In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>[Someone else] wrote:
>
>>Dumping toxic waste in your back yard would more
>>than likely cause harm to other individuals because the chemicals
>>from the waste would run off into other areas that do not belong to you.
>
>Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing
>to draw a line between right and wrong.
That is a very peculiar use of the phrase "just as". Surely you can
see that the connection between these two things is only metaphoric?
It is not "just as".
In article <3EFBC581.6080507@no-spam>, galvanek@no-spam says...
>Wyatt wrote:
>> Caught the tail end of a comment by his hole-ie-ness Sen
>> Rick Santorum (R-Pa) on NPR concerning today's Supreme
>> Court ruling, striking down the last of Texas's (and
>> other States) archaic laws against what consenting adults
>> could and could not do in the privacy of their homes.
>> Unfortunatly, it appears that Sen. Santorum still believes
>> that what goes on in YOUR bedroom is *his* business.
>> I say that the S.C. did a good thing today.
>Of course you do, that's what I'd expect from someone of
>your political disposition.
He's not the only one...
>What should be happening of course it that everyone who attacked him
>should be apologizing because if you actually take time to read the
>decision you'd see he hit the nail dead square on the head, polygamy,
>bigamy and incest ...
>Next up, lawsuits challenging polygamy & Bigamy, adult incest
>and same sex marriage.
Let's hope so. There is no tremendous danger to society in
these things. The people who want to engage in them will
be few and far between and will not harm you or I one whit.
While Santorum correctly said that removing the legal ban one
thing will lead to the removal of the ban on the rest, he erred
in saying that this will harm society.
>> The voters of Pa should also do the right thing and vote
>> this right-wing ass-kiss out of the US Senate the next
>> time he's up for re-election.
>Fortunately the backlash is going to go the other way as
>Specter is going to get a challenge by a conservative and
>may, hopefully, lose and Democrats who've drifted to the left
>are going to get smoked in 2004.
Could be, but be careful in casting about for the reasons.
Sphincter should go for lots of reasons completely unrelated
to Santorum's intrusiveness.
>> How about a game folks? How long do you think it
>> will it take for Santorum to stick his foot in his
>> mouth with another gaffe like he did a few months
>> ago? (adleast his speaking gaffes provide us with
>> some shocked amusement)
>Hahahahah!
>Read the ruling dope.
>Santorum should be setting up an 800 number to try and capitalize
>on his apparent prophetic abilities.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but his "prophetic abilities" are on a
par with predicting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
If you want a real test, wait and see how society does not come
crashing down because someone two states away sleeps with his
[sister, brother, uncle, boyfriend, dog, inflatable love doll,
pick one].
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Mark Jason Dominus wrote:
> In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>>
>>[Someone else] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dumping toxic waste in your back yard would more
>>>than likely cause harm to other individuals because the chemicals
>>
>>>from the waste would run off into other areas that do not belong to you.
>>
>>Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing
>>to draw a line between right and wrong.
>
>
> That is a very peculiar use of the phrase "just as". Surely you can
> see that the connection between these two things is only metaphoric?
> It is not "just as".
One would think that simply looking around and seeing the rates of
violent crime, homicide, rape, the rampant spread of STDs, tens of
millions of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, chronic substance abuse
problems etc. etc. etc. anyone could see that there's nothing metaphoric
about it. Just as we'd demand laws to prevent the harm resulting from
dumping of toxic waste in someone's backyard, failing to draw
distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad behavior leads to
exactly the same result...
Social, cultural and physical decay & death.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
Me wrote:
> But the issue that Santorum spoke about was a sex act between
> consenting adults in private.
No it was not.
The issue Santorum spoke to is whether the SC should intervene is a
issue the state has traditional held sway in and in doing so establish
new federal law.
Read the SC decision, including the dissenting opinion. No one there is
arguing that the laws are sound policy, Scalia even calls them silly.
The question is how best to address them without creating more problems
than solved.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <3F021A11.84E72B28@no-spam>,
> Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>>Just as pursuing immoral behaviors pollutes the culture by refusing to draw a
>>line between right and wrong.
>
>
> How does what two (or more) people do in the privacy of their bedroom
> affect you or anybody else?
Well let's just grab a few of the simple ones off the shelf...
What two people do in the privacy of their bedroom can AND DOES lead to
the spread of disease that threatens the general public's health driving
up health care costs as a disproportionate amount of resources are
needed to combat those illnesses. It can AND DOES result in unintended
pregnancy which leaves lives shattered for those not equipped to deal
with them it and that in turn leads to increased demand on society to
provide for the needs of those involved. It can AND DOES result in the
breaking of legal and social contracts, know to some as marriages, the
dissolution of families and the myriad costs and burdens to society that
result from that.
