On 18/11/2010 02:10, RussellMc wrote: >>>>>> For that kind of money you might expect some nubile young lady >>>>>> to fan you with palm leaves.. >>> James would argue that that should be "person", and some would desire >>> the ageist qualifier to be removed. >>> >> 2+2 =3D 57... :-) >> And I would say there is no "should" here, and keep it exactly as is. >> Though I'm sorry if it managed to offend the ultra PC folk. I'm a >> young(ish) male, and have a preference for young ladies, others may have >> different preferences - at what point does this become a problem - are >> we saying that *any* recognition of a persons/sexes qualities or a >> preference for them is an issue? > My comment was meant as a joke of sorts re what I recognised as a > joking comment. Some would choose to be be variably annoyed by it for > the reasons I (semi jokingly) mentioned. > BUT all such should go in OT. > Agreed on the OT part, didn't notice that at the time. >> Seems to me we make choices like these >> every day which may or may not be based on the personal and physical >> qualities of folk - which doctor we prefer to see, which film star we >> enjoy watching, and so on. > We do. I do too, of course. Most such choices are invalidly based, or, > at least, are based on drives and motives which we usually don't think > about and/or identify. That's not 'PC' - just observation re how the > very large majority tend to work.(I try hard to identify the drivers > behind such actions for me - that will usually not change how I act > but allows me to wander through life more introspectively :-) ). > . If I find someone has a "friendly face", am I >> being "face-ist"? (or perhaps facist.. :-) ) > Quite probably. We (essentially) all do it - certainly I included. > "Friendly face" usually rolls up all sorts of other cues which most > are not overly aware of. > > The long ago book "Hostages at Colditz" is interesting in this > respect. The writer was imprisoned at Colditz in WW2 as a member of > the intelligentsia. He escaped and had many interesting tales to tell > before during and after his sojourn there. He was an English barrister > (?) and ended up acting as the person serving papers on the top > defendants at the Nuremberg trials - so he had opportunity to meet all > of them personally and add his comments to the many others in the > book. His most interesting overall story has an element of hilarity > added in that throughout the book he describes people he encounters in > terms of how they appear to him - mannerisms and facial expressions > and appearance etc. He is face-ist (re the fascists) in the extreme > without being aware of how strange it appears to a detached reader. > > So. Yes :-). > So the verdict is in.. :-) Interesting, as always - I might have to check the book out... >> I am very strongly against the exploitation of any human being or >> animal, and have the *utmost* respect for females, but it's quite a leap >> from my comment to sex trafficking rings etc, I was not suggesting >> anything remotely sordid at all... > Yes. That was understood. > Michael's comments provided a closer link (in fact a direct one) and > actually demonstrated that if taken seriously your comment was easily > linked to such things. Flippant comments can easily have such linkages > when not thought through. That's not a complaint - just an > observation. > This I don't quite agree with - I suggest my comment is not "easily"=20 linked to such things, one must make a conscious effort to do so.=20 Neither was it flippant or not thought through, I worry (probably a lot=20 more than most) about how what I write is received. There are many such examples (I won't give any, I'm sure you know what=20 I'm getting at) of similar (mis)interpretations which require some prior=20 *assumptions* about the person making the comments. I certainly was not suggesting the "purchase" of a person, merely the=20 work services of one, though I can see how that (with the replies) could=20 be misconstrued. I was maybe expecting too much there, although the=20 amount of worrying/hand wringing etc seems disproportionate to the=20 comment. A lot of life/humour has a terrible dark side in close=20 proximity, but surely we can separate the two for long enough to enjoy=20 some simple humour from time to time? >> I understand that most trafficking involves young ladies, but I don't >> see why this should provoke a more adverse response from you in this >> situation, unless you are taking certain things for granted about my >> thoughts/feelings on the issue - are you saying you would have had less >> problem with young/old man instead? > Comments were intended to address flippancy, plus MW's comments as > put. I have no real complaints with anything that was said as it was > said - just note that innocent "male humour" often reflects undertones > of our society which are little thought of. > > Age and sex of victims would probably affect my gut level perspectives > in complex ways - that's a statement of fact, and not one that I could > explain the complexities of to myself, let alone anyone else. But, > young or old, male or female, nationality irregardless, if people > participate in their trafficking in any sense where the offence is > clear, "death is too good for them" is probably a safe conclusion. > Quite a jump from flippant comment re nubile young fanners, no ? :-). > Alas, complexities do arise which make the complaints of the self > righteous harder to form - prostitution often involves a degree of > choice by the protagonists, and there is a continuum between slavery > and "just my day (or night) job" - and those who profit from it will > obviously always present themselves as positively as possible. Where > the victims are very young (well below any sensible "age of consent") > as happens, the decisions seem clearer. But even that area is muddied > - with parents willingly (or at least uncompelled) selling their young > children into sex and/or other slavery as a better choice for all (by > their assessment) than trying to raise them in their home environment. > Such choices are made even harder by such victims usually being female > because male children are valued as productive units and female > children are valued for their other attributes :-(. > > Peripherally: In one country "which I have a moderate amount of > personal experience of" parents are allowed one child if they are city > based but, if rural based, if the first child is female they are > allowed two. This understandable in the context valuing of male over > female children is leading to all sorts of complex secondary effects. > (This is not a country where sex slavery is noted as a more major > problem - unlike some of its neighbours, where family sizes are not > legally constrained and where child sex trading and prostitution is > essentially "the norm".) > My feeling are very similar, I find the mere knowledge of such things=20 terribly painful, more so that I cannot do much about any of it=20 directly. It's easy to forget how lucky one is to live in a "free" and=20 prosperous country. The feigned ignorance or downplaying of such matters=20 by those with the power to do something does not help. Another deep and=20 complex subject though.. >> Just to clarify and make sure there was no misunderstanding there - I >> meant the price would not stop people rushing out to buy the *fans*... > Comments were all well enough understood. > I was "just" noting the real world implications on which such innocent > humour depends. > > > > Russell Fair enough. Philosophy and Politics runs deep in my family, so maybe I feel the need=20 to escape from it all a little from time to time... electronics and=20 inane male humour probably does just fine as an antidote.. :-) --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .