From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:08:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.172307.15904@crd.ge.com> james g keegan jr <keegan@crd.ge.com> writes:
>kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>-> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
>-> >-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >-> >-> >name one law that forces a belief.
>-> >-> 
>-> >-> In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of
>-> >-> killing of persons.  That law is based on a belief that it
>-> >-> is somehow "wrong" or "undesirable" for people to go
>-> >-> around killing other people.
>-> >
>-> >so what does that have to do with a law forcing a belief?
>-> 
>-> Legislators believe that murder is wrong + they force
>-> murderers to be incarcerated/executed => legislators force
>-> their beliefs on murderers.
>
>specify one belief of your hypothetical murderer which is
>changed. 

Irrelevant. Gaylord didn't say "laws cause beliefs to be changed", he
said "laws force beliefs", and obviously the legislators' beliefs are
forced on the murderers. QED.

>-> >-> To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against
>-> >-> murder force them to behave in a certain way.
>-> >
>-> >you've shown no belief to be rejected.
>-> 
>-> Yes he has. He has cited the belief that murder is "wrong" or
>-> "undesirable".  That is the belief which is being forced on
>-> murderers via incarceration or execution.
>
>no belief whatsoever is forced. the only forced thing in your
>scenario is a consequence of an action, not a belief.

Where did Gaylord specify that the "force" CAUSED the "beliefs", Keegan?
It can just as easily (more easily, in fact, when context is considered)
be taken in the EXACT OPPOSITE sense - i.e. where the "beliefs" of 
legislators cause them to "force" consequences on their targets.

>-> >-> Now granted, the law doesnt force them to *believe* - but
>-> >-> then again, neither do proposed anti-abortion laws.
>-> >
>-> >so what's your point? the guy said "laws force beliefs" or
>-> >something similar (you deleted it). i questioned his remark
>-> >and asked him to support it. he hasn't, of course.
>-> 
>-> But at least 2 people *HAVE*, Jimmy. 
>
>wrong. no one has. if you dispute that, name one.

I, for one, have supported Gaylord's statement.

You may not agree that I have *SUCCESSFULLY* supported it, but you cannot
deny that I have supported it.

>-> >-> Anti-murder laws don't take into consideration that a
>-> >-> person may not accept the belief that killing persons is
>-> >-> "wrong" or "undesirable".  The law doesn't try to force
>-> >-> the person to change his belief. But it does force him to
>-> >-> act according to that belief - or face the consequences.
>-> >
>-> >too bad we're talking about beliefs, rather than behavior.
>-> 
>-> Yes, we're talking about the beliefs of the law-makers, which
>-> is FORCED on the murderers in an attempt to change their
>-> behavior, and the behavior of those with murderous
>-> inclinations.
>
>see above.

See above.

>-> >-> Similarly, anti-abortion laws won't take into
>-> >-> consideration that a person may not accept the belief that
>-> >-> killing foetuses is "wrong" or "undesirable".  But it will
>-> >-> force him (sic) to act according to that belief - or face
>-> >-> the consequences.
>-> >
>-> >so you're arguing that laws force behavior. they don't even
>-> >do that. they simply attach penalties to some behavior.
>-> >
>-> >but the issue was belief, not behavior.
>-> 
>-> Indeed. The belief(s) of the law-makers. It was obvious from
>-> context that Gaylord was referring to the beliefs of those
>-> being forced.
>
>i don't even think you believe that.

Gaylord has concurred with my interpretation, so yes, Keegan, I *DO* 
believe that's what he meant. If you continue to insist that he meant 
something else, you'd better start wearing the dunce cap again.

>-> >-> So in this way, there are laws which force belief.
>-> >
>-> >you've shown no way that laws force belief.
>-> 
>-> They force the belief(s) of the law-makers.
>
>not so, obviously. had he written "enforce," rather than force,
>you might have a point. 

"Force" is sufficiently synonymous with "enforce" to make the 
interpretation plausible. Not optimal, but plausible. Careful perusal
of context made the interpretation not only plausible, but almost
INESCAPABLE. Did you even bother to read or reread the context, Jimmy, or 
did your weak little mind just seize on that one sentence to the exclusion 
of everything else??

>-> >-> In fact, in this way, inasmuch as we can find one person
>-> >-> who disagrees with a law, ALL laws force belief - as the
>-> >-> original poster claimed.
>-> >
>-> >hold it now, you still haven't even found a single law that
>-> >forces a belief.
>-> >
>-> >so you know what belief means?
>-> 
>-> Keegan, stop playing stupid head games. You MUST know by now
>-> that a plausible interpretation for "laws force beliefs"
>-> exists - namely, the interpretation that it is the LAW-MAKERS'
>-> BELIEFS which are forced on the law-breakers or the
>-> public-at-large.
>
>kevin, stop playing net.vendetta games. i certainly post with
>sufficient frequency for you to find something i've written which
>you can show to be wrong. 

Yeah, tons of them. But you just deny and evade and obfuscate and...

>-> Either address this interpretation, or drop your dispute with
>-> Gaylord. It serves no useful purpose to *PRETEND* that Gaylord
>-> meant something other than what he did. That's just straw man
>-> tactics.
>
>who are you to say what gaylord meant? 

Gaylord concurs with my interpretation.

>are you reading minds again. 

No, just words. You are the unsuccessful mind-reader around here...

							- Kevin