From: panlilio@acs.ucalgary.ca (Victor P. Panlilio)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Summary: To PC or not to PC?
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 08:25:05 GMT
Expires: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 05:00:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta
Keywords: clear thinking
Followup-To: alt.supermodels

In article <1992Nov7.200151.12451@athena.mit.edu> donyee@athena.mit.edu (Donald Yee) writes:

>HEY, watch it, Victor, some of us *LIKE* math 8->

Hey, I'm a mechanical engineer and also a computer sysadmin, so
although I may not rank among the quantum physicists and chaos
theorists, I think I'm not as mathematically illiterate as some
people may assume a fashion photographer to be, so there!  8^)

>Though in large part (mentally) I find Victor's arguments logical, he
>seems to knee-jerk against the PC types as much as they do to him.

PC types are fundamentalists. I am surrounded by them. What did
Oscar Wilde say? "The power of accurate observation is often
called cynicism by those who do not possess it." PC thinking, to
me, is one of the worst forms of intellectual *sloth* and moral
abdication. It is the enemy of philosophy, art, and science. It
represents one form of George Orwell's counter-utopian nightmare.

>Maybe he dislikes statistics, but in some cases (occupational health,
>epidemiology) it's good enough for the courts, and it certainly

I don't dislike statistics, I dislike *how* they're so often
misused! Any basic course in research design and methodology
usually includes a few case studies on misuse of statistics.

And in the areas of epidemiology and occupational health,
statistical analysis has had a decidedly mixed track record.

>doesn't hurt in a casino $-}.  His arguments are predicated on a
>certain level of social Darwinism, i.e. only the strong deserve to
>survive.  That does not go down too well with me, because it presumes
>we all grow up in the same environment, and have *absolute* free will.

We have *constrained* free will. All of us. Do not *confuse* the
issues here. Within *those* constraints (what we might call the
extenuating or mitigating circumstances), we ascribe a great deal
of autonomy and responsibility (under the law) to normal, mature
human individuals. Many constitutions and charters of rights and
freedoms (Canada's, for one) make this assumption about each and
every person deemed competent to act on his or her own behalf by
the state. I did not make the assumptions that you accuse me of
making, but I have framed my reasoning within the context of what
we call modern society, governed *imperfectly* as it is by laws.

>Let us say that as a child, your father beats up your mother all the
>time.  To you that is perfectly normal.  Now, let's throw you into a
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope. Under no circumstances can a normal human being, possessed
of an instinct for self-preservation and an innate empathy, find
this type of behavior normal. I have not read much literature on
primate research, but I'm pretty sure that it will support this
view, since even an infant will feel threatened if its source of
breast milk and caring touch is taken away by any circumstance.

(smart-alecky brat mode on)

Am I making any sense yet, hmm? Gee, my neurons are humming! 8^)

(Flex, my little grey friends, stretch, and flex, one, two....)

*chuckle* Nothing like a little mental workout for *this* brain!

(smart-alecky mode off)

>world that is perfectly free of judgement, i.e. beating women is not

(pedantic mode on)

Citing even hypothetically implausible scenarios to argue your
point does absolutely *nothing* for your case, dear fellow.

(pedantic mode off)

>frowned upon nor is it encouraged- it just happens sometimes and

Beating women *is* frowned upon, because beating human beings,
under normal circumstances, goes against the collective genetic
imperative to propagate the species (and hence the genome). If
the sociobiological argument does not impress you, how about the
argument for human compassion and empathy? In other words, I know
what pain is like, and what causes it, and therefore, unless I am
a mentally deranged individual, I would not want to cause pain.

Of course, there is always a subset of the population that does
not think along these lines. It is pathologically self-centered.

Remember Hannibal Lecter in "The Silence of the Lambs"? *shudder*

>noone says anything.  Give me a sample of 100 or 1000 or a million
>such men, and I would bet a large sum of money that a significant

Save your money and invest it in a good personal library, or even
better yet, a high-speed modem (make that 14.4 Kbps, preferably).

>percentage of them would beat women.  Maybe all of these men made the
>choice to beat women when looking at it on the surface, but Victor

I have difficulty accepting the premise of Bradshaw et al in the
recovery movement, that we are all dysfunctional adults in need
of having our *Inner Children* healed and made whole again. The
whole society now seems to be composed of walking wounded people
who have been persecuted in one way or another, if the self-help
literature in bookstores is any indication of our predicament!

