On 10 Jul 2003 16:34:10 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

What possible conclusion could you draw other than unequal treatment?



Disparate economies. Poor people commit more crimes than middle class and
wealthy people do.

Much of the "race" problem in the US is really an economic problem. Long term
history of unequal oppportunities (a few current exceptions prove the rule) in
employment, housing, and education.

Even after desegregation, it is still a tougher job to be a racial minority in
America than it is to be white.

SBR

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

But there's no sure fire way of know when the fetus possesses a
conciouness, and a "soul", and therefore is considered an individual,
and not just the product of the mother's genetics.

If there's no sure fire way to know if the fetus posseses a conciousness
and a soul, you must assume it does not. The alternative would mean
you'd have to a conciousness and a "soul" for just about everything,
from animals and plants to furniture.

Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation.

I believe that I have.

But you have not. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word
ONLY when you say "only God can decide life and death." Do you agree
that the word ONLY in that sentence effectively prohibits man from
making ANY life and death decisions for any reason under any condition?

For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But you are basing this on a philosophy of "all or nothing". There is
very little in life, which falls into that catergory

Wait a second, you have that backwards. YOU are the one who said "ONLY
God can decide life or death." That is an "all or nothing" statement.
Do you now want to retract it? It seems like you do.

Your problem is that you are making "all or nothing" "black and white"
statements that contradict eachother and don't allow you the room you
need to make the points you're trying to make.

But, if someone believes that man has a right to make the life or death
decisions in some cases but only God can make life or death decisions in
other cases, and the cases just happen to arbitrarily line up to
support a haphazard set of opinions, then I can't respect those
opinions. I'm sure that doesn't bother you though.

What you call "haphazard", I call "conditions". Life is full of
conditions. There is no universal truth. "Evil" people truly deserve to
be put to death. Innocent children (Born or unborn) do not.

If there are ANY conditions that are justifiably decided by man, i.e., a
jury decides to put a murderer to death, then you must have been wrong
when you said "only God can decide life and death." It really is just
that simple. At least some things surrounding this issue are simple.

Steve

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

in NYC, any one of those cops could have defused the situation
with
one
shot, and put the guy down for good with 2-3 shots. Instead, he
was
executed.


You're right. It would seem then that the NYC police department
needs
a
few lessons in marksmanship. A few good shots would have done the
job,
without wasting all that good ammo......

Dave


What an utterly stupid remark. If you'd been their supervisor, would
that
have been your primary source of disappointment with those cops?
They
wasted
so much ammo?


Well, maybe not. Maybe their feet smelled as well......



So, you think it was OK that several cops shot an innocent man over two
dozen times, and found he had no weapon?


Do I think it's ok? Do you think it's proper to ask me, or anyone else's
opinion on this subject, when they were not involved? Maybe if you get
all the facts before you jump to any conclusions, you might find a very
good reason why things unfolded the way they did.

What I think, is irrelevant. I was not there.

I should've known you'd use your usual ploy - the one you reserve for times
when you notice that you've painted yourself into a corner.

There's no corner. Do you believe it is intellectually proper and honest
of me, or anyone else, to form an opinion on something, without knowing
all the facts?

I'm sure you do. Liberals go off half-cocked all the time. Facts? What
are they? Liberals need no facts when they have well written opinions to
feed on.


Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

What possible conclusion could you draw other than unequal treatment?



Disparate economies. Poor people commit more crimes than middle class and
wealthy people do.

Much of the "race" problem in the US is really an economic problem. Long term
history of unequal oppportunities (a few current exceptions prove the rule) in
employment, housing, and education.


Thank you Chuck! We are in agreement in yet another area. I've tried to
tell jps, that he's painting the situation with a racial brush, when he
should be thinking socio-economic.

Dave

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:40:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:07:25 -0400, Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:35:39 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

But at what point is it "viable". I've known of cases of premature
births at 5 months that lived. I'm sure there are other "record"
cases as well. So where do you draw that important line?

That's a good question.

The answer of which, is the nucleus of this whole debate. It's much

It's not at the nucleus of this debate you're having with me. In fact,
it's totally superfluous.

Oops, forget I said that. The thread was getting so long I was
responding to a different part. Ideally, you'd draw the line where the
fetus could survive on it's own without physical dependence on the
mother. That's what most of the drawn lines are trying to achieve.

But there's no sure fire way of know when the fetus possesses a
conciouness, and a "soul", and therefore is considered an individual,
and not just the product of the mother's genetics.

If there's no sure fire way to know if the fetus posseses a conciousness
and a soul, you must assume it does not.

Why? Are you simply just being contradictory to my assertion, or do you
have some evidence to base this on?


The alternative would mean
you'd have to a conciousness and a "soul" for just about everything,
from animals and plants to furniture.

Furniture is not a living thing, so you can eliminate that one right off
the bat. You could make a case that both plants and animals COULD
contain a conciousness or a soul. The implications of this, have far
more rammifications than just the abortion issue.


Anyway, just to end this in some way, my only point to you is that you
need to base your opinions on some sort of solid moral foundation.

I believe that I have.

But you have not. Maybe you don't understand the meaning of the word
ONLY when you say "only God can decide life and death." Do you agree
that the word ONLY in that sentence effectively prohibits man from
making ANY life and death decisions for any reason under any condition?

Yes. The way I worded it was incorrect.


For instance,
someone who believes that it's only God who can make a life or death
decisions and base their opinions on that belief consistently, I can
respect. I might not agree with them, but I can respect their opinions.

On the other hand, if someone believes that man can rightfully make a
life or death decision and doesn't reserve that strictly for God, and
bases their opinions on that belief consistently, I can respect that as
well. Again, I might not agree with them, but I can respect their
opinions.

But you are basing this on a philosophy of "all or nothing". There is
very little in life, which falls into that catergory

Wait a second, you have that backwards. YOU are the one who said "ONLY
God can decide life or death." That is an "all or nothing" statement.
Do you now want to retract it? It seems like you do.

If there are ANY conditions that are justifiably decided by man, i.e., a
jury decides to put a murderer to death, then you must have been wrong
when you said "only God can decide life and death." It really is just
that simple. At least some things surrounding this issue are simple.


Ok, I made a poor choice of words. When I said that only God, can
decide, what I should have said, was that only God, can provide the
guidelines, by which we base our morality. The decision is indirectly
outlined by God's teachings.

God has allowed for cases of war, he has not allowed the killing of a
fetus.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

It's no
coincidence that the rise in the number of women seeking abortion,
parallels the rise in promiscuity, and the decline of morality, with
reagrd to sex.

There has been a rise (per capita) in the number of abortions? I'd love to
see the data you looked at to come to that conclusion, particularly since
doctors tend to keep patient information private.

Doctors are only required to keep identity private. The total number of
abortions are routinely collected by such places as the CDC.
I decided to check the site:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/

According to their data, it depends on where in the world you live, but
in the US, generally, the number of abortions has remained relateively
constant over the last 20 years, although the number of "repeats" has
increased.

The site also makes the cases for both the pro-life and the pro-choice
positions. They do a much better job of explaining it, than I can. I am
rapidly tiring of this subject. I am yearning for a good boating story
or subject o sink my teeth into.....


How can you even possibly imagine for a single second that
women don't think about the life altering changes their body undergoes
during pregnancy and childbirth? You just aren't thinking clearly.

I'm not? I am all too aware of the psychological contemplation, which
many women go through. My response to this, is that they weren't giving
those things much thought, while they were lying on their back, in some
dirtbag's bedroom. Personal responsibility dictates that you take
actions to minimize risk BEFORE it happens, not after.

Right. Minimize risk. Women shouldn't walk from a dormitory to a classroom.
They could be raped.

You still seem to be hung up on the assumption that most abortions, are
obtained as a result of rape. Check out the site and see for yourself,
that this is only a small minority of cases.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


There is no societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances.

Dave, don't even touch this issue again. It requires intellectual acuity
akin to the physical capabilities of an olympic gymnast.


By that, can I assume that you're not up to the challenge?

I don't mind knocking you to the mats again, in the squared circle of
logic...

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Explain please? If a white person is convicted of a crime, how are they
treated any differently? Are you now accusing judges with racial
prejudice? Are you considering repeat offenders?


The same stats were posted twice before this message. Here's the
explanation: Our current drug laws are draconian, meaning that in some
states, a small amount of pot, for instance, can get you arrested instantly,
and eventually thrown in jail for longer than someone who mugs people at
knifepoint. But, cops have a certain amount of leeway. For a dozen joints,
the cops can take the stuff, arrest you, and release you to your parents if
they think you're a stand-up guy. You'll be expected to return to court, but
until then, you're back in school or at your job. But, things change when
you ain't got no daddy or mommy, or your skin's the wrong color.

You will see this changing as states run out of money for incarcerating
people who are, for all intents and purposes, are in possession of nothing
more serious than a handful of joints (which is precisely equal to a pint of
Jack Daniels, in terms of the threat to society). But in the meantime, some
people *do* get treated very differently. If you need more evidence of this,
think about how much uproar there's been in the past few years to racial
profiling during traffic stops.

And, before you start barfing answers, keep in mind that in the last
paragraph, I discussed POSSESSING drugs in a car, not USING. This is not a
discussion about the dangers of DUI.


Blacks and whites consume drugs in equal amount per capita.

According to? Remember, if you don't have criminal records, to base it
on, then how do you know WHO is using drugs? Any statistics you might
have on this is automatically suspect, becasue of this.


Oh quiet, Dave. Do you have evidence that them thar Negroes use MORE drugs
per capita?

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

I'm not? I am all too aware of the psychological contemplation, which
many women go through. My response to this, is that they weren't
giving
those things much thought, while they were lying on their back, in
some
dirtbag's bedroom. Personal responsibility dictates that you take
actions to minimize risk BEFORE it happens, not after.

Right. Minimize risk. Women shouldn't walk from a dormitory to a
classroom.
They could be raped.

You still seem to be hung up on the assumption that most abortions, are
obtained as a result of rape. Check out the site and see for yourself,
that this is only a small minority of cases.

Dave


I never said most abortions are performed as the result of rape. I said that
your desire to control does not take into account the reality of human
emotions. What a compassionate religion.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


There is no societal benefit to legalizing controlled substances.

Dave, don't even touch this issue again. It requires intellectual acuity
akin to the physical capabilities of an olympic gymnast.


By that, can I assume that you're not up to the challenge?

I don't mind knocking you to the mats again, in the squared circle of
logic...

Dave


Go for it. But, not here. Look for a new thread entitled "OT: Dave Explains
Drug Policy"