wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The first thing I like to ask when someone puts that question forth is "Really? So which branch of the Armed Forces did you serve in?"
If they answer that the never have, I try my best to repress the urge to beat them into a red smear on the deck. Talking about fighting to the death for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is the province of jingoists and cowards. Actions speak far louder than words do. If you're serious about it then I trust you'll be talking to an Armed Forces recruiter soon. If not, then kindly shut up.
I mean seriously, unless you have served, either in the Armed Forces or Uniformed Public Safety (LEO, Fire/Rescue, etc.) when have you ever actually put your ass on the line in defense of anything other then yourself?
My two cents on that subject... Anyways...
Your self-righteous bombast notwithstanding, the truly intelligent among us will understand that willingness to sacrifice one's life entails more than just military service. It also includes devoting one's life in a variety of ways to promote and preserving our inalienable rights--not the least of which is standing up and speaking out for such things even in the face of those, such as yourself, who ironically may wish to silence us--as though you are even in a position to say.
And, as for how-all I and others may have put our "ass on the line", we don't (or at least I don't) view ourselves as accountable to people, such as yourself, who post anonymously (some would say cowardly) on the internet, but rather to our God, our own consciences, and those whose opinions we actually respect and value.
wenglund wrote:Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue
No, she'd be fighting in order to survive the encounter. High minded BS about "virtue" is all well and good, but death is irrevocable. "Virtue" isn't a physical condition, in order to loose it you have to commit to an action that would remove it. Having your body taken by someone against your will isn't loosing your "virtue", it's assault. You act as if "virtue" is something physical and not an intangible ideal.
We obviously understand "virtue" quite differently. And, I am fine with leaving it at that.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]
Wade
If you had a daughter that was raped and survived would you ask her if she fought hard enough to perserve her viriginity? Would you have rather had her die in the process?
...but will trust that their efforts are motivated out of love and concern--and I think this is especially true of Pres. Kimball.
But even the purest motives can have disasterous consequences.
I can imagine a rewritten "Miracle of Forgiveness" that stays well within the bounds of Mormon understandings of sin and forgiveness (in so far as I understand them) without creating wholely unnecessary and insurmountable feelings of guilt and unworthiness in the errant reader. Surely the emphasis should be on recognizing the "problem," repenting and being forgiven, not creating scenarios wherein the magnitude of infraction is so dire it stands on the precipice of the never-to-be-forgiven, or apparently exceeds even what Jesus would forgive.
In the case of rape, I would think that special attention would be given to counsel a victim of it to not feel guilty or forever ruined, but entirely healable.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
wenglund wrote:Would anyone else here besides me (and I suspect Nehor) be willing to fight to the death for safety, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Is that not what a woman being raped would be fighting for in addition to her virtue (I understand "virtue" in such cases to mean the sanctity of one's person is left unviolated. I can think of no greater violation of one's person than rape, except murder. I have friends who had their homes broken into and things stolen. They felt incredibly violated, and even used the term "rape" to describe how they felt.)
Just a thought.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Perhaps it's just my Quaker heritage speaking, but may I point out that literally fighting to the death is inherently dangerous and often deadly. If your highest values include safety and life, fighting to the death for anything is a self-destructive course of action that conflicts with those very values. I'm certainly not going to judge a woman for fighting to the death (or for not fighting to the death). But if she does engage in a death fight, I'd bet she's fighting for things like pride, honor, and vengence more than life and safety.
Most people equate heroism with considering some principles of right to be more valuable than life or safety?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Not really, so in order to clear the air I'll just ask a simple yes or no question.
Do you support Kimball's statement "It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."?
In the case of rape (which is what we have been talking about), I would say yes...as I understand the word "virtue". To me it is like saying: "it is better for me to die defending a women's personal sanctity, honor, liberty, and freedom, than to live having let her be violated without a struggle.
This standard that I apply to myself I believe should also be allowed to apply to rape victims.
Wait, wade. Now I feel like we're back to square one.
This standard that I apply to myself I believe should also be allowed to apply to rape victims.
Nobody is arguing that rape victims shouldn't be allowed the right to fight! In fact, Coffee has gone out of his way to offer very pertinent and sound "rules of thumb" about the conditions under which this would be advisable and those under which it would not (unlike Kimball, I might add).
Nor is anyone saying that if someone does die while trying to fight off an attacker that they've done anything "wrong."
I have to say it almost seems like you willfully misconstruing the argument which is about the notion that a woman is such damaged goods post rape that she would be better off dead.
Last edited by Anonymous on Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
wenglund wrote: If re-editing the book would help strike a more favorable (to all parties concerned) balance between discouraging sexual infractions and help those who have committed sexual infraction better overcme their infraction and/or help confort and consol those who are suffering as a result of someone elses sexual infraction, then I would be all for it as well.
However, I wonder whether that would be the outcome or not. Unfortunately, too often when the seriousness of the consequences of sexual sin are "mercifully" diminished, the frequency of the sexual sins, and the consequences to other parties for those transgressions (such as kids who are aversely affected by an adulterous parent), tend to increase.
Wade, again saying that rape victims are not responsible for "lost virtue" has nothing to do with "diminishing" the consequences of sexual sin. They are unrelated topics. You speak as if we're all sexual libertines because we don't think rape victim lose their virtue. sheesh.
The comments to which you are replying are not specific to rape. In fact, I didn't even have rape in mind when I said them. Sheeesh, indeed.
I am not prepared to harshly judge those who may error on one side of the balance or the other, but will trust that their efforts are motivated out of love and concern--and I think this is especially true of Pres. Kimball. I can't imagine how anyone, who is well acquinted with that dear man, or who has stood close by in his presence (as I had the opportunity to do at one time), could think otherwise.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I've never heard that he was anything but a wonderful man. Disagreeing with a particular teaching of his is not character assassination.
I agree, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. However, there are ways that one may disagree with a particular teaching of him, which may tend towards character assassinations (not that such may be the case with you or anyone else on the thread).
My reason for mention this is because the uncommon love and concern of Pres. Kimball can at times get lost in the somewhat ironically "mercileous" discussion of his teachings.
wenglund wrote: The comments to which you are replying are not specific to rape. In fact, I didn't even have rape in mind when I said them. Sheeesh, indeed.
Why then did you bring up something we weren't talking about. Blixa was talking about getting this kind of teaching out of that book, and you out of the blue started talking about minimizing the consequences of sexual sin. If you were going to change subjects, you needed to say so.
I agree, and nothing I said suggests otherwise. However, there are ways that one may disagree with a particular teaching of him, which may tend towards character assassinations (not that such may be the case with you or anyone else on the thread).
My reason for mention this is because the uncommon love and concern of Pres. Kimball can at times get lost in the somewhat ironically "mercileous" discussion of his teachings.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I'm sure he was a lovely man. But his teaching here is not.