|
|
|
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? No, you are not correct in assuming this, or in assuming that their faith even goes this far! More explanation below. frtzw906 Back with you frtwz, and I have just read through a number of post that were subsequent to our discussion. They were interesting, and some what insightful, however, presented from the outside, looking in. Not necessarily an invalid observation, but limited. What I have observed, is on two levels. The first is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, true Christianity is not a religion,. Second, there are religious crowds currently flocking to the political right. True Christianity is not represented by any particular political party. Let's start with the second, I have seen an apparent growing alignment, or should I say coalition between the religious right, and the political right, that has become more pronounced and marked by its vocalness. Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. So the alignment is fairly natural and easy to maintain, at least initially. We will see if it lasts. I have maintained all along that any politician should be careful about claiming exclusive right to the support and endorsement of the religious right. They can easily turn on you if they feel that they are not getting the attention from you that they want, need, and think they deserve and become the religious left. The religious right can be a fierce political taskmaster as well as many politicians have also found out. There have been times when the relious, have aligned with the right, and others with the left. You remember the born-again president we had a few years back, by the name of Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. He was pretty well liked, and with his getting the wall torn down, some thought he might usher in the millenium of peace. But when that didn't happen, and instead there was the embarassment of the Iran-Contra, and a few other scandals, the religious were looking for some other spotless flag bearer. What was his name, oh yeah, George 1, and Bob Dole, and that was the problem there, no fire in the belly, but I think Episcopalian, which they tried even to get that lead ballon to float. But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. Kerry was offered as a liberal version of a Dole, part-full of religious hot air, but no where to go! or at least no way to go up! The religious right, can easily change labels and issues, and become the religious left. They are like the sea, sloshing this way and that, depending on which way the wind is blowing, the position of the moon, and the wake from a passing ship. But, whichever way they seem to be sloshing at the time, they are a big voting block, and whoever can lay claim to them seems willing to bear the load at least until the next election, and the next election is what most politicians are concerned about. The political issues that the religious are currently concerned with are nebulous at best, and change rapidly, and certainly do not represent any sort of Christian dogma that I have ever seen or heard. The claim that there is such an alignment, is just that a claim, a bunch of noise. And I doubt that the true Christian message has even less to do with all the noise, though there are some who claim to be Christians making a whole lot of noise. The thing that is interesting, is to ask one of these types questions about the political issues, religious issues, and about being a true Christian. Ususally you find that they have no idea about any of the issues, political or religious, and are doing what some religious leader told them needed to be done. For example, even to the point of sending out emails bombs in support of their cause. The fact that the emails are exact copies provided by the leaders, and still even include the instructions of who and when and how to send the email bombs. This ends up saying more about the persons sending the email, than the message within the email. They maybe don't know how to send email, and it makes them feel powerful to be apart of this mass mailing, or they don't understand or care to understand the actual issues, they are willing to let someone else do that. Sort of an electronic mob mentality! Of course they probably vote the same way, with the same thought and understanding! I have also found that many of this type are equally uninformed of what it means to be a Christian. They are use to the mob mentality of going to chuch, which plays into the hands of their leaders in the previous paragraph. True Christians are taught to be discerning, and the mob exibits little discernment. So though they are religious, I have difficulty identifying them as true Christians. True Christians are suppose to be discerning, and they are also suppose to be disentangled from the world. When a leader comes along and tells me I should just jump on his carnival cruise liner, I am more inclined to say no thank you! Usually I have found that they are more interested in lining their pockets, than in training their followers to make mature, independent, and descerning judgements about where the good ship Lollypop is headed next. True Christians are also to be detached and dispassionate about the hubbub that goes on around us. We are not to be caught up into the noise of the market place, just adding our noise to it, and so losing our unique identity. We are not to just be noise makers, but we are witnesses of significant events and issues that take place outside the market place. If what we have, never gets anyone to look outside, we are no different than the other vendors. The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. Any apparent attraction, is just that, apparent, and has absolutely nothing to do with being a Christian. Religious maybe, but don't hold your breath on that either! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? No, you are not correct in assuming this, or in assuming that their faith even goes this far! More explanation below. frtzw906 Back with you frtwz, and I have just read through a number of post that were subsequent to our discussion. They were interesting, and some what insightful, however, presented from the outside, looking in. Not necessarily an invalid observation, but limited. What I have observed, is on two levels. The first is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, true Christianity is not a religion,. Second, there are religious crowds currently flocking to the political right. True Christianity is not represented by any particular political party. Let's start with the second, I have seen an apparent growing alignment, or should I say coalition between the religious right, and the political right, that has become more pronounced and marked by its vocalness. Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. So the alignment is fairly natural and easy to maintain, at least initially. We will see if it lasts. I have maintained all along that any politician should be careful about claiming exclusive right to the support and endorsement of the religious right. They can easily turn on you if they feel that they are not getting the attention from you that they want, need, and think they deserve and become the religious left. The religious right can be a fierce political taskmaster as well as many politicians have also found out. There have been times when the relious, have aligned with the right, and others with the left. You remember the born-again president we had a few years back, by the name of Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. He was pretty well liked, and with his getting the wall torn down, some thought he might usher in the millenium of peace. But when that didn't happen, and instead there was the embarassment of the Iran-Contra, and a few other scandals, the religious were looking for some other spotless flag bearer. What was his name, oh yeah, George 1, and Bob Dole, and that was the problem there, no fire in the belly, but I think Episcopalian, which they tried even to get that lead ballon to float. But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. Kerry was offered as a liberal version of a Dole, part-full of religious hot air, but no where to go! or at least no way to go up! The religious right, can easily change labels and issues, and become the religious left. They are like the sea, sloshing this way and that, depending on which way the wind is blowing, the position of the moon, and the wake from a passing ship. But, whichever way they seem to be sloshing at the time, they are a big voting block, and whoever can lay claim to them seems willing to bear the load at least until the next election, and the next election is what most politicians are concerned about. The political issues that the religious are currently concerned with are nebulous at best, and change rapidly, and certainly do not represent any sort of Christian dogma that I have ever seen or heard. The claim that there is such an alignment, is just that a claim, a bunch of noise. And I doubt that the true Christian message has even less to do with all the noise, though there are some who claim to be Christians making a whole lot of noise. The thing that is interesting, is to ask one of these types questions about the political issues, religious issues, and about being a true Christian. Ususally you find that they have no idea about any of the issues, political or religious, and are doing what some religious leader told them needed to be done. For example, even to the point of sending out emails bombs in support of their cause. The fact that the emails are exact copies provided by the leaders, and still even include the instructions of who and when and how to send the email bombs. This ends up saying more about the persons sending the email, than the message within the email. They maybe don't know how to send email, and it makes them feel powerful to be apart of this mass mailing, or they don't understand or care to understand the actual issues, they are willing to let someone else do that. Sort of an electronic mob mentality! Of course they probably vote the same way, with the same thought and understanding! I have also found that many of this type are equally uninformed of what it means to be a Christian. They are use to the mob mentality of going to chuch, which plays into the hands of their leaders in the previous paragraph. True Christians are taught to be discerning, and the mob exibits little discernment. So though they are religious, I have difficulty identifying them as true Christians. True Christians are suppose to be discerning, and they are also suppose to be disentangled from the world. When a leader comes along and tells me I should just jump on his carnival cruise liner, I am more inclined to say no thank you! Usually I have found that they are more interested in lining their pockets, than in training their followers to make mature, independent, and descerning judgements about where the good ship Lollypop is headed next. True Christians are also to be detached and dispassionate about the hubbub that goes on around us. We are not to be caught up into the noise of the market place, just adding our noise to it, and so losing our unique identity. We are not to just be noise makers, but we are witnesses of significant events and issues that take place outside the market place. If what we have, never gets anyone to look outside, we are no different than the other vendors. The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. Any apparent attraction, is just that, apparent, and has absolutely nothing to do with being a Christian. Religious maybe, but don't hold your breath on that either! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? frtzw906 I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both get something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they want; the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to pick the winning side. I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on your side? TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... ... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 You seem to have missed copying some of KMAN list, so I thought I would copy the whole list! :) a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. What clean lab do you have access to conduct these measurements and tests, that are not corrupted by the very humanity which you are testing? Which of your lab technicians do you trust to run these test, or do you actually run them all yourself, and each has to run them all for themselves, and you expect to get equivalent and consistent results? And this would result in data that is reliable enough to put your faith in eventually! You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith! There is the Bureau of Standards in Boulder, that would regulate any test in the physical world. What bureau of standards do you ascribe to in your test? Did you say you set your own? b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. One of the main human problems is knowing what the problem is, any observation is subject to the problem! Results in a questionable data base that is surely corrupted! and answers none of the important human conditions. Not only does not answer, but obviscates the truth, and blinds the eyes of those who may take it upon themselves to run the test themselves. This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of clay, or lead, or crap. Still does not work! Talk about faith and mysticism, you have a better chance believing your going to win the next 1000 lotteries. c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. Noble hogwash at best. Works until someone cuts you off on the highway, on the way to work at the lab! Or the grocery store clerk breaks the eggs, and crushes the bread! Or someone breaks into the lab and ruins all your tests, and you have to start all over. How many times a day do you have to start over? d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. A nice way of saying, I can't believe anything I say, and especially what you say. There is nothing objective about it, it is all subjective, and in particular subject to the human condition. e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap! Ask HST! f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. Searching in the dark, Blind, you grab what you can, justify it as ethical, and judge others by it, while they grabbed what they could, and do the same to you. But you are both still in the dark at best, and probably headed for the previously mentioned dungheap in e. above! g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. What conviction, what corrupted reason, the shops are all closed! Will, maybe but not free to be good! And Tolerance (some struggle when they are told God loves them!) and for ourselves and our children. You won't be around long enough to see your children, end up on their dungheap to be able to change it for them, if you could. And lacking all these, none of it matters, and if we had any of these we would still end up on the dungheap. But if it makes you feel better, go for it! Also know this, there is a God, and He Loves you, and that changes the whole equation above. TnT |
KMAN wrote: ....snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT |
KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... TnT asks: ============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper stickers. I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would have no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a couple boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed. For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of men's mind called god either! TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in an invisible man. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... TnT asks: ============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper stickers. I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would have no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a couple boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed. For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of men's mind called god either! TnT New bumper sticker: "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of Tinkerntom's mind called god" |
Scott:
============== Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by one person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant. An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an individual and a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can only kill one person. Your analogy fails. ================ You think so? frtzw906 |
Scott protests:
============= Because that would be letting him off the hook, which I don't intend to do until he admits that he was wrong. All he has to do is admit that buying an "assault weapon" in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a pack of gum. ============= OK, let's rephrase that. "For all intents, buying an "assault weapon" in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a pack of gum." I think we all get the point: it is easy. 'Nuff said. Move on! Next point? frtzw906 |
Weiser nit-picks:
=================== The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns. "Safer" /= "safe." ============= NOBODY is absolutely SAFE. Safer trumps less safe. Particularly when we look at relative magnitudes. Canadians are MUCH safer from guns than Americans. frtzw906 |
Scott Weiser:
================ The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum, such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers engaged in conducting public business. ================ And a very wise decision that would be. Such symbols, in a park, would be appropriate if they served the same function as these same symbols in a museum. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
============== Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. ============= Hmmmm... are you sure that's correct? JC was hardly an advocate for the status quo (and what about those Latin American Catholic priests who bucked the pope and the entire Catholic bureaucracy?). But, OK, for the sake of this discussion, we'll go with your premise. Tink says: ============ Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. =============== How was he an embarassment. I would think that his current charitable work would be a credit to any regigious group. Tink says: ============== Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. ================== Do you believe that about Reagan? About being born-again, I mean. I suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to befriend the religious right. Tink: ============= But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. ================= Do you believe that about Clinton? About being born-again, I mean. I suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to get votes in the South Tink says: ================= The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. ================ Tink, I think you've made a very cogent argument. Perhaps you're right. I'll stew on that for a bit. Cheers, frtzw906 |
Tink thinks:
============= I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both get something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they want; the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to pick the winning side. ============= Again, I think you've made some cogent points. What it points to, if you're correct, is some fairly shallow commitments to Christianity on the parts of many fundamentalist, born-agains. Upon reflection, I ought not to be surpised because, as you point out, many of these people do follow like so many sheep. Sadly, this does not reflect positively on the Republicans, nor the religious right. Tink asks: ================= I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on your side? =================== I want critical thinkers on my side, but I'll reveal my prejudice. Overt expressions of religiousity -- whether from a right or left-wing politician -- will generally ensure my vote going to another candidate. Fortunately, in Canada, politicians do not feel the need to add a gratuitous "God bless Canada." to the end of every speech or to attand church on Sunday. In fact, overt expressions of religiousity are, I think, a political liability in Canada. frtzw906 |
Tink, in reference to humanism:
================ You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith! ===================== And how is this different from the dumb blind faith of a religious person? Tink: ============== This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of clay, or lead, or crap. Still does not work! ======================= Sorry, lead -- gold has been achieved many times. Here in Vancouver, for example, at TRIUMF - Tri University Meson Facility. Tink: =============== A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap! Ask HST! =================== What ARE you talking about. Secular humanists create (art, music, teach, coach, etc) so as to leave a lasting impression. For us, it's the only chance we've got. We're not like crazed religious nuts who would fly planes into buildings because there is some damned after-life. There is NO after-life. That's why humanists do the best they can while they're here. They're the pacifists. The teachers. The artists. The scientists. They're the ones who give a damn about making THIS life better! And your logic about their art being trash on a dung-heap escapes me. My after-life, insofar as there'll be one, exists in the impression I leave behind. My after life rests entirely - solely - on my achievements. On this point, Tink, you haven't a clue! frtzw906 |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in an invisible man. As to any evidence whether any of us qualify or not is probably fleeting at best, so I will not hold your feet to the fire on this one! As to this invisible man that you keep talking about, that is mean, short tempered, and judgemental; sounds to me like you have a pretty clear vision of who he is, and of whom they are speaking! You are found out in the retoric of your denial. The more you deny, the increased basis of denial you must depend on that you don't believe. The more noise of denial you make, indicates that you actually have something that you believe you are wrestling with that must be denied. If in fact you did not believe, you would not be threatened by this non-existant invisible being, and would have nothing to deny. You could actually go through life quite quietly, with nothing to prove to any one about this invisible man that does not exist. But if you go through life yelling at/or about this invisible man that does not exist, some may doubt your sanity. I sure hear a lot of noise, coming from your direction. :) TnT |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... TnT asks: ============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper stickers. I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would have no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a couple boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed. For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of men's mind called god either! TnT New bumper sticker: "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of Tinkerntom's mind called god" You might have trouble selling that one, very few know who TnT is, and you would spend all your time explaining it. Then having expained it, like a joke you have to explain, most will pass on purchasing the item for sale, or laughing at the joke. TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============== Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. ============= Hmmmm... are you sure that's correct? JC was hardly an advocate for the status quo (and what about those Latin American Catholic priests who bucked the pope and the entire Catholic bureaucracy?). But, OK, for the sake of this discussion, we'll go with your premise. Ok, but see that I said "tend", some times they go off and do something totally unexpected, which makes them very difficult political bedfellows to endure for long, as I said, don't look for logic! Tink says: ============ Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. =============== How was he an embarassment. I would think that his current charitable work would be a credit to any regigious group. Granted, he has gone out and redeemed his image, but when he left office, the religious were embarrassed. I do not know what truly motivates him, so I don't know whether they would be embarassed now. He could just be interested in building his legacy, which is self serving, and not really philantrophic, and certainly not Christian! He seems to me to relish the camera and spotlight to much to convince me that there are not ulterior motives. Tink says: ============== Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. ================== Do you believe that about Reagan? About being born-again, I mean. I suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to befriend the religious right. I did not again personally know Reagan to make any sort of specific judgement, though as a politician, I suspect that there was some political opportunism going on as with Carter. Tink: ============= But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. ================= Do you believe that about Clinton? About being born-again, I mean. I suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to get votes in the South Ditto! Tink says: ================= The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. ================ Tink, I think you've made a very cogent argument. Perhaps you're right. I'll stew on that for a bit. Cheers, frtzw906 Don't burn the stew! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink thinks: ============= I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both get something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they want; the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to pick the winning side. ============= Again, I think you've made some cogent points. What it points to, if you're correct, is some fairly shallow commitments to Christianity on the parts of many fundamentalist, born-agains. Upon reflection, I ought not to be surpised because, as you point out, many of these people do follow like so many sheep. Bingo! Sadly, this does not reflect positively on the Republicans, nor the religious right. Ditto! Tink asks: ================= I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on your side? =================== I want critical thinkers on my side, but I'll reveal my prejudice. Overt expressions of religiousity -- whether from a right or left-wing politician -- will generally ensure my vote going to another candidate. Fortunately, in Canada, politicians do not feel the need to add a gratuitous "God bless Canada." to the end of every speech or to attand church on Sunday. In fact, overt expressions of religiousity are, I think, a political liability in Canada. frtzw906 In this country, where the political scene is limited to basically two political parties, it is very subject to a large SIG voting block, and what larger, more pliable and motivated group is there than the religious. A large percentage of whom will get up off the couch to go to church on Sunday at least. Most couch potatoes won't go out to vote, unless they get really motivated by something like 9/11. Then they quickly go back to their couch, where they don't want to be disturbed from their pretzels and beer. Now that is unfortunate! TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink, in reference to humanism: ================ You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith! ===================== And how is this different from the dumb blind faith of a religious person? Tink: ============== This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of clay, or lead, or crap. Still does not work! ======================= Sorry, lead -- gold has been achieved many times. Here in Vancouver, for example, at TRIUMF - Tri University Meson Facility. Maybe in some super clean nuclear lab, but still not in the metaphysicist caldron. The gnostics like Tom Harpur have been plying there poison since the first century, and have not come up with anything new. Any modern gnostic however noble, is limited to his output; Garbage in, Garbage out! Tink: =============== A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap! Ask HST! =================== What ARE you talking about. Secular humanists create (art, music, teach, coach, etc) so as to leave a lasting impression. For us, it's the only chance we've got. We're not like crazed religious nuts who would fly planes into buildings because there is some damned after-life. There is NO after-life. That's why humanists do the best they can while they're here. They're the pacifists. The teachers. The artists. The scientists. They're the ones who give a damn about making THIS life better! There are plenty of us who care about the here and hereafter! There are Christian pacifist, Christian teachers, Christian artist, Christian scientist, that care plenty, but also believe that there is God, and we acknowledge Him in all we do, and look forward to. But you are right on this point, it comes down to this; There is, or there is no after-life. If you are wrong about there being no after-life, and there is, you could be in for a few surprise! If I am wrong, and there is not, then the worst that could happen, is that my dungheap would be near yours, and if we could speak, you could say, I told you so forever! But since you would not be able to speak, I will not worry about it, and there won't be any surprises either! And your logic about their art being trash on a dung-heap escapes me. My after-life, insofar as there'll be one, exists in the impression I leave behind. My after life rests entirely - solely - on my achievements. On this point, Tink, you haven't a clue! frtzw906 So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and go out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer, like Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures and write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now for most of us, and it will just be a landfill. Not what I would want to stake my reputation on, besides my eternal destiny, but then you don't believe in the Eternal Destiny thing anyway. How comforting, and encouraging to all those other fellow travelers marching in a row to the dump. TnT |
Tink:
========== So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and go out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer, like Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures and write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now for most of us, and it will just be a landfill. ============= Like I said, you haven't a clue. My legacy lives in so many ways, some of which are material. Most importantly, through my interactions with my fellow humans shall I be known (WOW! real biblical ring to that, eh? GRIN). And, if I do a good job through my interactions with fellow beings, I'll still be around (the essence of what I teach, anyway) for decades to come. What more could one ask for? [Why do I think you'll tell me?] frtzw906 |
On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus, morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure. Weiser meets a scientist: Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical. Weiser: They can't both be spherical - they aren't the same size! Scientist: Er... Now these specimens are all similar due to their conical shape. Weiser: They can't all be conical - they aren't the same size! Scientist: Hmm... finally, the remainder of these specimens are similar in that they are all cylindrical. Weiser: They can't all be cylindrical - THEY AREN'T THE SAME SIZE. Scientist: Security... SECURITY You are both a bull****ter and an idiot. I have no interest in tracking down an obscure textbook just to satisfy you. You have no interest in the facts. You are only interested in lying and bull****. Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis? " They are hominids - human ancestors, early humans not human beings. It says so in the web page. Again? When have I misquoted you? Provide proof, dickhead. You still haven't shown where I have misquoted you. You still haven't addressed your bull**** about Galileo and Newton - We can safely assume that you haven't got the guts to admit you are wrong. You still haven't got the guts to try to prove the bull**** you post. You still think that you can post bull**** and get away with it. Mike |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink: ========== So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and go out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer, like Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures and write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now for most of us, and it will just be a landfill. ============= Like I said, you haven't a clue. My legacy lives in so many ways, some of which are material. Most importantly, through my interactions with my fellow humans shall I be known (WOW! real biblical ring to that, eh? GRIN). And, if I do a good job through my interactions with fellow beings, I'll still be around (the essence of what I teach, anyway) for decades to come. What more could one ask for? [Why do I think you'll tell me?] frtzw906 So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know you a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT |
Tink challenges:
============= So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know you a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT =============== Tink, my interactions with fellow humans are vast. Let me give you insight into non-work related stuff. I coach 4 different teams: 1 soccer and 3 field hockey (2 girls & one womens). If, a decade or two from now, one of my players, perhaps coaching a team of her own, passes on something that I taught or models some behavior, that's awesome. I can't ask for more. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights. Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun rights or religious freedom. Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes that could hardly be termed far-left. Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march, but you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march. However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school, or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government, or the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms, or the rights of the unborn and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent. -- 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:
What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty "Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-) The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious anti-gun information without actually having a clue. It's commonplace for such people to actually believe the line of crap they are fed by HCI and other anti-gun groups. It's my policy to challenge such specious claims whenever I see them, because it's the best way to fight the "Big Lie" tactic of repeating a lie often enough that it takes on the patina of truth. But it's still a lie. -- 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: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: 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. You'd be wrong. Evidently not. Feel free to cite US copyright law if you like. You claim to be the expert, go right ahead and cite the appropriate case law. Nah. IOW, you aren't such an expert. Oh, I am. So prove it, big boy. So far you're just flopping around like a Jonah. Sorry, but I'm under no obligation to prove anything. -- 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 whined: A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote: Scott Weiser wrote: And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights. http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/shenon.philip.html Nice try, but you lack the balls to admit and intelligence to realize when you're screwed so you'll flop around for longer. Just because you choose to put your spin on things doesn't make it so. -- 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 3/10/05 9:41 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using their guns as a necessary evil. Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm another person for any reason, even in self defense. I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your manner of response is appreciated. See, I told you so... That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal. Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart the crime. Or back to reality, Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal. the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and deaths occur where they needed to be one. I"m not quite sure what you're saying Me either, I messed that up real good. I believe I was on the phone at the time. ut if I have it correct, you are claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an armed predator than armed victims are. Right. I'd like to see some statistical evidence to support this conclusion. That would be helpful. Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses, unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save everyone's lives. So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to experience armed resistance? Get real. Of course they do. And most of the time, as most bank robbers are single individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation, and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and nobody gets hurt. Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends up costing many lives. The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much more reluctant to rob banks in the first place (which they do BECAUSE they know that bank policy is to give up the money without a fight) and they will be much, much more reluctant to threaten to hurt anyone, because they won't know who is going to pull a gun and return fire. Criminals are cowards, and they aren't in it to have shootouts where they could get killed. There are, of course, exceptions, like the LA bank robbery, but sometimes all the rules go out the window and you face someone who is simply intent on killing people. Not having a gun when faced with this kind of person usually means you die without any chance of putting a stop to the incident. If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife, or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and fingernails. Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death of innocent parties. Can you cite even one such instance? I'm waiting for your own story to break. Thus I conclude that you cannot cite a single instance. Just as I thought. I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID have a gun, and was willing to use it. One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the law, left her handgun in her truck. Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons. Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN. Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives? I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth anything. You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on the line. Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone carrying a gun. It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that. Innocent lives are at greater risk, as is quality of life. Again, this is simply not true, as the US experience has proven conclusively. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress. No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer, sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world. Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or run away What a beautiful vision! Your model seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a very pretty vision. and then you have peace. LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace! Um, what part of "they" did you not understand? But, you must remain armed and ever vigilant to prevent their return. "The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke Not carrying a gun =/= doing nothing. There's an old saying in police circles: "Trust an asshole to bring a knife to a gun fight." When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. When you need one, however, nothing else will 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 KMAN wrote:
in article 1110519448.701b72c2e1f5e9e9ec659957df8742c3@terane ws, Nisarel at wrote on 3/11/05 12:37 AM: KMAN wrote: I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is ... what life is like in Texas and Florida. Heh. Well, I recently took a group to South Beach and I have to say that we felt quite safe and had a great time there. All of the front line people in the service industry and particularly the public transit workers were much more helpful and friendly than here. I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. BWHAHAHAHAAH! Well, you really stepped on your generative organ this time. Guess which state STARTED the liberalization of CCW? Guess which state has the LARGEST NUMBER of citizens carrying concealed handguns? Florida. That's why they call it a CONCEALED weapon. You were without a doubt in the presence of several people who were armed, and the REASON you felt safe is BECAUSE of Florida's CCW program, which radically reduced street crime, particularly in Miami and its environs. -- 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 nit-picks: =================== The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns. "Safer" /= "safe." ============= NOBODY is absolutely SAFE. Safer trumps less safe. Particularly when we look at relative magnitudes. Canadians are MUCH safer from guns than Americans. But becoming less and less safe every day, as are Britons and Australians. -- 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:
KMAN wrote: I actually nominated Miami-Dade for an award. And it definitely didn't have the feel of a gun culture...everyone seemed to be having too much fun to be worried about carrying a gun. Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo... Not if you know how... -- 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 |
Scott says:
================ Well, it is hard to carry a concealed handgun in your Speedo... Not if you know how... ====================== Do you REALLY want to leave that hanging out there like that? You really are making the life of the would-be comic too easy.... frtzw906 |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in an invisible man. As to any evidence whether any of us qualify or not is probably fleeting at best, so I will not hold your feet to the fire on this one! As to this invisible man that you keep talking about, that is mean, short tempered, and judgemental; sounds to me like you have a pretty clear vision of who he is, and of whom they are speaking! You are found out in the retoric of your denial. The more you deny, the increased basis of denial you must depend on that you don't believe. The more noise of denial you make, indicates that you actually have something that you believe you are wrestling with that must be denied. Uhn? If in fact you did not believe, you would not be threatened by this non-existant invisible being I'm not. But whackos who talk about doing things because the invisible man tells them to, now that scares me! and would have nothing to deny. You could actually go through life quite quietly, with nothing to prove to any one about this invisible man that does not exist. But if you go through life yelling at/or about this invisible man that does not exist, some may doubt your sanity. It's not me that raises the topic of the invisible man, Tinkerntom. I sure hear a lot of noise, coming from your direction. :) TnT ? |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights. Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun rights or religious freedom. Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes that could hardly be termed far-left. Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march Thus, I am correct. but you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march. Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps...deliberately going out of their way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda. However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school. Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them. or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good fit. the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun nuts. or the rights of the unborn Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to what happens to the unborn. and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent. Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not sure. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty "Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously (OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-) The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious anti-gun information without actually having a clue. So you actually thought that I believed the guns are in a rack on the counter next to the gum and you just buy one? Give it, Scotty, this is totally disingenuous and you are acting like a petty fool. |
