|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: 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. So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd go along with it? I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea. So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based on race. 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. 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's a status offense. Those held in involuntary servitude are not free to leave. 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. 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, thatąs 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. Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes of those who make the laws. How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS? I said nothing whatever about gay marriage. My gawd you can be an idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class. How does "marginalization" or "second classing" of gay sexual behavior either reduce or increase the AIDS problem? I merely said that in the view of those who make the law, homosexual acts were considered to be (and not without some justification) a primary vector for the transmission of AIDS. Even the gay community came to this realization, and to their credit, they were pioneers in the practice of safe sex practices, to the point where now, heterosexual transmission has risen above homosexual transmission. 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. 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. As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot help or control. Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah, that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer. You may try the ad hominem route by implying that I'm a homophobe, but you'll just be making a fool of yourself. Personally, I don't care one way or the other what a person's sexual orientation is. In fact, my very first girlfriend in high school was bisexual, and I had a good relationship with her...and her female lover. I grew up spending most of my summer vacations being around stage actors, and many of them were gay...at a time when being gay was not only illegal, but could be personally dangerous. I had many gay acquaintances and I learned quite early on not to be judgmental about other people...something you need some work on. You are making the common mistake of confusing an intellectual debate with personal beliefs or attributes. You're not the first Netwit to make that mistake, nor will you be the last. 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. Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes. ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!! I'm neither promoting nor denigrating it. It's not currently under discussion. Anti-sodomy laws are based in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated" against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children. Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that is within the purview of the law. Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant. You miss the point. 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. 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. 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. On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape. On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is. Not really. You're just incapable of working through the logic involved because it doesn't fit with your worldview. Then again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior. What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize as legitimately within the sphere of state control? The state can't to 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? 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? 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? 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? 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? -- 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: This is because registration is ALWAYS the precursor to confiscations and seizures by authorities, no matter how much they may promise it's not going to happen. Australia, Canada and GB prove that, and we've had several instances in the US as well, specifically New Jersey and California. Nope. Wrong. Guns, specifically banned "assault weapons" were confiscated both in California and in New Jersey. That fails to prove your "ALWAYS" assertion. Give it time. -- 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: Actually, it was a December 30, 2004 report by WorldNetDaily, and I'm perfectly within my rights to quote from it. No, you're not. Reproducing an entire article is a violation of copyright law. But I did not reproduce the entire article, I reproduced a couple of grafs, which is permitted under the Fair Use exception to the copyright laws, particularly in that its use was for editorial commentary and criticism. Given the fact that I'm both a professional journalist and an editor, I'd submit that I know a good deal more about copyright law than you do. -- 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 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes of those who make the laws. The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any reasonable source for AIDS statistics will point that out. It is now. It wasn't in the beginning. Blaming homosexuals for AIDS is nothing but the bias of the ignorant. I wasn't blaming anybody for anything, I was merely stating some facts. Anti-sodomy laws are based in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between adults and children. The big difference is consent - adults can consent to behavior, children are assumed to not be able to. Any law that assumes that adults are not able to consent removes responsibility from adults and puts it in the hands of the law. Hardly a description of a free country. True, but the legal basis is the same. Society is empowered to decide what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not. In Canada, it's legal for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. In the US, it's illegal almost everywhere...unless the adult is married to the child, which is still legal in some states. The point is that a society is not compelled to sanction every possible behavior by an individual. If you don't like a society that proscribes homosexual conduct, you are, of course, free to seek out a society which embraces such conduct. Sweden comes to mind... (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to control. Pedophilia or rape do not involve consent. Behavior that does should not be controled by the state. So, if persons A and B engage in consensual sex, and A has a deadly STD and knowingly and deliberately does not tell B about it and infects B, who dies, the state should not proscribe even consensual unprotected sex by persons who are known to have deadly STD's? Things are rarely as simplistic as you would like them to be. -- 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 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: How, exactly, does the Bible "deem" how God manifests himself as himself? How about if it _says_ so. Try reading the Bible - it does describe these things. And nowhere does it say "this is what God looks like". And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is constrained by the words in a book? Thus, if he "manifests" himself as a man, or a burning bush, he is manifesting himself as himself. Once again, you prefer playing with words instead of addressing the issue directly. If he manifests himself as a man, we cannot tell it is God. That is exactly my point. Which is pretty much no point at all. We need a manifestation that we can clearly identify as God and the Bible offers nothing to help that. What you "need" and what God decides to provide are often two different things. Do you think you have the authority to compel God to restrict God's manifestations to appearances that you approve of? How hubric. -- 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 4-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Should A have the right to "conduct his (or her) most private life according to his or her own rules?" Deliberately infecting a person with any disease is illegal around here. Indeed. No sex required. But sex is a vector. This does not address the issue of sexual freedom. But then you like changing the topic instead of addressing the issues. 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? However, to answer your implicit question, in the US, the US and state Supreme Courts are the arbiters of the law, and thus arbiters of "rights." They cannot arbitrate over that which does not exist. Of course they can. They can decide that a particular "right," like, say, the "right" to an abortion is found within the ambit of the Constitution. So I ask again - where are those rights defined? Er, nice try, but that's what I'm asking YOU. Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus. Factually speaking it is. morphology: 2. The form and structure of an organism or any of its parts. Height is a part of the form and structure, and differences in height are a morphological difference. Don't blame me if you used the wrong word. Perhaps you should look at how scientists use the term and not lexicographers. 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. We are discussing it in a scientific context. If height was a significant morphological difference, there would be no morphological similarity between any members of a species and would make the study worthless. Perhaps you are using the wrong word. -- 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 |
Oh how I love Usenet when Scott Weiser says:
============== ....what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. AT Mar 7, 12:46 pm ================== But, almost 8 hours later Scott Weiser states: ============================== 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 Scott Weiser AT Mar 7, 8:13 pm =========================== So, now Scott Weiser needs to decide if governments can make decisions about the ownership of guns (as per his 8:13 comment) OR if NO ONE (not even the aforementioned government) has the right to deny him his gun ownership. Which is it to be, Scott? frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================ I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. ====================== And when you do, what will your lame defense be? "Whoops! I made a mistake." Nope. I take full responsibility for my actions. I donąt blame others. If I work it right, I won't have to deal with that eventuality ever. -- 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 says: ================ ...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. Actually, I don't think I ever said anything at all about gay marriage. I was speaking specifically of sexual conduct. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Because our society has made it an uninfringible right, that's how. Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? It's both. But that doesn't mean that because our society recognizes a right to keep and bear arms that it is also compelled to recognize a right to all conduct, sexual or otherwise. -- 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 says: ============ But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. ============= OK. OK. OK. You're very good! There I was, taking all this gun talk seriously, and then you end with a sentence like that! Too funny! NO ONE but a comedian could make a statement like that. You ARE funny! "...to defend the defenseless...." LOL ROTFL!!!!!! Yours are the words of a coward who would stand by and watch innocent people being exterminated. -- 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 Tinkerntom wrote:
But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a "suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less and to your current point. http://tinyurl.com/7xs53 I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal party line! TnT Yes, I heard about Wilson's bravery the day it happened. It is indeed unusual for the mainstream media to even mention that an armed citizen was involved, and it's entirely unheard of for the liberal press to analyze the event as Lott did, because it flies in the face of their deliberate anti-gun bias. The last thing they want to report on is an armed citizen who died heroically. They would rather have their fingernails pulled out than lead their stories on the incident with something like: "Armed citizen killed by deranged gunman while defending injured cops and citizens." Should I have to do what Wilson did, I won't expect any better treatment than he got, but that's not really the point. -- 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 bearsbuddy wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... Scott did you see this article over the weekend. I realize it is in a "suspect" source, Fox News, but I found it interesting none the less and to your current point. http://tinyurl.com/7xs53 I suppose if a person really wanted to read it, they might get some interesting data, if they are interested in data, not just the normal party line! TnT This was not a Fox News article, it was a commentary, by a very suspect source. Leave it to Faux News to present such. Do you have some evidence that the description of the events is incorrect? John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003) and More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press 2000). Mark --and the so-called data was of no interest to this hunter/gun owner-- The fact that an armed citizen died trying to protect innocent children and injured cops from a deranged gunman is of no interest to you? How callous. -- 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 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============== frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We are still figuring out the rules of the game. ===================== Tink, I don't wish to be like rick and KMAN. You and I were having a discussion. It had interesting possibilities. You showed me the error of my thoughts. The end. And then you continue, restart, so I will continue to play, unless I hear another "End" As you'll recall, I wished to demonstrate to you that right-wing political policies, which I generally view as mean-spirited, could not have a basis in the Christian faith so many of you profess to follow. I was aiming at cognitive dissonance -- in you. According to what you wrote above, you came into this discussion with the preconceived ideas that right wing policies are mean-spirited, and could not have a basis in the Christian faith as so many of us Christians profess. You actually came into the discussion with at least four preconceived conclusions. One, that right wing policies are mean spirited. Two, that Christians share a common basis in expressing the Christian Faith that we profess to follow. Three that I am experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance, and Four, that you were aiming and able at exposing that CD. and delivering me from it by enlightening my mind. Instead, I was the one who had to shift my cognition of the Christian faith. I was under some mistaken impression that JC was all about love, charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be much more inclined to support liberal policies. And that is why I am agreeing with you, not disagreeing at all. I suspected these inadequate assumptions bad enough, in and of themselves, and certainly not what you would want to base political policy on, and especially concerning capital punishment. And I suspect that you really did not care to have to attempt to support all of these assumptions, expecially those to do with Christianity. You made some common assumptions regarding your "impression that JC was all about love, charity, peace, and forgiveness. I had, in my mind, some sort of benevolent hippy-dude. Hence my proposition to you that JC would be much more inclined to support liberal policies." Unless you are willing and able to support this contention, I would suggest that you not base your argument upon them, since as you acknowledge below that you had the wrong impression, and were maybe no more substantive than Disney-like Media. If I assume you mean like Bambi, Snow White, etc, you would certainly be correct. It is clear, however, after you've cited the appropriate scripture, that I had JC figured all wrong. I don't know where I got my impressions of JC from, given my very atheist upbringing. I can only surmise that it was from some sort of syrupy, Disney-like media presentations. From what you've presented about JC, in making your case that JC would support captital punishment, he is obviously anything but loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving. You show him to sanction murder: state-sanctioned murder. Where is the love? Where is the foregiveness? Most Christians have based their lives on these common assumptions made by those around us. It saves us having to really know what we believe or really work to find out what the real issues of life are. It is easy to drift along on the current of common assumptions. Most Christians have also allowed this CD to exist in the minds of those who they contend with, and come out basically smelling like a bunch of wuss. Then those who watch, make the assumption that all Christians are wuss. Then they conclude that not wanting to be wuss themselves, they would not really be interested in this Christianity thing for themself, Thankyou very much. Now at the same time the watchers are deciding they are not interested in being wuss, the Christians are trying to tiddy up their world by being exceedingly "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving," or at least a reasonable facsimile of such. Again promoting the impression further that Christians are "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving," wuss, translation, Doormats! And the watchers are even less interested. Now every once in awhile, the Christians get the idea, that they really need to get involved in their world, so as to "save the World", and what better way than in politics. They bring all their previous accounted for baggage, but really not having any idea why they are even here, and not knowing what the political issues of their day are, and so at best just start making a bunch of noise. Sometimes they have been aligned with the left, because the left has the reputation of "caring about the down trodden, poor, and weak", and sometimes with the right, because they are right, "believe in everything good, and wholesome, America, apple pie, and right." At least that is the current right-wing Christian understanding, which is currently making the most noise! Truthfully, frtwz, I don't think their ideas have a whole lot more depth than that, and their attempt at "loving, charitable, peaceful, and forgiving" attitude is not much better grounded in the faith they say they profess. I have talked to many, who have no idea about what they believe, about being a Christian, the Faith they say they profess, and certainly not about politics. Now I was before, and I am now trying to be brutally honest in order to stop you from making a false assumption based on what you think Christians believe and how they act. Then having made that false assumption, trying to make a conclusion about what our attitude, and JC attitude would be regarding Capital Punishment. I was not trying to be petty or evasive, but felt that we had to get to these points. It really does not matter what I, or anyone else think, what JC would do. At best it would be an unsubstatiated assumption, that we can only say what He did in the past, though under different situation. And at best, so much different than what we expected, that we can not compute the odds. It really does not matter what Christians do, or don't do, because they are like radical ions, with an unpredictable path at best, and a pretty bad predictable path at worst, and certainly not reliable consistent history to base anything on, especially politics. Despite your attempt, to be nice and recognize my understanding of God, and to be Politically Correct, to include JC in the equation, you really don't care about all that, nor have the inclination to want to really get into in, except for how it may support your position. Any proof, of any assumptions, would be way beyond your expertise or interest. So, clearly Tink, there's a case of cognitive dissonance. I've had to change my view of JC. Of course, you're free to continue the "JC goes to Washington" exercise with fellow right-wngers. It's sure to help you find even greater congruence between mean-spirited policies and the teachings of your faith. Thanks for the enlightenment, Tink. Cheers, frtzw906 Which brings me back to your point that there are some bad things going on with capital punishment, and especially as it is practice in the US. Is that a fair starting point? Personally I would rather not continue with anyone else if I can entice you back into an interesting discussion, less the WWJD angle. We have worked to hard to get to this point! And please spare yourself the grief by making assumptions about me and what I believe, and where I would come out on any particula subject, for as I think you begin to understand, you do not have the data to make any such assumption or conclusion. I would also like to encourage you also if possible, that not all Christians are mean-spirited and nasty SOBs that are looking for someone to pull the switch on. But then that is just one of my assumptions. We have yet to examine either of our assumtions on that score, so I don't know that you need to make any particular conclusions about what you have seen so far, about me, about other Christians, and certainly about JC! Respectfully, TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. Sure it is. Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon? Also Yes. Well, there you go. It's not the guns, it's the people. There'd have been less people shot without the guns. Utopian nonsense. But at least you don't have many people here who think that they need to own an assault weapon or that the "right" to own an assault weapon is more important than the right to not have your neighbourhood shot up with semi-automatic fire. Wanna bet? Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our culture? Not. Would you be more unsafe? Yes, most definitely. You're dangerously wrong. You also show a deep mistrust of your fellow citizens. Would the individuals who ARE shot by criminals be safer if they were allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves? No, and other innocent people would be dead. So, it's okay with you that people are killed because they are rendered defenseless by you and your ilk? Probably, but the point is that it is immoral for YOU to disarm THEM because YOU are afraid of guns. ? Yes, it's quite clear you don't understand. Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane to think like that. So why is it that many Canadians are objecting to the draconian gun laws in Canada? You just finished saying that gun ownership in Canada is quite high. How does that mesh with draconian gun laws? The ownership preceded the laws, which are being ignored wholesale. Why is it that BC is opting out of the gun registration scheme, which is WAY over budget and is flatly unsuccessful? Because a bunch of incompetent bureacrats were given the job, and the fact that it was a gun registry that they messed up has little to do with why people are ****ed off. They are ****ed off because they fouled it up and spent way to much. If the car registry system worked that badly, we'd be just as ****ed off. And, it doesn't work. For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it. What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA? Why don't you do some research and get back to me. And then smuggle it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns like they are the second coming of jesus christ. Do you have any evidence that Americans are smuggling guns into Japan? That's not what I said. That's exactly what you said. No? I didn't think so. In fact, it's Japanese who are smuggling guns into Japan, and Englishmen who are smuggling guns into Britain, and Australians who are smuggling guns into Australia. And to debunk your claim in advance, no, most of those guns are not smuggled directly from the US, many of them aren't even manufactured in the US. And many are. So what? They are a legal consumer product here. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for what criminals do with illicit firearms. But you still fail to explain how it is that your Utopian ideal is not being met even in Japan. I don't have a Utopian ideal. Sure you do. I like to live in a place where people don't get shot. Who wouldn't. Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and victimized by violent criminals. I happen to believe that a place where people don't associate their love of guns with their love of life is a safer place to be. What a singularly ridiculous statement. According to you, one who loves his life is wrong to wish to protect it. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****? No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm going to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when it's required. Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special hole in the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable and necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is children, wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member of their own family. Not very often at all, particularly when compared to the number of times that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime. Bad things happen. People get killed in accidents every day. More children die by drowning than are accidentally killed by firearms, and the number of children accidentally killed by firearms is at an all-time low and continues to go down, thanks in large part to the NRA. You should note that Gandhi was killed with a gun, and that even though Britain is not in control of India anymore, there is a wealth of guns, not to mention nuclear weapons, in India at the moment, and that non-violence hasn't gone very far in dealing with Pakistan. Uh. And to you this is an argument for a stronger gun culture? Indeed. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Peace through superior firepower is even recognized in India, which is why they have an army armed with firearms, among other weapons. Why are you pointing out that India has an armed forces? They have from moment one. To make it clear that even your utopian icon was wrong. Me, I'll achieve peace through superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey. ROFL. The myth of the violent stranger in the bush. That's not who is going to kill you. That's who kills most of the people in the world. Actually, it isn't. It's a relative or other person that is known to you. Actually, you're spouting long-debunked HCI claptrap again. But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons waiting for the stranger to pop out of the bush. Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun. You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of your own family Not true. This is more HCI claptrap that has been long disproven. You keep waiting for the stranger then. Do you have a fire extinguisher? How about accident insurance on your car? - or on yourself. That would be my right, now wouldn't it? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if you exercise it one day. And why would that be an issue for you? Or you'll put a big hole in some person you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your chance to be a hero gunslinger. I doubt it. I've been carrying a concealed handgun almost every day of my life for more than 20 years, and I haven't shot anybody yet. I haven't shot anybody either! And I didn't have to carry a gun around for 20 years. Cool! Indeed. Lucky too. Have you checked that fire extinguisher lately? Nor do the vast, vast majority of people who choose to be legally armed. The "blood running in the gutters" hysteria you parrot simply doesn't happen where concealed carry is made lawful. Still, I'll take the chance, and I'll take responsibility for every round I'm forced to fire. Nobody said it was easy or that carrying a gun should be taken lightly. Mostly it's a pain in the ass. Guns are weighty, and bulky, and they seriously constrain your wardrobe choices, even in the heat of summer. You have to manage your gun carefully *every second* of the day when you're in public. Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or even keep their shoes tied. My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man. It makes me more than a little nervous that they are carrying around concealed weapons. Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the chances are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying a gun. Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's most likely to be a law-abiding citizen. Take it off at lunch or at the gym and forget it *just once* and you'll be in deep doo doo with the police. No, it's not for everybody by any means. But what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. I disagree. And you're free to do so because people with guns secured the right and the ability for you to do so. But I take my duty to myself and my fellow citizens seriously, so I choose to be inconvenienced in order that I am prepared to step up and defend the defenseless should it be necessary. You take delusions of grandeur seriously, which is what a big part of weapons ownership seems to be about. Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward. -- 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 KMAN wrote:
"BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Weiser says: ================ ...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? frtzw906 That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is more important than ANYTHING. Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised at the mercy of those in power. -- 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 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. -- 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 |
|
|
|
Tinkerntom wrote: BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: I am desiring to address your post again, and so have reopened it. If you are interested to respond, I would desire to hear from you. I posted to this before, but I kept getting a server error so apparently it never went through, at least Google is not showing it. If you with your news service did receive something earlier, I would like to know. It all works good when it works good, but when its bad, so sorry! ============== I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false assumption. I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent fact, that you presented little support for making those assumptions. ============ Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to you, and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such faulty notions. Yes, and Good. Tink says: ============= You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and your conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently unsupported, and at worst, totally false. ================ Too right, Tink! I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy, left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable to pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects. You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right out of my head. I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. I regret that I was the one that had to knock you on the silly noggen, but if it provides stimulation for you to consider that some of your other notions may not be correct, then I hope you will forgive me for upsetting your tidy little world! Tink says: ====================== You are probably in the position that until you can present supportable assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable conclusions about the above discussion. =================== Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that you know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I have supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking about, right?) I referred you to limited scriptures referring specifically to capital punishment, which you then made certain conclusions about the nature of God in general, and of JC in particular. There are many more scriptures to be examined before we could determine such a broad subject, and certainly not to be determined by your preconceived ideas based on your predjudice and nothing I said and/or scripture I have todate even referred to, would support your jumps in logic. And in fact, it appears, that you would not actually be willing to accept the scriptures I do present to you as being authoritative, and that I know what I am talking about. I would rather you tell me that you think that I am full of ****, than for you to patronize me. In the proof of logic, you should provide your own proof. If I provide the proof for your position, you would not know if I am blowing smoke up your ass, because you don't have any basis to judge the validity or not, of what I am saying. And hence any conclusion you make, is you just trying to blow smoke up mine! In fact, the further logical conclusion I pointed you to, if you really cared, is that the very death penalty, resulted in the greatest acts of love that have ever been displayed, by Christ, and have inspired many other men to great acts of love as well. Hardly basis for your following conclusion if you really care! So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus, not a guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to reach, wasn't it? frtzw906 See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at crunching numbers, would you please do the honors? Your conclusion in your last paragraph, illustrates my concern about you being able to make valid conclusions. You concluded that I wanted you to conclude that JC "is not a charitable and forgiving God." You have heard enough from me recently to know that that is not a logical conclusion from other things I have said, and so your assumtions and conclusions must be faulted to allow you to arrive at that conclusion. But you posted your faulted conclusion none the less, indicating an unwillingness to consider all the data, or a preconceived notion of what conclusion you wanted to arrive at; the first intellectually slothful at best, and the second intellectually dishonest at worst. I prefer to think better of you, and would be willing to look at these issues further if you desire. Now if you don't care, and don't desire, and really don't want to deal honestly with these issues, or even the issue of Capital Punishment, I am willing to allow you to concede, that you really are not prepared to present these concerns and issues, and we can go happily on our way. That does not mean, that you do not have valid concerns and issues that would be beneficial to consider. If you would like to consider any of your other lefty ideas, I am still open. Respectfully TnT |
KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don=B9t exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. KMAN, if I could ask a question, real quick. I heard on the news the other day about a shoot out up there in Canada somewhere, something about 4 mounties getting killed. Have you heard anything further. I have not had time to research the story, but if I recall, the man evidently shot himself. But No other details, about where he got his gun, what else was going on. TnT |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "bearsbuddy" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position, and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post, and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you will. TnT I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child! Mark Tinkerntom never played dodge ball. Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began explaining what he expected of the other game participants. They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished. But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10. Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling! Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating statements can result in the game being called. Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to be called. Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in, over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called. #5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the current game being called. #6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called! #7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there descreation. #8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two participants who have not called the game or conceded. #9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any time another gamester can be found willing to play. #10 Have Fun! Thanks for your interest. TnT Translation: Tinkerntom spent a lot of time alone. Can you support that with any documentation, or proof, or is it just BS. I played chess, which is typically a game between two individuals. I compensated by playing multiple games at the same time. Some games were very short lived, but it allowed us to start another game immediately. These were the best games though, because usually the gamesters were not so vested in winning, and just wanted to have fun. Other games lasted for quite awhile, and seemed to be enjoyable to all involved, who also typically wanted to immediately wanted to play again in order to redeem their apparently shattered egoes. They should have known better than to put their egoes on the line. I am not sure why they were so willing to put their egoes on the line again, if it hurt so much the last time. Eventually they apparently did not enjoy the game so much and would get all mean and nasty over a game. It is still a mystery to me! I eventually wearied of playing on a flat static game board though and sought greater challenges. I found the tableau of our mind very interesting and stimulating. You can engage each other where ever you find yourselves, and can even use the electronic media. It is a wonderful, exciting world that we live in, with all the eligible challengers. TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I've lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to a member of a police force. Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they donąt exist. In fact, gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis. I know they exist. This is my point, it is not a gun culture. KMAN, if I could ask a question, real quick. I heard on the news the other day about a shoot out up there in Canada somewhere, something about 4 mounties getting killed. Have you heard anything further. Of course, Tinkerntom. It's on the front page of every paper and the lead on every newscast. have not had time to research the story, but if I recall, the man evidently shot himself. But No other details, about where he got his gun, what else was going on. TnT He was a gun nut who hated the police. The officers thought he was not on the property and they were ambushed. One of the funerals is today. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "bearsbuddy" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... So having said these things, I would like you to restate your position, and provide your supporting evidence, so that I can consider it with the other stuff removed. This should entail editing your above post, and copying your quoted evidence. Starting with a clean slate if you will. TnT I bet you played a HELL of a game of dodge-ball, as a child! Mark Tinkerntom never played dodge ball. Before the start of his first scheduled game, Tinkerntom began explaining what he expected of the other game participants. They were all too old to be in school by the time he was finished. But then he could always find someone else to play with, who was willing to play by the rules, and especially rules #1 thru #10. Rule #1 No name calling. If name calling becomes the predominant feature of the game, the game is no longer fun, intereresting, and thought provoking. The game can be called for name calling! Rule #2 Since denigrating statements do not contribute to the subject being discussed, but are typically diversions by those unable to support their own position, and typically do not add to the content of the discussion in a substantive way, continued use of denigrating statements can result in the game being called. Rule #3 Rules #1 and #2 can be applied to the current game, or to concurrent games being played, where the violations occur, that become distracting to the current game, and are cause for the current game to be called. Rule #4 Any topic is open to discussion if both parties agree, and are willing to provide supporting documentation as requested by other gamesters. Since failure to provide, results in unsupported BS littering the game field, which the various gamesters may step in, over, around, completely ignore, or stop the game momentarily to clean up. If all this fails, and the gamesters cannot determine a mutually acceptable agreement and resolution of the BS, the game may be called. #5 Other Rules can and will be made up by any participant, as the game progresses, and as applied to the current game, may result in the current game being called. #6 Excessive Rules can result in the game being called! #7 Enforcement of the rules is up to, and at the discreation of each gamester, allowing him/her, to call the game as far as his participation, if others choose to continue to play, that is at there descreation. #8 The Game can be played as long as there are at least two participants who have not called the game or conceded. #9 Any Gamester, may set on the sidelines for any indeterminate amount of time, and may rejoin the game at any time, and if all others have called the game, or conceded, may attempt to restart the game at any time another gamester can be found willing to play. #10 Have Fun! Thanks for your interest. TnT Translation: Tinkerntom spent a lot of time alone. Can you support that with any documentation, or proof, or is it just BS. Humour, Tinkerntom. I'll explain. The idea is that you have a bit of trouble being brief, and that you also like to constrain others through rules that meet your personal needs. I believe there is a general sense of this among all those that communicate with you here, but let's forget that, and just say that this is a description that I have arrived at from interacting with you. Your propensity for long-windedness, combined with your need for rules that you alone define, could lead one to humorously assume that you spent time alone because the other children could not possible put up with it all. I played chess, which is typically a game between two individuals. I compensated by playing multiple games at the same time. Some games were very short lived, but it allowed us to start another game immediately. These were the best games though, because usually the gamesters were not so vested in winning, and just wanted to have fun. Other games lasted for quite awhile, and seemed to be enjoyable to all involved, who also typically wanted to immediately wanted to play again in order to redeem their apparently shattered egoes. They should have known better than to put their egoes on the line. I am not sure why they were so willing to put their egoes on the line again, if it hurt so much the last time. Eventually they apparently did not enjoy the game so much and would get all mean and nasty over a game. It is still a mystery to me! I eventually wearied of playing on a flat static game board though and sought greater challenges. I found the tableau of our mind very interesting and stimulating. You can engage each other where ever you find yourselves, and can even use the electronic media. It is a wonderful, exciting world that we live in, with all the eligible challengers. TnT Uh. Certainly. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Oh how I love Usenet when Scott Weiser says: ============== ...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. AT Mar 7, 12:46 pm ================== But, almost 8 hours later Scott Weiser states: ============================== 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 Scott Weiser AT Mar 7, 8:13 pm =========================== So, now Scott Weiser needs to decide if governments can make decisions about the ownership of guns (as per his 8:13 comment) OR if NO ONE (not even the aforementioned government) has the right to deny him his gun ownership. Which is it to be, Scott? It's both. Our government is constrained in its power by our fundamental organizing documents. Within the authority granted to the government by the people, the government has wide authority. But it cannot step one inch outside the boundary we the people have established. There is a method for changing those fundamental documents, and yes, it is possible for society to decide to abrogate fundamental rights. Our Constitution includes within it the seeds of its own destruction, and at the core, the people have the right to decide what kind of government they will live under. Then again, the people, or some