From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Summary...
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 06:56:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.001411.9533@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.012035.23384@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>> 	(Deleted to save space)
>>>
>
>On the contrary, my example holds quite well. I would not be violating YOUR
>privacy one legal bit more than you violate any of your escortee's rights. YOU
>bought the house with windows, YOU leave your blinds open--I am exercsing my
>rights to look where I wsih--regardless of what you prefer.
>
>As for violationg their autonomy--let's look at the root word
>itself--autonomous. It means (second meaning according to Webster, as we are
>not dealing with Government) existing or functioning independantly. They choose
>to walk home alone, and you deny them that. You state that your "right" to walk
>them home outweighs their right to not be bothered by you. You do NOT permit
>them to function independently (free from influence and control of others --
>a) self determined, governing, b) self-reliant.) but rather FORCE them to have
>an escort. 
>
>You are no different than an over-protective mother who refuses to permit a 17
>year-old out on a date (without a chaperone) because you know what is best for
>them.

	Actually, I am quite different.  I do not follow along at their
side, but rather at a distance of 50 to 100 yards.  Never closer than that,
if I can avoid it.  Also, a chaperone on a date does ACTIVELY prevent
someone from doing some things, no?  Such as, going to certain places,
meeting with certain people, interfering with some actions.
	Also, a mother who would chaperone her child also probably will,
after the date, mention some things about what the person did..  Tsk Tsking
and all that.

>
>You are confusing the 'legal right' to do this with the 'moral right'.
>
>Whehter YOU like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether it is
>wise or not, when a woman decides that she does not want you to follow her
>home, she is exercising her right to her independance.

	Moral rights?  Does not a person have the right to choose their own
rights?  What is immoral for one can be moral for another.  It is a
personal choice.  And, isn't YOU deciding what MY moral rights are a
violation of what you call autonomy?  I tell you now, I do not wish YOU to
dictate to ME what my moral rights are.  Then, if you do it again, knowing
that I object to this, you are violating my rights even more than
previously.

>The minute you step out that dorr following her, you have decided what is best
>for her, and you have ignored what she has chosen for herself.
>
>Tell me, who are YOU to decide what SHE needs? Who assigned as her guardian?
>
>And, you do not do it for her, you do it for yourself. You do it because YOU
>want to follow her home--your reasons are self-centered, and selfish. (I do not
>disagree with such category of reasons, but at least be honest about it.) Do
>not say you are doing it for her--she doesn't want you there.
>
	Technically you could be right.  I feel good when I help someone
avoid trouble.  That is selfish.  But, also, I often times feel like the
risks I take can outweigh the good vibes I get from it.  All depends on
your point of view.  My reasons though, are not that it makes me feel good,
but, rather, that I am helping someone else.  The good vibes are just a
lucky side effect.  

>You simply decide that you know what is best for her, and if she doesn't agree
>with you, you'll do it anyway.

	Yup.  I know that it's best to avoid being raped, mugged, killed
etc for any human being.  Unless, of course, that they tell me that they
*WANT* to be raped, mugged, killed, etc, in which case, I would keep them
from going ouit, and call the police to have them help with a potential
suicide.  See, I cannot think that it is in anyones best interest to get
attacked.

	
>
>Then I hope you won't mind it when I start digging through your garbage,
>reading your old bills and letters, examining your store receipts to see what
>items you have bought, and when I am all through, printing the list and
>distributing it to your neighbors along with advice on such shortcomings as
>your diet and reading habits and encouraging them to try and help you out of
>your erroneous lifestyle.
>
>How many weeks of that before you would get pissed?
>
	*I* probably wouldn't get pissed, as I usually don't throw away a
reciept or a bill (gotta have em for taxes and records) and also, I really
don't care if people see that I am eating Froot Loops or Sugar Smackies or
that I only buy Japanese made electronics, or that I subscribe to the Trib,
etc.  Hell, if someone went through all that effort, I'd probably make some
comment that they have MUCH too much freetime, and then ask for a copy of
the list.  Could be interesting to see the shortfalls of my nutrition and
diet, and it would be much cheaper than seeing a dietician. :)


>And, do not think I do not have the legal right to do so. You leave your
>garbage out there for the public, it belongs to the public.
>
	Yah, there was a case recently where someone got pissed that
their garbage men had found a nude picture of their wife or something like
that, and the courts decided that it was ok to take em.  Oh, well, guess
people should burn what they dont want others to see.


