A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old November 15th 04, 04:55 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery
> slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid.


It isn't. Pity you never learnt logic.

> Even though it is indeed valid


In your opinion. Go read up on logical fallacies so you can understand
*why* the slippery slope tactic is not logically sound, then get back to
us. There are lots of highly regarded texts on the subject, some of which
were written by extremely conservative individuals. I'm sure you can find
one...if you look.
Ads
  #252  
Old November 15th 04, 04:55 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote:

> liberals reject all such arguments by calling them "slippery
> slope" arguments, as if "slippery slope" logic isn't valid.


It isn't. Pity you never learnt logic.

> Even though it is indeed valid


In your opinion. Go read up on logical fallacies so you can understand
*why* the slippery slope tactic is not logically sound, then get back to
us. There are lots of highly regarded texts on the subject, some of which
were written by extremely conservative individuals. I'm sure you can find
one...if you look.
  #253  
Old November 16th 04, 12:58 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sparky wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
>>>>>> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle
>>>>>> when it
>>>>>> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why
>>>> quibble over
>>>> nomenclature?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of
>>>>> business
>>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a
>>>> comparison
>>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>>>
>>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better
>>> health benefits, Medicare, etc.

>>
>>
>>
>> Let's not go trans species - okay?

>
>
> If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are
> people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get
> their way this will be the next cause celeb.


Ahh ohh! Another "slippery slope" argument. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #254  
Old November 16th 04, 12:58 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Sparky wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, vince garcia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The question is, why does anyone in this country have the right to
>>>>>> "disagree" with, and then legislate against, someone's lifestyle
>>>>>> when it
>>>>>> doesn't damage their property or personal liberties?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It's called DEMOCRACY.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it's actually called the tyranny of the majority. But why
>>>> quibble over
>>>> nomenclature?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of
>>>>> business
>>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you know the difference between "discrimination" and "invidious
>>>> discrimination"? I suspect you do not, or you'd realize why a
>>>> comparison
>>>> to "No shoes, no entry" laws and gay-marriage bans is fatuous at best.
>>>>
>>>>> Allow Gay marriage, and polygamy must also be allowed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, perhaps not. ...So?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about marrying your dog? Then your dog could get much better
>>> health benefits, Medicare, etc.

>>
>>
>>
>> Let's not go trans species - okay?

>
>
> If we talk about homosexual marriage you can't avoid it. There are
> people who are seriously in favor of this, and if the homosexuals get
> their way this will be the next cause celeb.


Ahh ohh! Another "slippery slope" argument. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #255  
Old November 16th 04, 01:19 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sparky wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
>>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
>>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
>>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
>>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
>>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
>>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
>>> and justice must prevail.
>>>
>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
>>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
>>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
>>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
>>> they possibly choose otherwise.

>>
>>
>>
>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
>> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>>
>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
>>>> even if
>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>>
>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
>>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
>>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
>>> your hypothesis!
>>>
>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
>>>> discrimination
>>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
>>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
>>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
>>>> hell
>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
>>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
>>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
>>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
>>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
>>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
>>> "fornication" by anyone.

>>
>>
>>
>> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.

>>
>>
>>
>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
>> otherwise.

>
>
> KNOTHEAD!


LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #256  
Old November 16th 04, 01:19 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sparky wrote:

> Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> vince garcia wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed that
>>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of business
>>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
>>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
>>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
>>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
>>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
>>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
>>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
>>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
>>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
>>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
>>> and justice must prevail.
>>>
>>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
>>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
>>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
>>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
>>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
>>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
>>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
>>> they possibly choose otherwise.

>>
>>
>>
>> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
>> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
>>
>>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
>>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
>>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
>>>> even if
>>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
>>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You have a point here. ;-)
>>>
>>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
>>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
>>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
>>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
>>> your hypothesis!
>>>
>>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
>>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only people
>>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
>>>> discrimination
>>>> is always unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
>>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
>>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
>>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the system
>>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
>>>> hell
>>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and IS
>>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
>>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
>>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
>>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
>>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
>>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
>>> "fornication" by anyone.

>>
>>
>>
>> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
>>
>>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
>>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.

>>
>>
>>
>> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
>> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
>> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
>> otherwise.

>
>
> KNOTHEAD!


LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #257  
Old November 16th 04, 01:54 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:


> The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14,
> 1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative
> therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against
> gay people."


Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that said that
it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who experienced it,
and later denounced same after (and only after) those in the scientific
community and the public raised a big stink about the pseudo science
that they were promoting for political reasons? Why yes - I believe it
was the very same APA.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #258  
Old November 16th 04, 01:54 AM
Bill Putney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:


> The American Psychological Association issued a warning on August 14,
> 1997, against the "psychological terrorism" of the Ex-Gay "reparative
> therapy" movement, which the APA said reveals an "intense bias against
> gay people."


Is that the same APA that published a "scientific" study that said that
it was found that pediphilia did not harm children who experienced it,
and later denounced same after (and only after) those in the scientific
community and the public raised a big stink about the pseudo science
that they were promoting for political reasons? Why yes - I believe it
was the very same APA.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #259  
Old November 16th 04, 03:15 AM
DAVID THORNTON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)..."

I remember that particular show. That was funny! When he died, the joke
going around was that he choked on a pine cone.