sub-set of them, can decide to resist any attempt to modify our fundamental documents in ways which abrogate fundamental rights. It's called the "right of revolution." The difference between most societies and the US is that we openly recognize this right of revolution, and we have set things up to make revolution always present and cogent threat to attempts to infringe fundamental rights or impose tyranny. That is one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment. It is designed to ensure that the whole populace is well armed at all times and thus fully capable of rising up in arms against a government that has stepped beyond the boundaries set for it. As to who had the right of revolution, the answer is that each of us does. The only requirement for the legitimate use of the right of revolution is that you have to win. If you lose, you're a traitor and a criminal and you usually get killed. That's the check and balance on the right of revolution. Timothy McVeigh exercised the right of revolution, but he failed in his quest to foment a general uprising against what he felt was a tyrannical, illegitimate government. Thus, instead of being a revolutionary hero like Washington, he's a terrorist traitor, and now he's dead. That's the way the system works. This does not mean, however, that the right to keep and bear arms is entirely free of reasonable regulation in the public interest. But such regulation must be constrained to the regulation of the time, place and manner of bearing and using arms only. Such regulations may not legitimately restrict or deny the right to peaceably keep and bear any and all arms appropriate for self defense or military use. Thus, a law may legitimately forbid the firing of a weapon for purposes of other than necessary self defense in crowded urban areas. But the law may not legitimately forbid a person from carrying arms in crowded urban areas, nor may the law forbid the peaceable ownership and possession of arms, absent some justification caused by the malfeasance of the individual. -- 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 |
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Give it time. There you go again - using predictinos about the future to try to prove a point about the past. Dickhead. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/7/05 6:06 PM: "bearsbuddy" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "Mark H. Bowen" wrote in message .. . Rick, Is it your position that Americans don't die while waiting for health care, because of the convenience of the U.S. healthcare system? ====================== Another mind-numbed jingoistic chest-thumper? Please enlighten me! Where exactly does jingoism come into play in my question? No. I have stated that the US system has many many faults. My entry into this 'discussion' was prompted by the deliberate lies that kman made about no one dying while waiting for treatment in Canada. KMAN has stated on numerous occasions that he didn't assert that "no one [is] dying while waiting for treatment in Canada." ===================== No, that isn't what his latest assertion have been all about. I suggest you read with a little more comprehension. He has been asserting that he never claimed that no one is WAITING for treatment in Canada. Which is correct. I never did. The only quote you have posted from me was made in response to your interpretation of a story about people in Newfoundland waiting for a specific type of test while under a doctor's care. ======================= No fool, you've been shown that your reply was not when I posted about nfld waiting. You posted your lie while we where discussiong the waiting briought on by the conveninece of the opatient vs the 'convenience' of the health system. Whether 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, liarman... |
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
The AIDS epidemic is overwhelmingly among heterosexuals. Any reasonable source for AIDS statistics will point that out. It is now. It wasn't in the beginning. Bull**** again - the statistics for Africa have always overwhelmed those of America and AIDS in Africa is overwhelmingly transmitted between heterosexuals. I wasn't blaming anybody for anything, I was merely stating some facts. Not when you make up the "facts". The point is that a society is not compelled to sanction every possible behavior by an individual. Permitting and sanctioning are two different things. Mike |
On 7-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
And does it have to say "this is what God looks like" in order for God to decide to look like something else? What makes you think that God is constrained by the words in a book? It is clearly a waste of time trying to discuss this with you. TinkernTom has already pointed out that what I am talking about is over your head. Mike |
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 |
"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. |
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 |
"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...... |
"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. |
"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. |
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, thatąs 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 |
"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 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/8/05 12:36 AM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... Weiser says: ================ ...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever. ================= You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions. So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher" right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't. Which is it Scott? frtzw906 That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is more important than ANYTHING. Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised at the mercy of those in power. I just know I will regret this, but have you heard of the concepts of police and armed forces? Yup. When was the last time that the police were around to prevent a crime? You do know that the police are, first and foremost, a reactive organization, not a protector, don't you? As for the armed forces, they are not the police and have no place enforcing law, and they are one of the threats against which our society chooses to be armed. -- 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 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com