>Good intentions do not make up for bad actions. You know what they want and you
>violate their wishes.
>
>
>No, watching someone in public is not wrong. Following them against their
>wishes may not be legally wrong, but I fail to see how you can morally justify
>it.

	I can morally justify it rather easily:  *I* have the choice of
whether *I* want to go and follow them.  See?  Simple.  Morally justified
for *ME*, by *ME*.

>Uh-uh. You specifically choose a course of action which is opposed to their
>wishes. They do not want you there. You want to be there, and you say, "Since
>you can't stop me from following you, you will just have to put up with me."

	Actually, they don't put up with all that much, as, as I have
stated many times in previous articles, I follow from a distance which i
far enough not to be intruisive, yet short enough to be within easy running
distance.  And, like I said also many times before, the person usually does
not find out I am there at all.  As far as I am concerned, what someone
does not know can't hurt them, and, in this case, may help them significantly.

>
>You FORCE them to put up with you because you do leave them a choice. You offer
>the option, knowing full well that even if they decline, you will do it anyway.
>You will go out there on the street, and you make certain they get an escort
>not only if they do not want one, but even if they specifically do not want
>one.

>
>How the hell does that increase their autonomy?
>
	It increases their autonomy (AGAIN posting a statement for another
time) by giving them more options in case of attack, and taking none of
their options away.  They can *DO* anything they want, whether I follow
them or not.  Now, if you mean that I am reducing their autonomy in the
area of choosing whether or not to have someone do something that they
specifically asked them not to... Well, happens every day, and usually, the
people violating a persons requests are doing so in an intrusive manner.
	Suffice it to say, I cannot see how this reduces their options in
any way, I cannot see how this impinges upon their life in any way, and I
cannot see that I will cease to stop this any time in the forseeable
future.  

>
>If I call someone an ignorant slut who is dripping puss, we all know it is an
>opinion, and it is real hard to prove she is a slut (slut is usually 
>derogatory, and not the same as promiscuous, which might be true). If you say 
>someone is a liar, you can prove they are a liar, that is your defense.

	Actually, how would someone know?  For certain?  I told a friend of
mine that i was going to my "Fucking house after I left my fucking job" (I
was in a bad mood) and this friend, who spoke little english, went on to
tell people that I lived in a whore house and had sex for a living.  When
this finally got back to me, I was amused, but, it does show that some
people do not take such things as an opinion.  Remember, most of this
planet does not speak english.
	Also, "Ignorant slut who is dripping puss"  A slut is often
confused with a whore, and dripping pus CAN be a state in which a 'slut'
could find themselcves, if they are not careful.  Ignorance can be taken as
an opinion, and thats about it.  
	You are relying on everyone to realize that such statements are
your opinion without actually stating them as such.  If a newspaper put an
article claiming that, say, Nancy Regan was an 'ignorant slut who drips
pus' on their front page, NOT in the Editorial section (where every article
in the section is covered by the disclaimer about them only being the
opinions of the various authors) would you want to bet that Nancy wouldn't
win if she sued?  Or, anyone else, for that matter?
>
>However, remember that when it comes to honesty, sexuality, disease, or morals,
>you are open to punitive damages (known as spinning the big prize wheel to
>plaintiff lawyers). What that means is if the jusry finds $1 in actual damages,
>they can then assign an award on top of that to discourage you and others from
>engaging in such behavior in the future. That could mean $1 actual and
>$1,000,000 punative.
>
	Slut implies sexuality, and puss dripping implies disease.

>And, it is not hard to have $1.00 in damages.

	That I agree with.
>
>DC
>
>
Sam

PS: DC, please edit your posts.  I am not going to do so for you any
further.  From now on, I will only edit out the points that I have made
which have been reposted.

Newsgroups: talk.rape