A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott says:
====================
You offer anti-capitalist propaganda from Communist China about "income
disparity" as evidence? Are you not aware that this is but thinly
veiled
justification for taking rich Chinese out and putting a bullet in the
back
of their heads because they have presumed to make a profit in a
Communist/Socialist society?

You're going to have to do MUCH better than that.
=============

I suggest that your reaction to info from China is an over-reaction.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to over-react to propaganda from China. They
are very, very dangerous, and I don't intend to underestimate them at all.

Any self-respecting communist is turning over in his grave at the sight
of what is happening in China today.

Unless they knew, as the current leaders do, that one can present a surface
appearance of "democratization" without actually allowing it to happen. All
you ever see is what they WANT you to see. What goes on in China out of your
sight is entirely communist.

China may be many things --
totalitarian to start -- but it is hardly communist.

That's what they want you to believe. You're wrong.

It may have
considerable vestiges of communism but they are vanishing at a rapid
rate. The victims of that move are just so much trash to be discarded.
These victims would never know they are in a country that is supposedly
communist. What is happening in China can best be compared to England
in 1850 (and the Chinese peasants are the Irish of the year 2005).

How much time have you spent in China, outside the prescribed
tourist/business areas? None, I bet.


Scott, don't let the name of the country put you off. Right now the
relationship between the capitalists and the government borders on a
love-in.

So they would have us think.


So, fair enough, reject my source re poverty and crime, but please
acquaint yourself with what is going on in China. It is hardly the
"red" Chine of a foregone era.

Are you sure?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT crime
victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for
self-defense vary from the FBI approved number of more than 80,000
per year (which is almost twice the incidence of violent assaults)
to more than two million per year by Kleck, Lott et al.

Kleck's DGU research is suspect because his estimate produces a rate of DGU
woundings far in
excess of what is actually observed.

Prove it.


Lott's gun research is simply fraudulent.

Sez you...and HCI. Unfortunately for you, both authors have been extensively
peer-reviewed and their methodology, data and conclusions are sound.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote:

Why are North
American natives significantly over-represented in Canada's prison
population?

It's hard for them to afford a decent lawyer.

Or, they commit more crimes.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==============
How much time have you spent in China, outside the prescribed
tourist/business areas? None, I bet.
============

I could ask you the same. In my case, I'll answer honestly: "None."

But, every working day I come in contact with dozens of recent
immigrants from China. Each day, I have multiple discussions about life
in China. These people span the entire spectrum from pro-government to
anti. Further, a close acquaintance (venture capitalist) travels to
China at least once every month. He most often travels into the
countryside as he's interested in mining. We frequently discuss his
observations. I think my sources are credible. And yours?

frtzw906

Weiser on poorer minorities in jail:
================
Or, they commit more crimes.
========================

Which begs the question: "Why?"

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any
heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a
same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any
different from heterosexuals.

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that society as a
whole makes, through the representative democratic process. At the moment,
society disagrees with you. As it happens, I agree with you. But
effectuating that change takes more than the sort of sophomoric
argumentation you provide.

Why should the
government dictate what can go on between two consenting adults in
private?

Why shouldn't it? It's not proscribed that power by the Constitution. In
fact, most such statutes are at the state level, and you can avoid liability
by simply moving to a state where homosexual sodomy is not unlawful.

Those who advocate such intrusions by the state point to a number of social
ills that result from deviant sexual activity as justification for the
proscription. Whether they are correct or not is a matter of debate, but
ultimately the Congress or the state legislature gets to make the decision.
If you don't like the decision, you can try to get different people elected
to change the law. Until then, the law prevails, even if you don't agree
with it. That's the way civilizations work.

And so long as the law is applied uniformly to all persons, no particular
individual's "rights" are infringed improperly. If, on the other hand,
sodomy was forbidden ONLY for those who are homosexual (thus requiring a
sexual orientation test before conviction can occur) then THAT would be a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But that's not the case.

The restriction of rights is something you just choose to ignore.

What "restriction of rights" are you referring to? There is no "right" to
engage in homosexual sodomy in several states. Laws proscribing such conduct
have been enacted and upheld for a very long time. Some particular activity
is not a "right" just because you think it ought to be.

Whether those laws still reflect the will of society is a different matter
entirely. I don't ignore the issue, I merely deconstruct your sloppy logic.
You are free to post better arguments if you're able, which I doubt.

What you are talking about is
preferences, not rights.

Only in the eyes of a bigoted, right-wing nutcase like yourself.

This is why you are not worth debating. You presume that because I
deconstruct your shoddy thinking that this means I hold a certain viewpoint
to be true. That's a mistake.

More importantly, your statement
suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not
instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors.

Your ability to warp the meanings of words into whatever you want is well
documented.

In other words, I'm a skilled logician and debater and you're not. I'd have
to agree.

This dishonesty on your part is despicable.

What dishonesty would you be referring to?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Nisarel says:
================
Fraser Institute: a far-right wing ideological think tank that is not
known for unbiased research.
===============

This was pointed out much earlier in this thread, but the right-wing
fundamentalists here refuse to accept that characterization. As I've
pointed out to them: check their funding to see whose ass they're
kissing.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses
to manifes

Trying to twist my words around again idiot?

No, you do that quite successfully all by yourself.

I never said that I am
forcing God into any manifestation. I said that the Bible does not
contain a single example of God manifesting himself as God.

Well, you're still wrong.

Hence,
there is no reference for what God is or can be considered in the
physical world.

Wrong.

We have to deal with the sources of information
on God in the Judeo-Christian belief system and the Bible is the
main source.

How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests?

Bible - see above.

Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of
God in the Bible, you must therefore be woefully ignorant of the contents or
simply too stupid to understand what is written.


According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible.

Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality,
where you are at a loss.

Non sequitur.

So your assumption is that some idiot like yourself that reads an
arbitrary English Bible knows at least as much or more than a group
of scholars that spend their lives studying the Bible in many
different source languages?

Not necessarily, but I certainly know more about it than you do. So do most
ten year old Sunday School children.

Get a clue.

I'll take "Theology" for $800.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 28-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

More
to come on that.

Please don't. It has nothing to do with this newsgroup.

I'll do as I please, not as you please, as anybody with any tenure here can
tell you.

Fact is that the issue of the New Zealand Mudsnail has some very direct
impacts on this group, which I'll inform you about when the time is right.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser on poorer minorities in jail:
================
Or, they commit more crimes.
========================

Which begs the question: "Why?"

Um, because they choose to?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser