Exonerate Tex Antoine

Nick_A

Interfaith Forums
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
2
Points
0
As we know, the value of Interfaith is that all beliefs are equal in their diversity and without any objective right or wrong. We must live by what they have in common. With this in mind it is time that Tex Antoine be exonerated. Who is Tex Antoine you ask? He was a weatherman that was fired for quoting Confucius.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Tex%2520Antoine

Apparently the subject of rape came up and he quoted Confucius as saying "`If rape be inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it.' '' This so-called joke got him first suspended, and then fired."

Now of course in this age of equality we are adult enough to see that the raper and rapee are really the same and the issue should be talked out between them. Yet there are still some people that for some reason would blame the raper and support the rapee only enhancing this division between them. They do not realize that the rapee may as well just enjoy the experience. Their efforts only seek to deny the raper and rapee talking it over in the spirit of love and the rapee developing a more adult mindset appropriate for flourishing secularism.

After all, who can argue with the wisdom of Confucius when he says: "`If rape be inevitable, just lie back and enjoy it.' The rapee must talk it over with the raper so as not to appear biased.

Of course there are some that suggest that Confucius meaning is not secular and he refers to something not secular. What do they know? We know everything is secular and Confucius is an old fashioned oriental with an old fashioned sexist mind. It is time to exonerate Tex Antoine so the rapee and raper can be encouraged to talk it over rather than believe rape is either wrong or justifiable to the sexist mind.

Hmmmm.....but I cannot help thinking that Confucius refers to something different that transcends politics. I have to listen to the Obama Choir again and adopt that blank stare so as to stop these foolish thoughts.
 
Wow, can't wait to see the responses you're going to get with this latest odd train of thought Nick.:eek::eek::confused::confused::mad: earl
 
Wow. First of all, I think that Tex the weatherman did not 'quote Confucius,' as much as use the name Confucius to tell a really horrible and tasteless joke. Second of all, what is the point of this post? I don't think that you are actually trying to justify or minimize rape, and I would like to believe that you are not seriously suggesting that the rapist and the person who has been raped need to sit down and talk it out. It seems to me that you are attempting some kind of awful deadpan analogy here between rape and politics, but I'm not sure what your point is. You may want to explain for those of us who are not immediately making the connections.
 
Now of course in this age of equality we are adult enough to see that the raper and rapee are really the same and the issue should be talked out between them.


Let's see, you must then believe that a child molester and a molestee are really the same, too, and the issue should be talked out between them.

 
Let's see, you must then believe that a child molester and a molestee are really the same, too, and the issue should be talked out between them.

[/size][/font]

Yes, there is no right or wrong. What we have are different interpretations and these interpretations can be talked out in the spirit of interfaith so as to lead to the new world of love and peace.

As you know child abuse and child molestation is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective morality so all this can be talked out in the spirit of Interfaith. The molester has been abused by society and the molester is abused. They are equal so consequently it can be talked out by two equally abused people in the spirit of Interfaith. It is the way of peace and love.
 
Yes, there is no right or wrong. What we have are different interpretations and these interpretations can be talked out in the spirit of interfaith so as to lead to the new world of love and peace.

As you know child abuse and child molestation is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective morality so all this can be talked out in the spirit of Interfaith. The molester has been abused by society and the molester is abused. They are equal so consequently it can be talked out by two equally abused people in the spirit of Interfaith. It is the way of peace and love.
There is no right or wrong?:eek::confused: No moral standards?:confused: You seem to go out of your way to find them when it comes to Obama. Of course the most objectional part of your OP other than what has already been covered was the reproduction of that crude old line about laying back and enjoying it if rape was inevitable. earl
 
Wow. First of all, I think that Tex the weatherman did not 'quote Confucius,' as much as use the name Confucius to tell a really horrible and tasteless joke. Second of all, what is the point of this post? I don't think that you are actually trying to justify or minimize rape, and I would like to believe that you are not seriously suggesting that the rapist and the person who has been raped need to sit down and talk it out. It seems to me that you are attempting some kind of awful deadpan analogy here between rape and politics, but I'm not sure what your point is. You may want to explain for those of us who are not immediately making the connections.

