<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Jerry M:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Yes as Woj, says it is
quite simple. If you bow down to legal definitions and reify the rule of
law as a definition of violence, then we would be still in a time when a
master's violence against a servant, or white man's violence against a black,
or the father's violence against a child, could simply be ignored. There
is no argument because people like Woj, simply want to ignore the larger moral,
class, status, race and sexual issues. In other words such people want to
turn the simple moral argument that most people can recognize violence when
they see it into a legal truism, and they want to to turn the hard problem of what
to do about a rule of law that is structured as discriminatory into a simple
matter of definition, and wants to turn the hypocrisy that allows for violence
against one group but outlaws it against another group into an eternal idol
that we must bow down to. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>[WS:] Or the
opposite – if a group of people, say Promise Keepers, or x-tian fundies, decide
that forcing their wives to have sex, or physically disciplining them does not
really constitute violence, or even offence, contrary to what the law says.
Historically speaking, legal definitions generally curbed the popular
propensity toward “justifiable” violence rather than the other way
around. So I’ll stick with legal definitions.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3 color=blue
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>I am not sure
why I am getting into this kind of debates that turn out to be pissing contests
that do not lead anywhere. Perhaps it is the biological propensity of the
male ego ;), or perhaps it is my stupid hope that I may learn something useful.
This thread, however, looks to me like flogging a long-dead horse. I am
not even sure what the point being argued is, as this whole discussion goes on
every possible tangent. So I hope you will excuse me if I quit at this
point. Have a nice day.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=blue face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:blue'>Wojtek</span></font> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>