How are those for starters?
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
The Land of Ambiguity wrote:
>
> You're right, Paul, time to BAN SEX except under strictly controlled
> disease-free chronic marital conditions. In fact, socially, we can't
> afford otherwise. This should also boost any police recruitment drives,
> thanks to the much more interesting work to be done as an officer. Victory!
[... bunch of irrelevant stuff deleted ...]
Hey, I'm not the one who's political beliefs consists of a couple of ill
considered clichés. I didn't suggest any response to any of the facts...
Just pointed out the underlying falseness of the claim that what two
people do in the privacy of their bedroom doesn't impact others.
In fact, I'll even do you one better, I tell you how to make that a
truthful statement - stop being a intellectually bankrupt, liberal
hypocrite and demand that the government stop forcing the cost of those
burdens on to others.
If we didn't have to bear those costs, then you could honestly say what
people do in their bedroom doesn't impact us and it's their business,
not ours.
I'm flexible, I'll accept either situation as soon as you decide, but I
won't let the distortions go unchecked until then.
Really now that's the problem then isn't it? When the subject is
alleged job and housing discrimination, hate crimes legislation, speech
codes, benefits and many other things, it's ALL about making what goes
in the bedroom everybody else's business...
Until "you" don't the reaction "you" want, then it becomes a problem.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
The Land of Ambiguity wrote:
>> The issue Santorum spoke to is whether the SC should intervene is a
>> issue the state has traditional held sway in and in doing so establish
>> new federal law.
>
>
> Seems to be a basic disagreement over what exactly Santorum said. This
> should be easy to rectify in the Internet age, right?
There's no disagreement over what he said. There are only people who
read what he said and people who read what gay rights activist said he said.
> I can't speak about who's right about what Santorum was speaking about
> (I'm sure someone can find the direct quotes), and whether Scalia said
> he that anti-sodomy laws are "silly" (which, if his "homosexual agenda"
> remarks are any indication, he did not). That's someone else's job for now.
>
> The state has NOT recently had sway in civil rights cases.
I'm sorry, I could've sworn I was just arguing with people who insisted
that the SC did NOT establish any rights here...
See Rich, this and how it begins and why 10 years we'll be marking the
anniversary of the 2003 ruling establishing a Constitutional right to
buggery.
> And besides, what does a state have jurisdiction over?
The SC has always recognized that states and even local authorities have
the right to set "community standards" of morality and decency ...
It's why there's a line in the disclaimer that says you believe X
complies with local laws when you down load your porn, why nude dancing
is prohibited in some locales, but not others, why despite the repeal of
prohibition there are still dry communities and many, many others.
===
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
D.F. Manno wrote:
> Alcohol use causes liver disease, heart disease, neurological
> disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome and more, all of which drive up
> health care costs.
>
> Smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, respiratory illnesses, heart
> disease, birth defects and more, all of which drive up health care
> costs.
>
> Overeating leads to heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and other
> chronic illnesses, all of which drive up health care costs.
>
> So by your reasoning we should outlaw alcohol, tobacco and junk food.
Isn't that precisely what the party of abortion and trial lawyers is
shooting for?
If I were you I'd read what you just posted, look at your examples again
and then see how legislative restrictions are present for most of
these activities because of the social costs they create than ask why
some activities are now free from scrutiny but not others.
If anything you're post supports my arguments.
If doing X, Y or Z to or by yourself causes social repercussions and
that the basis of legislation, regulation and punitive taxation for the
ones you've listed...
Then why not for your favorite activity?
--
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Tiger wrote:
>
> Me wrote:
>
>
>>You missed the point as clearly as Santorum has. The point is that the
>>government has no business interfering in the private decisions that we
>>make. Do you want the government telling you what you can do with a
>>consenting adult in your bedroom and literally watching you do it, as
>>was the case in Texas? That's the problem, not Santorum's objection to
>>a homosexual lifestyle.
>
>
> Hmmmmm, world of no rules??? Sounds like anarchy to me.
Oh no you misunderstand them... there will be plenty of rules in their
world, more than you can possibly imagine. In their world "you" won't
be able to tell people what they can do in the bedroom, but they'll be
able to tell you what words you can use to describe it, who you'll have
to hire, what benefits you'll have to provide them, who you'll rent or
sell your property to etc. etc.
Lots and lots of rules, but they'll be THEIR rules and that will make
them all okay.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <3F0A30B5.7681EFAF@no-spam>, Lana_sands@no-spam says...
>Me wrote:
>> You missed the point as clearly as Santorum has. The point is that the
>> government has no business interfering in the private decisions that we
>> make. Do you want the government telling you what you can do with a
>> consenting adult in your bedroom and literally watching you do it, as
>> was the case in Texas? That's the problem, not Santorum's objection to
>> a homosexual lifestyle.