Yes there is method to my madness. I am experimenting with the Socratic method not to appear superior but as a way of bringing out some essential truths normally ignored.

It is true that no one knows if Confucius actually said it though it has been attributed to him by others and if he did say it was in the context of detachment and the harm of negative emotions and negative attachments that prevent letting go of the horror of the experience.

But as you know, in these times it is politically inorrect to believe in the depth of your religion that transcends secularism. It is politically correct to become only concerned with the secular commonalities of their secular expression. We equate things that cannot be equated much like the rapist is equated with the rapee.

Secularism is so concerned with denying differences and imposing the commonalities of selective morality that it prevents understanding the value of essential differences.

The sad truth is that we have been encouraged to become so shallow that we could not even explore such a quote with any degree of honesty that would include dealing with rape emotionally as well as having values in society that do not seek to excuse rape because of pop psychology as it does with other crimes.

Rape is even fashionable as long as the "right" person is raped:

Sandra Bernhard issued a blistering warning to Sarah Palin during a performance of her new one-woman show.

The Republican V.P. nom would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers" if she enters Manhattan, Bernhard said. Palin is said to be making a campaign stop in New York next week.

We do that with drugs for example. We use drugs as an excuse to forgive actions. However a person should be responsible for taking illegal drugs and what ever they do while stoned. To deny individual responsibility is to invite socialism which is why Obama is so popular.

To impartially explore what Tex Antoine said and his consequent firing requires an open mind few are capable of and I find this frightening.
 
Nick, there is a philosophy of addressing crimes from a reconciliatory basis, called restorative justice:
restorative justice: Definition from Answers.com

It has spawned some programs entitled victim-offender reconciliation somewhat along the lines you speak of. But, in that philosophy there is no moral relativism. The focus is still very much on enabling the offender to clearly recognize the harm they have brought to another. Also doubt such an approach has been used with serious crimes of "violence." By the way, how'd you manage a way to get another reference to Obama in that post? earl
 
Nick, there is a philosophy of addressing crimes from a reconciliatory basis, called restorative justice:
restorative justice: Definition from Answers.com

It has spawned some programs entitled victim-offender reconciliation somewhat along the lines you speak of. But, in that philosophy there is no moral relativism. The focus is still very much on enabling the offender to clearly recognize the harm they have brought to another. Also doubt such an approach has been used with serious crimes of "violence." By the way, how'd you manage a way to get another reference to Obama in that post? earl

You forget that it is politically correct to assume that crime is the result of societal abuse. A person growing up under societal abuse is excused from being responsible for rape since the rapee is part of the society that has abused the raper who is the real victim.

it won't take long for restorative justice to figure that out and strive to bring the raper and rapee together to talk it out and to come to agree that the incident is the fault of society.

This thread is about personal responsibility and the damaging effect of conditioned selective morality that encourages superficiality and politically correct condemnation rather than acquiring any understanding developed through impartial examination. Anyone can superficially condemn Tex Antoine but who understands the possible meanings of the quote and why it was said? The fact is that Tex Antoine did not rape anyone. It is politically correct to condemn in accordance with selective morality so as a whole we condemn in this manner without any understanding. I am thankful that there is a minority capable and willing as Simone said to "annoy the great beast." It is not easy to go up against political correctness and its selective morality, but for those interested in freedom, it becomes essential to do so.
 
You forget that it is politically correct to assume that crime is the result of societal abuse. A person growing up under societal abuse is excused from being responsible for rape since the rapee is part of the society that has abused the raper who is the real victim.

it won't take long for restorative justice to figure that out and strive to bring the raper and rapee together to talk it out and to come to agree that the incident is the fault of society.

