Subject:
|
Re: The partisian trap in California
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:45:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
359 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Precisely point out Bush’s “lie” about Iraq. Be prepared to show that he
knowingly and deliberately, and also specifically (I want quotations)
misinformed.
|
Just because you ask this question repetitiously doesn’t mean it hasn’t been
answered already, either directly or by a link to an article somewhere. I have
answered this question multiple times in this forum before it was asked by you.
And sorry, but I don’t jump through hoops for anyone -- you can search this
forum yourself. In doing so, you will find that I have previously noted and
explained how and why we get multiple stories from the White House, that there
were multiple points in the last State of the Union address that were known to
be both false and misleading, and that plainly and simply -- there are no WMD
and Iraq was not an imminent threat to anyone. End of story.
Do you have any proof in support of any of the rhetoric on the run-up to war?
That’s right, you don’t. Why should I have to prove a negative when you cannot
prove a positive?
I find your clinging to the shreds of your party’s baseless rhetoric somewhat
laughable, and I expect I am not alone.
| |
Really? And what about an American muslim who believes he is justified to
stab his own daughter on religious grounds?
|
Religious freedom is deeply respected in this country but I am not sure it
extends to assaulting or killing another. The nature of your question ignorantly
ignores the fact that most individual rights are conceived of as extending only
to a point of not harming others. This is often noted as the Golden Rule: do
not unto others as you would have others not do unto you.
Was there a serious point to your question? I mean, what kind of question is
that? I presume you are trying to make some huge point that common law crimes
like theft, rape, and murder are examples of legislated morality. Your problem
is that those examples are based on fundamental ethics so common to so many
cultures that I am somewhat pressed to think of a culture that doesn’t ideally
try to protect its participants from those kinds of harm. The fact that you
might subsequently come up with an example of such a culture doesn’t change the
fact that all of these crimes are predicated on harm to others, and no one’s
rights extend that far.
Because I try to take you seriously sometimes, although there is often precious
little reason to do so, I will try it again another way: what if an American
muslim, who believes he is justified in doing so on religious grounds, commits
suicide? Frankly, I don’t have a problem with that. I support the right to
commit suicide for whatever reason(s) one chooses. Such a right is actually de
facto since people indeed commit suicide all the time, having laws against it
prevents nothing. I even support carefully monitored assisted suicide for
medical reasons.
| |
Just curious. If you are in favor of marriages other than male-female
(remember, this could conceivably be a “gay” marriage), how do you justify
drawing the line at 2 person marriages? What about 3? Or 4? Or me and my
pet Eric the half-bee?
|
The last bit is deeply offensive and I think it reveals you in your true colors.
I don’t think that this is truly an idle question -- it reveals your deeply
contemptuous and bigoted nature for any lifestyle not having your full 100%
agreement and support. I find your attitude decidedly unamerican because it is
freedom hating.
To answer the first part of your paragraph. No, I don’t have a problem with
multiple partner marriages or with communal lifestyles for that matter. It
makes no difference in answering this question that I am in an ordinary
heterosexual two person relationship myself. I don’t have a problem if other
people want to choose something different for themselves from what I choose for
myself.
Freedom, John. Haven’t you heard? It’s what being an american is supposed to be
about. Privately, you can opine on these subjects as pleases you, but I would
expect a true american to support legislation expanding personal freedom when it
costs the community nothing to provide that freedom to those that need it.
Can you imagine being denied access to the sickbed of a loved one just because
the law does not recognize the nature of your relationship? Is there a point to
something like that?
And if you can’t handle that level of freedom for others, let’s take it another
way: it would be my opinion that no one should be granted the special status of
having a legally recognized marriage -- let it remain a purely symbolic social
or religious custom. Why should the state be allowed to pick and choose from
amongst the many possible lifestyles those that are to be be given the special
status of “legal” marriage. Maybe the state doesn’t need to be in that business
at all.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) You can link until the cows come home, but it really proves nothing. Nada. The best you can hope for is that Bush believed intelligence that suggested that WMD still existed (assuming that they indeed don't) and he was wrong. Nobody can prove (...) (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The partisian trap in California
|
| (...) Sorry, I don't buy it. (...) Precisely point out Bush's "lie" about Iraq. Be prepared to show that he knowingly and deliberately, and also specifically (I want quotations) misinformed. (...) I don't know what to make of the media in (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