>Hmmmmm, world of no rules??? Sounds like anarchy to me.
He didn't say "no rules". He said the government has no business
interfering in the things that consenting adults want to do with
each other in their bedroom.
There is plenty of room outside of that to handle things that
unconsenting people do to each other.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> He didn't say "no rules". He said the government has no business
> interfering in the things that consenting adults want to do with
> each other in their bedroom.
Since society isn't moving in the direction of a Libertarian view of the
proper role of government, it's moving in quite the opposite direction
in fact, the point is really irrelevant.
The government IS acting every day to restrict and regulate our
interpersonal relationships. The same gay rights advocates who cheer
the recent SC decision will be out tomorrow pushing laws to restrict
speech, religion, use of personal property, limit legal contracts
between people and a whole slew of other things.
You and I may believe that the government has no business interfering in
certain things, but the government and the majority of people don't
believe it...
So the real issue right now is who's view of right and wrong is going to
prevail.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
Rich Loether wrote:
> Don't be so sure. Certainly the government and media are moving
> in that direction but don't be so sure about the people. Not
> long ago people would pale at the idea of being called "libertarian".
> Now many people seek it out.
Oh I'm sure. You're debating the theoretical while every day a left
leaning anti-freedom government is steam rolling us one at a time.
When a free spending, big government control freak like GWB is what is
considered "conservative" or even "right wing" by some, these
definitions are pretty meaningless and most of the important battles are
already over and lost.
> That's a result of allowing the ferals to have too much power. If
> they have it various people will lobby to control it.
>
>
>>You and I may believe that the government has no business interfering in
>>certain things, but the government and the majority of people don't
>>believe it...
>
>
> ...Except when it happens to them.
Which means nothing because they have no tools left to fight back with.
You'd think that having just seen the horrors in Iraq of what a
government that controls access to health care and basic necessities can
do to crush dissent, no rational person would ever let their own
government gain that much control over them...
Yet a mouse click or two away from this message you'll see people
arguing in favor of just such oppressive government control over their
lives.
Stupid people never learn until it's to late.
>>So the real issue right now is who's view of right and wrong is going to
>>prevail.
>
>
> In the end it will be neither right nor left.
Well it depends on your view, whether long term or short. Long term it
may never end at all, it may shift back and forth from time to time.
Since I only have a limited amount of time on this planet though, that
long of a term doesn't have much meaning to me.
Short term, meaning in my lifetime and that of my kids, it already has
ended with the left completely corrupting everything and all of us
paying dearly for it.
It's like were all sitting in a boat that's taking on water; The
Libertarians are standing around talking about how great it'll be when
they build boats that won't sink, liberals are running around punching
more holes in the boat convinced that if we take on more water we'll all
sprout gills and learn to live as fish and a I'm just bailing.
What ever happens a hundred years from now Rich, doesn't matter one bit
- I'm still a slave, I work at the end of a gun held by the government
to provide for others, I have no right to my own thoughts or beliefs,
can't choose who I'll associate with...
The word freedom has no meaning anymore.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <lbadnb3vHOJCh5aiXTWc-g@no-spam>, russotto@no-spam says...
>In article <bef3oa$kqg$1@no-spam>,
>Rich Loether <rjl@no-spam> wrote:
>>No, freedom is not dead. It will never die. It will continue
>>to exist in people's minds and private spaces for as long as
>>there are people.
>For as long as there are private spaces. Remember _1984_? Fast
>forward to Total Information Awareness.
I don't want to minimize the challenges in front of us. Yes, the
forces on both the left and right want total control of our lives.
Remember though that _1984_ is a work of fiction. And it's
overdue. Giving up is exactly the wrong thing to do.
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Rich Loether wrote:
> So why does it look like you're ready to join the fight to grab
> for any power that comes your way?
Because that's all that's left to fight for Rich.
This is what American politics has been reduced to - the systems of
control are there already, they're in place and they're not going away
anytime soon. SOMEBODY is going to control them today and tomorrow...
You can debate about whether the government should have the power they
do if you want, I'll agree with you on most of the points, bit it won't
change the fact that they have it now.
It's a done deal.
If you wake up tomorrow and find Deni Scott dictating who will be the
leader of your BSA troop, it'll be because you wasted your time arguing
about what should or shouldn't be instead of stopping them.
> In truth, the left and right wrap around until they use the same
> tools and seek the same ends.
Whether or not you accept that depends largely on how willing you are to
accept the distortions presented by the left as to what left and right are.