People who cannot grow up and take responsibility for their own
actions IN THE PRESENT do not deserve to function in society. I
think that's what we invented prisons and asylums for.

>seems to imply that this number would or should not be different if
>society either encourages or discourages such behavior.

I implied no such thing. Society influences what we do. But we
can make up our minds about how that influence will affect us.

At least, I can, and so can most *normal* human beings, yes?

Maybe maturity and wisdom are *rare* virtues. Maybe not. 8^)

PC thinking would have us believe that people are incompetent,
and have to be told how they should think and act all the time.

>	I gave a rather extreme example, but societal pressures are
>everywhere, and if Victor can say that he has never done anything that
>he didn't want to do because of peer pressure, more power to him.  But

(smug superiority mode on)

Longfellow put it well in Stanza 5 of "The Psalm of Life":

	In this world's broad field of battle
	In the bivouac of life
	Be not like dumb, driven cattle
	Be a hero in the strife!

Never grew my hair long, never wore platform shoes, never smoked
pot, never succumbed to the teasing of any peer group that I was
out of step with the times. I'm a celibate, AIDS-free, working,
creative, compassionate human being who strives to attain wisdom.

I'm not interested in *merely* being politically correct. 8^)

"Do not go gently unto the good night...rage, rage against the
 dying of the light." (I forget who said this...oh, well...)

(smug superiority mode off)

>to hold EVERYBODY to that standard,  I would call him unsympathetic.

(tongue-in-cheek mode on)

I have very HIGH standards for myself, and I do expect these in
others, especially the people I wish to associate with. If that
is elitist, then it is elitist in the best sense, because I have
no desire to pander to the lowest common denominator in society.

(see Allan Bloom's _The Closing of the American Mind_, as well as
Robert Nozick's _The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations_)

Progress (moral, intellectual, and spiritual) is not achieved by
holding back the superlative members of the human species for the
sake of sparing the feelings of those who are less fortunate.

Nature does not operate this way. Look at the Burgess Shale. It's
full of biological experiments that didn't make it. Poor things!

Not!

(tongue-in-cheek mode off)

Actually, I'm a *lot* more compassionate than I let on above...

But then, since you don't know me personally, how'd you tell?

>It seems to me that fashion and media images of women's bodies are a
>rather arbitrary choice with a possible health impact (yo-yo dieting,

See my explanation of how the camera lies. I photograph fashion
models, and believe me, none of them are thin or unhealthy. If I
thought they were, I'd be the first to tell them to eat properly.

Most of the models I've worked with have very good muscle tone.

(See Patrick Demarchelier's _Fashion Photography_)

>anorexia).  Although the causality may be difficult to prove, since
>the choice IS so arbitrary, why not make it an image with healthier
>consequences.  Perhaps this "thin and tall" thing will come to pass,

Nope, not as long as camera optics make "normal" people look fat.
And as someone who is beginning to work more in the photography
of models, I'll repeat that while most of the young women I work
with may be tall (usually starting at 5'9"), they *aren't* thin.

Trust me. I photograph them in lingerie and swimsuits, or nude.

Always, they're the ones who've asked first. Because I treat them
with respect, not as mere objects. They can sense my inner state.

Most models are willing to be nude only with photogs they trust.

>but in the meantime, the PC ravers serve a purpose- to make us realize
>that things could be different and perhaps better.

The PC ravers serve to illustrate just how little things in fact
change; humans get impassioned about pet causes, and abandon all
sense of balance. It doesn't matter if it's Greenpeace, ACT-UP,
the Moral Majority, NOW, Perot volunteers, or what-have-you --
people like to make things black and white, when in fact they're
an infinitely varied collection of shades of gray and much else
besides. Don't get me wrong; when religious missionaries knock
on my door, I don't slam the door rudely in their faces. I'd be
the same towards any group of zealots, save perhaps the Scouts.

From them, I buy cookies. 8^)

Victor 8^)
(whose only PC leaning involves supporting Amnesty International)

Hmm. I seem to have offended a wide range of groups back there...

Mother in Heaven, forgive me, for I know not what I do!

*chuckle*

Geez, and to think this started with that simple subject line!
Newsgroups: alt.supermodels