From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: Re: The Extent of Antigay Discrimination in CA Was (Re: UPI: Wilson signs gay employment rights bill)
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:17:40 GMT

In article <1afk6mINNpej@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU () writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.162355.1427@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >>>How did you derive this conclusion given the premises you
    >>>submitted. Free Speech is an area of great ambiguity. IMHO no
    >>>one, lesser than a god who controls everything, is allowed to
    >>>tell anyone else that they are evil or wrong or immoral...
    >>>they may as a function of rights state their discontent with
    >>>a situation or dislike of situation via channels and language
    >>>that do not degrade.
    >>>
    >>I believe that you are sincere about the above paragrapgh. I
    >>find it morally horrible -- on the par of listening to a NAZI
    >>speech.
    >>
    >Hmm- interesting, morally horrible, that is an interesting
    >use of words.
    >
    >
    >>You are NOT a god, and you may believe as you like, just as a
    >>NAZI may believe as they like, BUT I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO TELL
    >>ANYONE ELSE THAT THEY ARE EVIL, WRONG, AND IMMORAL.
    >>
    >You must have misread my above statement- I never said I was
    >a god. Rights are arrangeable according to what a society
    >wants... there is no given right for you to degrade anyone as
    >to their beliefs, manners, lifestyle or whatever... you may
    >as a society make rules and laws that govern some of those
    >things that a majority of people agree are not conducive to a
    >well functioning society.
    >

Wrong. There are inherent rights -- they exist whether you care to
acknowledge or not. As for the majority of people you rave about,
consider that Hitler both rose to power, and did what he di
to the Jews legally and with the agreement of the majority of
the people. Indeed, much of terrible crimes committed in the
"name of god" (so to speak) have been committed with the wishes
of the majority.

    >You have some real hang up about Nazi's and coercion and blah
    >blah blah, I remain in my opinion that people may disagree
    >and state their discontent with a situation, or with the
    >beliefs of individuals, but I do not feel that you or anyone
    >has the 'right' to be degrading, demmoralizing to anyone,
    >just as you tend to do in your messages and writings on the
    >newsgroups.

If you wish to censor yourself, go ahead. But to claim that other
people are subject to your wishes is a vile position, and hiding
in the anoniminti of the mob (crowd, democracy) is even
worse. You don't have the guts to stand up and state that
YOU believe YOU can control what other say do you?

    >The first steps in a civilized society is to work towards a
    >goal of mutual agree and disagree that does not include
    >mental harrying or persecusion of an individual or even a
    >group of individuals. The process is to state your
    >complaints, concerns and dislikes about concepts and beliefs
    >and then to work towards a mutually beneficial system.

So, have you welcomed and embrace any NAMBLA, KKK, NAZI, Aryan
Peoples Party, fascists, socialists, communists, Maoists, Stalinist,
Trotysky-ites, Earth Firster'sinto your bosom lately?

Some people are desrving of approbataion ...

    >It appears that in your mind one attempts to 'coerce'
    >(favorite word) other people into accepting that you have
    >this and that right, then if they don't agree, then you play
    >the FOA game.

Trouble thinking again? Show me ONE incidence (other than a jest with
a :-) ) where I have advocated or intimitaed the use of force into
acccepting any of my ideas. Unlike you, I'm not hiding behind
the guise of "society this" and "society that" in stating my
mral beliefs.

I its your dime (your paper, your copy machine, your printer, your
TV station, your net terminal), speak your mind. It's your righ,
even if you don't want to see it extended to all people.

    >>You, if you truly hold these beliefs, are either a young and
    >>ignorant student at one of our higher institutions of
    >>intellectual butchery, or you are evil, wrong, immoral, AND
    >>arrogant.
    >>
    >Yes yes I heard all of this before... hard for you judge,
    >isn't it, what or who I am. So the common response is; you
    >are young ignorant, or evil bad immoral and arrogant.

Well, you haven't denied it, have you? In any case, its a label
that seems to fit very well -- we get to do that you know, call
'em as we see 'em. And you are a walking PC stereotype.

    >I would tend to say that you are the one exhibits arrogances,
    >thinking that you have been granted every 'right' to do as
    >you please and say as you please.

No -- again you be stupid. I can NOT do as I please. But, I do have
the rght to do as I please, with my property, anything I want with any
number of other adults (with their own property, etc.). I can
say what I please (libel , fraud and other coercive practices excepted).

    >So therefore you would support anyone who wished to yell
    >'Fire' in a crowded place, even though that might case a
    >condition where people get injured, maybe even killed... I
    >guess that is just alright becuae we wouldn't want to curtail
    >your all or nothing rights.

Boy, the all time number 1 example of why some people think we shouldn't
have free speech.

What you haven't been taught yet is that you and I and everybodyy else
have the right, acknowledged by law in this country, to yell FIRE
or RAIN or OH SHIT in a movie theater.

We do not have prior restraint yet, no matter how hard the PC(tm)
fascists have been at work.

You know, one reason the PC are so in favor f prior restraint is
that they are afraid of words -- plain simple words that expose
their bullshit for what it is.

Mere words  -- what are you afraid of really?

    >>In other words, take your Politically Correct fascist little
    >>ideas and ....
    >>
    >>
    >Ohh! getting nasty now aren't we??
    >

Oh yes -- I'm rather intolerant to infringment of rights.

    >>Jawohl mein Commanddant -- in order to be diverse und
    >>tolerant, ve must suppress all non-Aryan, OOPSS, I mean
    >>non-Politically Ideas. (boot heel click and stiff arm salute,
    >>or is that Earth shoes and peace sign ...)
    >>
    >>
    >Earth shoes and peace sign- ho ho, this is very trite and
    >lacks any imagination. And I will exercise my right to say,
    >that I think you need to improve somewhat on your
    >intellectual conversing, by attempting to write sometime
    >originally, rather than regorging constantly, everything you
    >hear on some right wing program.

What!!!! Such a hypocrit. I thought YOU thought: 
"no one, lesser than a god who controls everything, is allowed to
tell anyone else that they are evil or wrong or immoral..."


And here you are, telling me I'm wrong, and being mean about it to.


Tsk tsk tsk .... can't live by what you state ...



-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,soc.culture.latin-america