🚀 go-pugleaf

Terry Rasmussen (trr@ontos.com) wrote:
:    
:           BTW, I'm a "he", which is provided simply for information, as it
:           has no bearing on the subject at hand.

	Oops, sorry for the incorrect assumption.  But in a way it 
actually helps prove my point -- I made a big mistake, because I made 
assumptions about who *you* are based only on what I saw, which was your 
name.  Generally speaking, all the Terry's I know are women, so I made 
this "leap" without checking with you first.  And I screwed up.

	And that was the point I was trying to make, albeit in a 
not-very-clear manner:  When we assume *too* much about someone, based on 
such little evidence (e.g. name, type of vehicle), *without* going 
further and learning more about them -- that's my critical distinction -- 
then I think we get in trouble because we're not dealing with reality, 
we're dealing with our own projections.

: >         "I wasn't date-raped, I was wearing a short, tight dress, and
: > lots of makeup, so I was advertising that I wanted a physical

:          At first glance this seemed like a fairly good case against what
:          I had stated, although taken to to a ridiculous extreme. However,
:          after a few seconds of reflection I find it difficult to accept
:          an excuse often used by morally and ethically defficient individuals

	I agree with you to a point, but I also know that the following 
is true:  A woman may "consent" to having sex with a man, and then decide 
later, based on all the evidence, that the situation was really "date 
rape."  There are more than a few women's advocacy groups who will define 
date rape as such -- in essence, allowing us to "change our minds" -- and 
proceed from there.

	I'm not saying that's wrong, but it *is* conceivable that in such 
an instance a man's motivations may *not* be as abhorrent as rape -- but 
I'm not in that situation so I can't know his motivations, nor hers.  
Agreed, this is an *extreme* example, but I think it worth mentioning 
because it deals with what I was talking about -- assumptions based on 
"evidence" that may or may not be accurate.

:          to justify their taking what they wish, in this case the violation
:          of another's person for their own gratification, as a refutation.

:            I suppose I should have provided more detail here. I own a 
:            four door automoblie which is at the larger end of the 
:            midsize vehicles. If you did not know me, this could imply
:            a number of incorrect things about me; for instance that I
:            might have children to transport, which is incorrect.  

	And this is the only point I'm trying to make -- if people decide 
stuff about you *before* the fact, based *only* on the limited 
information your car provides ... then I think that's a grievously 
limited way of getting to know another person.  This is the realm of 
stereotype, and it doesn't do any good for anybody.

	So I would say that my car *may* say something about my 
personality, but what exactly it is saying YOU MAY NOT KNOW, if you don't 
know more about me before making that judgement.

	Thus my argument is aimed at those who would make a *blanket* 
statement, such as "I don't think I'd date anyone who drove an old truck, 
we wouldn't have much in common."  I believe that it would be worth your 
while to learn more about *anyone* before deciding how much you have in 
common.

:            vehicles, but they have rarely defined who I was. However, I 
:            do feel that during the time when I drove a pickup with "FARM"
:            plates on it, people could make a pretty good guess at what I 
:            did and up to a point where I was coming from. The important

	That's true.  If you were driving a pickup with "FARM" plates, 
based on *my* experiences with farmers, you also like to use a gun, and 
you vote Republican.  I must be right, eh?

:            I should also like to point out that part of what I was 
:            attempting to say, although very poorly, is that there _are_ 
:            exceptions to any arbitrary general rule. 

	Of course there are.  But from what I read of your posting, you 
sounded to me as if you believed that the "arbitrary" general rule was of 
greater import than the exceptions.  Or did I completely misunderstand?

:            If I saw two crouds of people, one set dressed in the latest
:            styles and the other in jeans in tee-shirts emblazoned with 
:            "Star Trek" emblems, I think I could guess which set to ask
:            a "Star Trek" trivia question of and be likely to get a

	Well, that *is* a good example of labeling which is *much* easier 
to read -- just as if one sees a man in a policeman's uniform, one might 
surmise he knows quite a bit about police stuff.  A T-shirt which is 
*literally* labeling us with a particular item is, I think you would 
agree, a bit more isolating:  We can ask any two people about what that 
T-shirt *literally* says, and they'll say, "It has Star Trek emblems on 
it.  That's a TV series."  That's fair.

	You might even go as far as to say, "It would appear that a 
person wearing such a shirt would know something about Star Trek."  Just 
as you might see a guy driving down the street in a truck, wearing 
farmer's overalls and hauling farm tools, and think, "He looks like a 
farmer."  But that's *ALL* you can know from that much evidence.  And if 
you decide you don't want to get to know that person JUST ON THAT LIMITED 
EVIDENCE, then it's your problem, not the person advertising.

	Our comments in this form are "advertising," and they "label" us 
to people reading us.  So based ONLY on what we've written so far, how 
much do you think you or I really know about each other, or are qualified 
to make any sort of judgement about what that person is really all about?

	And how sad is that?

							Oz