This thread is about personal responsibility and the damaging effect of conditioned selective morality that encourages superficiality and politically correct condemnation rather than acquiring any understanding developed through impartial examination. Anyone can superficially condemn Tex Antoine but who understands the possible meanings of the quote and why it was said? The fact is that Tex Antoine did not rape anyone. It is politically correct to condemn in accordance with selective morality so as a whole we condemn in this manner without any understanding. I am thankful that there is a minority capable and willing as Simone said to "annoy the great beast." It is not easy to go up against political correctness and its selective morality, but for those interested in freedom, it becomes essential to do so.
Ok, Nick, now you've confused me. Thought it was you who wanted to bring the rapist and victim together to tallk about it. What do you want them to discuss? Restorative justice is far from assuming that society has anything to do with the cause of a crime. It's about holding the offender responsible-weren't you just discussing the need for individual responsiblity? How did Simone come into this?:)
 
Ok, Nick, now you've confused me. Thought it was you who wanted to bring the rapist and victim together to tallk about it. What do you want them to discuss? Restorative justice is far from assuming that society has anything to do with the cause of a crime. It's about holding the offender responsible-weren't you just discussing the need for individual responsiblity? How did Simone come into this?:)

You misunderstand me. I am suggesting that it is political correctness and its tool of selective morality that seeks to equate behavior in an artificial way and not based upon anything objective.

The idea of using rape in this instance invites certain people sensitive to it to object to uniting the raper and rapee in this way. They will feel and rightfully so that objective wrong exists regardless of societal influence. Rape simply cannot be justified because of societal abuse.

Secularism as with the link you provided takes IMO the misguided approach that we cannot condemn wrong as wrong regardless of race or religion. As it is now, race is used as a means to justify abuse. Yet any woman experienced with rape will not argue whether it was done by a black guy or a white guy since they are close to the problem.

Politically correct politics is separated from reality which we often are as well which is why we believe in selective morality. Using Tex Antoine is a way of showing how little we understand and how much we have allowed ourselves to be conditioned to accept rather than impartially ponder.

I said that the raper and rapee should be considered equal and the result of societal abuse on both. I wanted people to show me why, even if other crimes are often looked at in this way, it is not right to think in this way and why personal responsibility must be the essential quality regardless of blaming society if maintaining a free society is at all valued. In a slave state it is academic since the politically incorrect are just destroyed solving the problem.

If people were more open we could collectively try to understand what Confucious could mean and how personal forgiveness is completely different from societal law. It would touch on the profound question of what is meant by giving to Caesar what is Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's. Their connection could become understandable. Secularism is only concerned with Caesar without understanding of what is meant psychologically by giving to God. But again it requires being open rather than expressing the normal conditioned righteous indignation. It is no longer attractive to think in this way and people are no longer encouraged to do so leading IMO to the coming death of a free society.
 
Why are you lying about Confucius?

You never seem to add anything of substance but instead get some ego satisfaction from blind attack. This is why you cannot understand the different sides of these questions because all your energy goes into attack. As long as you remain in attack mode, the inner reconciliation that one needs for anything worthy of the word "understanding" is impossible for you
 
So we have an essential contradiction between the secularism that tries to unite religions on the basis of secular commonalities and the practical reality that we feel the existence of objective morality that must be furthered for both our personal good and the good of a free society.

We can unite the raper and rapee in a feel good secular framework that blames societal abuse or we can see rape as a selfish and complete loss of personal responsibility to another that society must condemn for its own preservation.

We can adopt a selective morality that condemns what is SAID while supporting what we do such as supporting media violence because it makes money.

Tex Antoine is condemned for what is SAID in accordance with selective morality while Sarah Bernhard previously mentioned is applauded because the "Right" person will be raped.

Do we actually believe that acts such as rape can be lessened by condemning something like what Tex Antoine said? Apparently we do. It is the same mentality that thought prohibition would stop alcohol abuse. It is naive but what else can secularism including religious secularism do that seeks to replace the healthy God Man relationship that develops human "understanding" with empty feel good platitudes and selective morality.
 
You never seem to add anything of substance but instead get some ego satisfaction from blind attack.
This is a classic example of "projection", attributing to others what is true of yourself.