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/10/05 9:41 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using their guns as a necessary evil. Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that it is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to harm another person for any reason, even in self defense. I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your manner of response is appreciated. See, I told you so... That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal. Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart the crime. Or back to reality, Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal. the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and deaths occur where they needed to be one. I"m not quite sure what you're saying Me either, I messed that up real good. I believe I was on the phone at the time. ut if I have it correct, you are claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an armed predator than armed victims are. Right. I'd like to see some statistical evidence to support this conclusion. That would be helpful. Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses, unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save everyone's lives. So, when some group of robbers is planning to knock off a bank, they don't make different plans depending on whether or not they are going to experience armed resistance? Get real. Of course they do. There you go. and most of the time, as most bank robbers are single individuals, not gangs, they will deliberately choose banks that do NOT have armed guards because they don't want to get killed. Most banks today do not employ armed guards because they think that it will provoke a confrontation, and since the federal government insures the money, they'd rather just give the crook the money and let him walk. And usually that's a good plan, and nobody gets hurt. OK. Sometimes, however, particularly violent robbers decide to kill witnesses anyway, and when that happens, not having any armed people in the bank ends up costing many lives. How often does it happen that bank robbers decide to kill witnesses and those witnesses would have been saved had there been a Scotty in the crowd ready to draw and fire? The solution is obvious: Banks should retain armed guards, but they should be undercover, in plain clothes, and under orders not to do anything other than cooperate unless and until the robber starts threatening to shoot people. Once it becomes known that someone, if not several someones in any bank is highly likely to be armed, but unidentifiable, crooks will be much more reluctant to rob banks in the first place Um. No. It will work once or twice, and once the new policy is known, they'll start treating every bank just as they would a bank with regular armed guards, and assume that blasting away will be part of the robbery. If I'm going to die in such a rampage, I'm at least going to go out trying to put down the killer, not on my knees with a bullet in the back of my head, and I'll do it any way I can. If I don't have a gun, I'll use a knife, or a chair, or a pen or any weapon available including my teeth and fingernails. I'm sure you are dreaming of the day! Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death of innocent parties. Can you cite even one such instance? I'm waiting for your own story to break. Thus I conclude that you cannot cite a single instance. Just as I thought. I haven't actually devoted my life to gun culture. I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID have a gun, and was willing to use it. One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the law, left her handgun in her truck. Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons. Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN. Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives? I think the consequences of living in a gun culture where everyone is walking around with a gun waiting to shoot other people is not worth anything. You weren't in the Luby's cafeteria, or Columbine or at any of the other mass murders worldwide. You might believe differently if it was your life on the line. I don't think so Scotty. In fact, I don't think you'll hear a lot of Columbine surivivors saying that the lesson they learned from it was they should become gun nuts themselves. Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone carrying a gun. It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that. Innocent lives are at greater risk, as is quality of life. Again, this is simply not true, as the US experience has proven conclusively. LOL. 30,000 plus gun deaths per year say otherwise. That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress. No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer, sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world. Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or run away What a beautiful vision! Your model What is that model, Scotty? seems to be "bend over, drop trou, and take it up the ass." Not a very pretty vision. You seem rather obsessed with visions of my ass. Is sublimation of your homosexual tendencies part of your underlying mental health issues? and then you have peace. LOL. You're all dead, but you're at peace! Um, what part of "they" did you not understand? Oh, that's right, Scotty is such a superhero that he can actually control the outcome when a bunch of vigilantes blast away at each other. But, you must remain armed and ever vigilant to prevent their return. "The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke Not carrying a gun =/= doing nothing. There's an old saying in police circles: "Trust an asshole to bring a knife to a gun fight." There's another old police saying: "It started out as an argument and then Scotty pulled out his gun and now 5 people are dead. All because Scotty had a hard time calculation the tip." When you don't need a gun, having one is innocuous and harmless. Until innocent people end up dead. When you need one, however, nothing else will do. If your goal in life is to kill people, absolutely. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com