| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1551
|
|||
|
|||
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: The issue is whether the state has a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual activity by someone who is known to be infected with an STD. Why don't you address that question? If deliberate transmission of a disease is already forbidden, there is no need to outlaw any sexual activity. If they use it differently than the textbook definition, they are misusing the term, and thus their scientific credential are in question. I think it's more likely that you are misusing the term, and that the scientists use the proper terms. They define their own textbook definition. Their scientific credentials are not in question. Scientific definitions are not always the same as those used by the general public. Scientists need specific meanings to terms in order to ensure that communication is concise and precise. Perhaps you are using the wrong word. Perhaps you are full of ****. You don't challenge any other items I posted. Is that an admission that you've been lying and bull****ting all along? Or are you too cowardly to stand up for your ridiculous claims? Mike |
|
#1552
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in our lies and cowardice. |
|
#1553
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 8-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave With guns, one is still obliged to obey every other restriction on rights that the government chooses to propose. You're amazingly inconsistent. Mike |
|
#1554
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in our lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... |
|
#1555
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. |
|
#1556
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. |
|
#1557
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy. Totally applicable. While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for defending their very lives. ? Preventing someone from enjoying an orgasm (regardless of the sex of the partner) is not the same thing as placing them at risk of death because they have been forcibly disarmed. You can always make up for a missed orgasm, but once you're dead, you're dead. What the hell are you talking about now?!?!? I'm not surprised you're confused. If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that parallel? Slavery is unlawful. It is now. Yup. What's your point? If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be discrimination. Indeed. And unlawful discrimination at that. Being black is a status. One does not get to choose to not be black. Why is it different for gay people? It's not different for gay people. It's not illegal to be gay. Just illegal for gay people to get married. Yup. Marriage is a sanction of the state, at least insofar as the benefits conferred upon couples who are married under state law. The state has authority to determine to whom those benefits are offered. Whether they should offer those benefits to gay couples is a matter of public policy, not a matter of rights. Which is discriminatory, Discrimination is not a priori unlawful or even immoral. just as it would be if black people were not allowed to get married. Nope. Once again, being black is a status, being gay and wishing to get married is a voluntary choice. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage because of ones status is generally unlawful. Prohibiting state-sanctioned marriage because of ones choices of behavior is not. My take on it is that the state should have nothing whatever to do with marriage at all, either by sanction or prohibition, and any benefit of the state offered to two people cohabiting should be offered to any two people cohabitating, without regard for sex, race or religion. "Marriage" is one of two things: It is either a religious observance, in which case the state has no place in the equation, or it is a civil contract between two individuals, in which case the only interest of the state is that the contract be valid and enforceable. If an individual has a benefit or a right, like a pension or health care or the right to determine medical treatment, available to them, then that person should be able to assign "power of attorney" and beneficiary status on ANYONE THEY WANT, whether a spouse, sex partner, brother, sister, friend or whatever. The state has no legitimate interest in dictating to whom an individual may grant power of attorney or to whom a person may grant state benefits due that person. That would take the whole marriage issue off the plate entirely. Gay people can engage in whatever solemnization of their partnership they choose, they can write whatever contract of cohabitation they choose, and heterosexuals can do the same thing, and the state would do nothing other than simply record (not license) the transaction in the county records. It may, however, be illegal to engage in same sex behaviors. Having sex with someone is a voluntary act without which one will not die nor be physically harmed. It's a behavior, not a status. Slavery is a status. It's the status of involuntary servitude. Being black is a status. It's a racial characteristic that one cannot change. Sexual behavior is entirely under the control of the individual. Every person has a desire to engage in sexual behavior. The physiological changes that take place during sexual excitement are the same for both men and women, regardless of the stimulus. It's a behavior. You can control it. You are not harmed by not being permitted to engage in a particular sexual behavior. The society in which one lives generally dictates rules of conduct and morality for its members, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the type of society and its governmental structure. In any society, certain behaviors are unacceptable, and for the overall