All you are doing here is attacking imaginary Confucians, who supposedly think rape is not so bad, and attacking imaginary "secularists" who would think there is no moral distinction between such Confucians and other moral viewpoints: but, no people on this board (or anywhere else) actually think that way. So you are just attacking strawmen of your own construction, thinking that you are launching an attack against real people whose actual way of thinking you are unwilling to see.

Nick_A said:
Sarah Bernhard previously mentioned is applauded
Really? Applauded by whom? She has been widely condemned, and I do not know of anyone who "applauded" her remarks.
 
Bob

Just because you live in attack mode does not mean everyone else does as well. This thread is not an attack but just an attempt at revealing basic contradiction. There is no need to attack. Who are these imaginary confucians? You are not making any sense since you are caught up with fighting windmills.

Secularism especially modern day Interfaith seeks to reconcile religions by denying their unique importance and stressing feel good commonalities with no awareness of the "human condition." Yet we see it all goes out the window when confronted by something like rape where the raper and rapee are not equal. There is no need for attack here but only to admit the human condition and secularism's inability to confront it.

Sarah Bernhard now even denies saying it and has conveniently forgotten what she did say. When such a "comedian" says these things they are applauded by their followers. I've witnessed people applauding at even worse then that. It is the nature of the beast.
 
Who are these imaginary confucians?

YOU are the one who is imagining that Confucius ever actually said anything like what Tex made a lame joke about (hint for you: "Confucius says..." is not actually used to introduce a quote from Confucius). When you say things like "If people were more open we could collectively try to understand what Confucious could mean..." it sounds as if you think Confucians actually believe that, which is just not true.
Secularism especially modern day Interfaith seeks to reconcile religions by denying their unique importance and stressing feel good commonalities with no awareness of the "human condition."

No. Nobody is believing any such position. You are just making up something called "secularism", which has nothing to do with any real secularists, and fighting with these imaginary people in your own head.
When such a "comedian" says these things they are applauded by their followers.
That's not true. Show me a single example of anybody "applauding" it.
I've witnessed people applauding at even worse then that.
Like what? Show me!
 
Bob

One thing is for sure. You haven't a clue as to what esotericism is about and I have no intention to fight you on this. These things you either are open to or you are not.

Cuncucius is similar to the Mullah Nasreddin of Sufi legend. You don't argue about it but instead feel its wisdom.

You simply have no interest in secularism as compared to the vertical psychology of "being." This doesn't mean that I or others like me have to sacrifice this awareness.to be politically correct.

That's not true. Show me a single example of anybody "applauding" it.


I cannot prove these things to you. Go to some comedy clubs and see what is applauded. Then you will understand.

You want to complain rather than to experience. It may be fashionable but only makes you a legend in your own mind.
 
Cuncucius is similar to the Mullah Nasreddin of Sufi legend. You don't argue about it but instead feel its wisdom.

Sigh... obviously you have never read one single word of the Analects of Confucius. No, he was not a "wise fool" figure like Mullah Nasreddin. He was a rather stodgy, eat-your-vegetables, honor-your-parents, do-your-duties kind of thinker.

When people say something like "Confucius says, Man who stands on toilet is high on pot", they are not actually quoting Confucius. And, they are not mistakenly believing that they are quoting Confucius. They are making a lame joke.
You simply have no interest in secularism

I AM a secularist, a real one, as opposed to these imaginary people you construct in your head to argue with. Give me one example of anyone, anyone at all, who believes "all religions are the same and there is no right and wrong" or these other beliefs that you claim "secularists" hold.
I cannot prove these things to you.
I did not ask you for "proof", just for you to show a single example. I will take your word for what you say you heard applauded, but you have not given a single example. Neither have you named a single example of anyone, ANYONE at all, applauding Sarah Bernhardt's poor attempt at a joke.
Go to some comedy clubs and see what is applauded. Then you will understand.
I've been to comedy clubs. I guess I just haven't found the lowly kinds of clubs that you prefer.
 
Back
Top