Freedom is NEVER free! Support our TROOPS! David Thornton
IM:
Signature powered by Plaxo ... Want a signature like this? Add me to your
address book...
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
| Sparky wrote:
|
| > Bill Putney wrote:
| >
| >> Abeness wrote:
| >>
| >>> vince garcia wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed
that
| >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of
business
| >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
| >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
| >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
| >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
| >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
| >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
| >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
| >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
| >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
| >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
| >>> and justice must prevail.
| >>>
| >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
| >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
| >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
| >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
| >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
| >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
| >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
| >>> they possibly choose otherwise.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
| >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
| >>
| >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
| >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
| >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
| >>>> even if
| >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
| >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You have a point here. ;-)
| >>>
| >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
| >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
| >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
| >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
| >>> your hypothesis!
| >>>
| >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
| >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only
people
| >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
| >>>> discrimination
| >>>> is always unconstitutional.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
| >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
| >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
| >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
| >>>
| >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the
system
| >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
| >>>> hell
| >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and
IS
| >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
| >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
| >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
| >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
| >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
| >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
| >>> "fornication" by anyone.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
| >>
| >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
| >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
| >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
| >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
| >> otherwise.
| >
| >
| > KNOTHEAD!
|
| LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
| (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
| the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)
|
| Bill Putney
| (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
| adddress with the letter 'x')
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
|
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
| ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


  #260  
Old November 16th 04, 03:15 AM
DAVID THORNTON
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
(sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)..."

I remember that particular show. That was funny! When he died, the joke
going around was that he choked on a pine cone.



Freedom is NEVER free! Support our TROOPS! David Thornton
IM:
Signature powered by Plaxo ... Want a signature like this? Add me to your
address book...
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
| Sparky wrote:
|
| > Bill Putney wrote:
| >
| >> Abeness wrote:
| >>
| >>> vince garcia wrote:
| >>>
| >>>> I've got a good friend who's irritated that laws have been passed
that
| >>>> give people the right to forbid his going into their places of
business
| >>>> because he likes to walk around barefoot. He feels he's being
| >>>> discriminated aginst, and you know what? He is!
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> I believe that business owners have the right to control the
| >>> "character" (for lack of the right word at this hour) of their
| >>> establishment, but I'm sorry I'm not familiar with the legal details.
| >>> I wouldn't want my customers to walk in when two people were sucking
| >>> on each other, for example. That's not the environment I'd want in my
| >>> business. But the line is a difficult one to navigate: some might
| >>> argue that "flamboyant" homosexuals would be offensive to their
| >>> customers, just as white folks in times past argued that blacks in
| >>> their establishments would be offensive. Times change, thankfully,
| >>> and justice must prevail.
| >>>
| >>>> You're living in fantasy land. You do NOT have "freedom of choice".
| >>>> "Freedom of choice" is nowhere in the constitution.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> No, reread what I wrote: I was saying that one has the personal
| >>> freedom of choice to not live as a homosexual. Of course it's more
| >>> complicated than that. There is clear evidence that homosexuality for
| >>> many is simple the way the brain is wired, in which case legislating
| >>> against homosexuality is akin to legislating against people based on
| >>> their skin color--it's just the way they were born, and how could
| >>> they possibly choose otherwise.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> My brain is wired for dogwood trees. I want you to vote to allow me
| >> to marry my dogwood tree with all the rights and privileges.
| >>
| >>>> "If two guys and three women want to enter into one 'marriage', what
| >>>> right does anyone have to tell them that they can't?! They're not
| >>>> hurting anyone. We should respect their commitment to each other
| >>>> even if
| >>>> we, ourselves, wouldn't go the same route. No one has the right to
| >>>> inflict their own morality on someone else!"
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You have a point here. ;-)
| >>>
| >>> In truth, you are right that society determines what it will and will
| >>> not allow in terms of social mores. I suspect that economic impact
| >>> would be a significant guiding factor in such considerations. Just
| >>> think of the health insurance lobby's reaction when confronted by
| >>> your hypothesis!
| >>>
| >>>> Discrimination happens every day, from restricting 10 year-olds from
| >>>> driving, to preventing private citizens from owning Nukes. Only
people
| >>>> who don't understand the law and the constitution believe
| >>>> discrimination
| >>>> is always unconstitutional.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> Don't be silly. Both of your examples are clearly a matter of public
| >>> safety. As for political campaigning as a gov't employee, the issue
| >>> is favoritism and corruption in public service. We're trying to
| >>> prevent abuse of power with these laws.
| >>>
| >>>> Otherwise, yeah, it'd offend me. But that's life. That's how the
system
| >>>> works. Everyone doesn't have "freedom of choice" to do whatever the
| >>>> hell
| >>>> they want. Society---not the individual--gets to decide what is and
IS
| >>>> NOT acceptable behavior and practice.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> You are quite right. Sexuality, however, as far as I'm concerned, is
| >>> (or should be in an ideal world) a private matter. I don't want to
| >>> see heterosexuals OR homosexuals sucking on each other in public. I
| >>> don't want to see mostly-naked people in advertising at the bus stop.
| >>> And I sure don't want to see jiggling tits in cartoons on TV
| >>> (couldn't believe what I saw the other day). We don't allow public
| >>> "fornication" by anyone.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> Although that is being pushed for by some also.
| >>
| >>> But that has nothing to do with whether people should have a means to
| >>> consecrate and/or formalize their unions when they choose to do so.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >> I see. So you *ARE* for my right to "marry", with government
| >> sanction, encouragement, and recognition, my beloved dogwood tree -
| >> after all - that's the way my brain is wired, and you can't prove
| >> otherwise.
| >
| >
| > KNOTHEAD!
|
| LOL! Nice pun. Reminds me of the time Johnny Carson said that "Ewel
| (sp?) Gibbon's (environut of the 70's) idea of a good time was eating
| the crotch out of a pine tree". 8^)
|
| Bill Putney
| (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
| adddress with the letter 'x')
|
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
|
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
| ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy Michael Barnes Driving 4 January 4th 05 07:47 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec [email protected] Chrysler 37 November 18th 04 05:18 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy Paul Antique cars 3 November 9th 04 07:54 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec indago Chrysler 7 November 8th 04 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.