate, you realize, I'm just puzzling this out.
To
> >>>me, it seems so obvious that the married cheater is much more of a
> >>>shit than the single cheater, but maybe being married myself is
part
> >>>of where that's coming from.
> >>
> >>
> >> i'm married too.
> >
> > I guess I hold the married person to a higher moral standard then,
> > whether they're male or female. I'm not saying it's correct to do
so,
> > that's just what I believe.
>
> Incorrect.  You hold the married person to a higher moral standard
only
> because in the first scenario, it was the *man* who was married.  You
> merely had to offer feminist lip service (meaning _propaganda_) to a
> converse scenario that involved a woman "cheater" and her unmarried
> boyfriend.

I hold the married person to a higher moral standard whether they are
male or female. It's the marital status, not the sex, of the person
that I'm concerned with.

> You are a feminist.  If the first scenario had been presented as a
married
> woman who did the deed with a single man, then you would have been
> compelled to hold him *at least* as morally culpable as she, claiming
that
> since he knew the woman was married, he would have committed the
> transgression of aiding and abetting the sins of the married woman,
making
> him an equal partner in this social "crime".
>
> The moral transgression here *is* the breaking of the vows.  Since
the
> scenario was presented to you with a man doing the vow-breaking, you
> determined that 1) being married and "cheating" and 2) breaking vows
are
> compound issues, when in fact, the moral transgression is the same.
> 1) == 2).
>
> Do pay attention.  I've told you before.  When you're really ready to
think
> something through logically and reasonably, we'll let you know and
tell you
> how.  After all, this is *soc.men*, not soc.we-love-feminist-cowshit.
>
> For your training, I'll leave you with a thought experiment (yeah, I
can be
> accused of assuming that you actually have the capacity.  Let's
pretend,
> shall we?).
>
> The scenario is one that you will find challenging, for the
personalities
> don't follow the victimist division of sexes and traits that you
feminists
> embrace so vigourously.  Try it anyway.
>
> Couple.  Man and woman.  Man is basically good but mighty gullible.
Women
> is manipulative and selfish.  Woman convinces man to rob a petrol
station
> so that she can afford to buy them Louie Vittens she's had eye on.
Hey,
> it's all for "love", isn't it?

Man made a bad choice. No one can "convince" anyone to do something,
they have to choose to do it. Saying someone convinced you to do
something - you did it because of guilt, for love, out of fear,
whatever - it's still you making the choice to act.

> Who's *morally* more culpable for the robbery? Either?  Both?  We
already
> know which *one* will do the time.

The person, male or female, who commits the act.

> Turn the sexes around.  Try to be honest with yourself (I won't ask
that
> you do the impossible and show honesty on this forum).  Would you be
more
> inclined to offer sympathy and excuses for the female robber,
absolving her
> at least partially of her guilt because she is the poor, helpless
dupe of a
> devious male creature?

I used to. When I'd hear about some guy killing his kids I'd figure he
was evil, whereas when some woman killed her kids I'd think about
mental illness. Now I just think men and women are equally capable of
terrible things.

> If you've made it this far, try to apply this exercise to the married
vs.
> single sinners scenario.

The married person is more wrong, in my opinion. Continue to try to
change that opinion - oops, I mean "enlighten me" - if you like, but
it's just an exercise in frustration.

Of course, it will give you more opportunities to make snippy,
condescending, quasi-witty anti-feminist comments.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/29/05 4:47:32 PM ---