well-being of the society, as judged by the society, those behaviors can be constrained to some degree or can be prohibited. The reasons for such constraints and their justification in the moral and ethical sense depend largely on the society as a whole and what it recognizes as important rights worthy of protection. Thus, while in one society consanguinity (incest) may be acceptable, in another it may not be. Likewise, in Canada, the age of consent for sex is 14 years old (as I understand it) while in the US, it's generally at least 18. Thus, in Canadian society, it is acceptable for a 50 year old man to have sex with a 14 year old girl. In most places in the US, that¹s not legal. It depends on the society. Thus, if "gay people" wish to engage in behaviors that are proscribed in one place or society, they need only go to some place or society that does not proscribe their behaviors. I daresay that most lesbians engage in sexual behaviours that pose a much lesser risk than routine heterosexual sexual behaviours. Thus, according to your logic, perhaps only lesbians should be allowed to get married? It's not my logic. It's the logic of the law. I never said that the law was "right." I'm merely explaining to you why it's not a violation of a gay person's civil rights to prohibit sodomy or "gay marriage." The point is that in a society of law, decisions are made about what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is not. That is the purpose of government and law, and nothing done by way of prohibiting homosexual sex acts is, legally speaking, a violation of the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution. Then the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution suck eggs, and the people who have the power to improve those provisions should stop being a bunch of discriminatory pukes and get to work on fixing it. I don't disagree. Whether those laws currently reflect the will of the society is an entirely different matter. If the society has changed its views on homosexual sex acts, then society is free to repeal the anti-sodomy laws. And wonder of wonders, that's been happening all over the US in the last 10 years or more. In many places homosexual sex is no longer unlawful. Whoopdeedoo! Indeed. The actual issue is whether the fact that one is gay, and that one may be attracted sexually to a person of the same sex excuses pleasure seeking CONDUCT that is proscribed by law. Remember, one may be physically attracted to someone of the same sex, or to a child of 12, but that doesn't mean you must, or must be allowed to ACT on that attraction. Celibacy is always an option. What the...? The law, in this case, is an ass. Perhaps. It's not the fault of gay people that the law is an ass. Probably true, though they don't necessarily always act persuasively to convince those who have the power to change the law that it's in society's best interests to do so. It's the fault of people who have the power to change the law that the law is ass. Indeed. Thus, one would think that rational and dispassionate debate would be preferable to radical flaunting of something that many members of society find to be obscene and disgusting. Whether that feeling is justifiable or not is beside the point. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Talk about intellectual weakness...comparing adult homosexual consenting relationships with pedophilia? What is the point of that? It's not a comparison, it's an analogy. Try to discern the difference. I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not. You do realize that, right? Of course. It's central to my argument because if anal sex is proscribed by law, then it MUST be proscribed for EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation. Surprise! That's just the way it works. That's WHY the civil rights of homosexuals are not violated by bans on sodomy. What kind of a screwed up country tries to put a ban on what consenting adults want to do in their own bedrooms? It depends on what the acts are. There are numerous reasons the state might have a legitimate interest in banning certain private conduct. So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable. No, it isn't in the least. Yes, it is. You're just too ignorant or too narrow-minded to accept it. No, it isn't, and no, I'm not. One of the problems is I don't think we are even talking about the same issue. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum. Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to control. There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality. This is totally illogical. No, not at all. The comparison is not between the acts, the issue is whether the state has ANY power to proscribe ANY sexual act by ANY person. But there is a huge difference between relations between consenting adults and acts of rape or pedophilia. To include them together in this way is totally illogical, and frankly, indecent. Not at all. For one thing, your definition of "pedophilia" presumes that no child is capable of giving consent. While this is the current legal policy, any child psychologist or historian can tell you that this is not necessarily universally true. Heck, as recently as the last century, it was not at all unusual for girls of 13 to be of "marriageable age." How have children changed in the intervening hundred years that makes them any less "marriageable?" The state can't do a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom. Okay, so you admit no proper constraint on consensual sexual behavior. Fine. Let's examine your stance a bit. First example: Persons A and B decide to have sex. Person A has a potentially deadly STD and both deliberately fails to inform B and refuses to use protection, thus infecting B with a disease that eventually debilitates and kills B. Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing unprotected sexual activity by a person knowingly carrying a dangerous STD? The fact that sex is involved is irrelevant. Deliberately exposing someone to a deadly disease - whether done by injecting them with a needle while they are asleep or by having unprotected sex with them - should be criminal, in my opinion. But if the state deems that it is the sexual activity that produces the highest risk of transmission, why can not the state proscribe unprotected sexual activity? Second example: Persons A and B like to engage in sadomasochistic and "water sports" as well as coprography. They choose to do so while B's underage children observe. The children are not involved in the acts, but merely watch. Does the state have a legitimate interest in protecting these children from exposure to such acts? Sure, in the same way that it is inappropriate for children to have access to the porn channel. Some people would argue that exposing children to sex early, even if they don't participate, is psychologically beneficial, and that in fact, concealing sex and sexuality from children, even when they are quite young, is pathological behavior that is harmful to the child's healthy sexual development, in part because it reinforces the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. This was a strongly prevailing attitude in the 60's, particularly in alternative "free" schools. Who's right? Third example: Persons A and B get off on having sex in public places in the view of passers-by. Does the state have a legitimate interest in prohibiting public displays of sexual behavior? Sure. Third example: Persons A and B engage in consensual sexual activity that includes partial asphyxiation. A strangles B during a sex act, but during orgasm fails to release the stranglehold and B dies. Does the state have a legitimate interest in prosecuting A for homicide, in spite of the fact that B consented to the strangulation? You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings week. Fourth example: Persons A and B engage in consensual bondage and torture. A binds B and causes serious physical injury to B that requires hospitalization, at public expense, to heal and rehabilitate B. Does the state have a legitimate interest in proscribing consensual sexual behavior that poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to one of the partners? You got me, sounds like a debate for a Law and Order episode during ratings week. What does any of this have to do with discriminating against homosexuals? What it has to do with it is that the state obviously does have some interest in regulating private consensual sexual behavior. What the limits on that interest is are a matter of societal beliefs and mores, not just the personal preferences of the people involved. Sometimes, the exercise of even carefully protected and explicitly recognized fundamental rights are justifiable regulated. Viz: the First Amendment does not protect one from state sanction for falsely shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Likewise, if the people who have been granted authority to enact law find reasons to prohibit sodomy, well, that's what they are paid to do and we have two choices: We can accept their judgment, or we can unelect them and elect those who see things differently and then change the law. But the fact that a prior administration has made a particular choice about regulating sexual conduct does not mean that the regulation is illegal, immoral or fattening. Society determines what is immoral and illegal. Science generally determines what's fattening. -- 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 |
|
#1558
|
|||
|
|||
|
"rick" wrote in message nk.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message ink.net... snip continuing boring crud my interpretation of that story is correct or not, we know what it does not say: that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. Since it is obvious that everyone in every health care system has to wait for treatment (that's why they have waiting rooms) I neither said, nor believe, that no one in Canada is waiting. You know I never said any such thing. You are making a deliberate false accusation, and you are a scumbag and coward for continuing to do so. ================== You should know all about being those things Only what I have learned from watching you, as you continue in your lies and cowardice. ==================== Nope, I've shown neither, liarman. I've proven what I say, you on the other hand...... Your problem is the lies you tell about other what other people have said. ================== Nope, because I haven't done that. Your problem is that you don't understand what you are writing. Oh for CHRISSAKES you guys! This thread has deteriorated from a difference of opinion, to some fairly interesting fancy footwork, to just plain stupid repetition of 'I'm not, you are.' Give it a rest, willya?? This can't even be amusing to YOU at this point. Kiss and make up already! --riverman |
|
#1560
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim public shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of two people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of claptrap. Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it. And it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the cost of his own life. Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice. Which would be, evidently, you. The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to turn that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing. And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody would have been able to stop the killer. Guns are merely inanimate objects and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they are used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill. -- 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Linear Mode