They would have you ignore the fact that the most brutal, horrific and
murderous dictators of the past few centuries, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler,
Castro, Mao, Hussein etc. etc. and the police states they constructed
are representative of the right, when in fact they are examples of where
leftist/socialist/communist agendas always end up leading to.
Just because the corrupt and dishonest on the left want to label GWB as
being on the right, doesn't make it so. If anything he represents the
shift to the left the Republican party has made in the past few years.
As I've said in the past, real, honest to goodness conservatives and
"right wingers" are to few to even be identified anymore. Anyone who
advocates the big state solutions the left does is by definition not right.
> So are you suggesting we get out our ceremonial swords?
I'm suggesting you start thinking about your own immediate self interest
a bit more, who serves it best, and less about what might have been
before we're both wearing the same color government issued hemp shirts,
living on tofu and rice gruel diet and chanting praises to the
non-descript omnipotent birth giver of the almighty state and reading
from our little pink books at our mandatory re-education *errr*ahhh*
sensitivity classes before a day working at gun point in the fields.
You and I might not agree on a lot of the specifics Rich, but I'm
guessing that we do agree that standing by while others try to create
the Union of American Socialist States isn't a good thing.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
In article <befap8$mjh$1@no-spam>, send_it_to@no-spam says...
>Rich Loether wrote:
>> So why does it look like you're ready to join the fight to grab
>> for any power that comes your way?
>Because that's all that's left to fight for Rich.
One of my favorite movie lines is, "But Peter, you've become a
pirate." No, Paul, that's not the thing to fight for, and it
gives away the farm. Our freedom is the thing to fight for and
it's not all gone yet.
>This is what American politics has been reduced to - the systems of
>control are there already, they're in place and they're not going away
>anytime soon. SOMEBODY is going to control them today and tomorrow...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
>You can debate about whether the government should have the power they
>do if you want, I'll agree with you on most of the points, bit it won't
>change the fact that they have it now. It's a done deal.
They only have the power that we're willing to allow to them. My
goal is to wake the people to what's going on and show that there
are better answers. I want to spread the memes that will lead
people to reject the trends we see around us.
>If you wake up tomorrow and find Deni Scott dictating who will be the
>leader of your BSA troop, it'll be because you wasted your time arguing
>about what should or shouldn't be instead of stopping them.
Don't forget that Deni isn't the audience here. It's the people
who never post, who read things and say, "Hmmmm".
>> In truth, the left and right wrap around until they use the same
>> tools and seek the same ends.
>Whether or not you accept that depends largely on how willing you are to
>accept the distortions presented by the left as to what left and right are.
Do you really think the left is the only source of deceptions?
>They would have you ignore the fact that the most brutal, horrific and
>murderous dictators of the past few centuries, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler,
>Castro, Mao, Hussein etc. etc. and the police states they constructed
>are representative of the right, when in fact they are examples of where
>leftist/socialist/communist agendas always end up leading to.
See above. At that point the labels right and left lose all
remaining meaning.
>Just because the corrupt and dishonest on the left want to label GWB as
>being on the right, doesn't make it so. If anything he represents the
>shift to the left the Republican party has made in the past few years.
I don't label GWB as on the right, but I do so label Ashcroft.
>As I've said in the past, real, honest to goodness conservatives and
>"right wingers" are to few to even be identified anymore. Anyone who
>advocates the big state solutions the left does is by definition not right.
I'd be interested to see your definitions of left and right.
>> So are you suggesting we get out our ceremonial swords?
>I'm suggesting you start thinking about your own immediate self interest
>a bit more, who serves it best, and less about what might have been
>before we're both wearing the same color government issued hemp shirts,
>living on tofu and rice gruel diet and chanting praises to the
>non-descript omnipotent birth giver of the almighty state and reading
>from our little pink books at our mandatory re-education *errr*ahhh*
>sensitivity classes before a day working at gun point in the fields.
>You and I might not agree on a lot of the specifics Rich, but I'm
>guessing that we do agree that standing by while others try to create
>the Union of American Socialist States isn't a good thing.
Agreed, but I don't want to see a dictatorship from the other
side either.
>Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
--
In Liberty,
Rich
Guns save lives - maybe yours.
--------------------
Rich Loether Snail Mail: University of Pittsburgh
EMail: rjl@no-spam Network Services
Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive
FAX: (412) 624-6436 Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207
finger for PGP 2.6.2 public key
Key Fingerprint 53 76 0B 73 DF 5C D9 14 D0 C3 68 20 DE 4F 60 C0
Mischa Gelman wrote:
> What does religion have to do with it?
> What about those atheists who oppose abortion on ethical grounds?
To the pro infanticide camp Mischa, they're like black Republicans, they
hope if they don't acknowledge their existence they'll disappear.