From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why a sawed-off shotgun?
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:35:32 GMT
Organization: Twilight Zone

In article <bb4Q025b21s601@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>In article: <1992Sep9.184748.28246@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
>Andy responds to inflammatory remarks I made regarding Weaver (in turn, in
>response to someone's tag line. ">" is me, indentations are Andy,"*" are
>my current remarks.
>
>
>
>In article <fbPY02lS20ew01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> bws20@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Brian W Simmons) writes:
>>
>>In article: <9209072023.AA08588@dg-rtp.dg.com>
>>
>>Bill Meyers signs off with:
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>#It has come to my attention that Mr Weaver's "crime" was having a shotgun
>>#barrel too short by *** .1 inch ***. Certainly justification for all the
>>#bloodshed that has and will occur over the matter. [sarcasm off]
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>It seems unfortunate to me Weaver
>>was not slain before he managed to breed.  
>
>	Well isn't that kind of you.
>
>*yes, this is an outrageous remark made in the heat of the moment, but
>*also based on years of experience with racists (and BTW, I am certainly
>*not without sin, but I work on it)

	Fair enough.
>
>
>>	Please do us all a favor, go home, kill your kids, your wife, all
>>	your relatives and then, thankfully, yourself.
>>
>>   As you can see, two can play your little sanctimonious word game.  

	[snip, rip hack]

>>   And I am not saying that you have to agree with racism.   I too
>>   disagree with it, but I suspect I do so for reasons that are very diffet
>>   from what yours may be.
>
>*I am wellaware of the incongruity of intolerantly declaiming against
>*intolerance.  While this may not be a moral muddle for you it is for me.
>*Ignoring Weaver for the moment, how can I tolerate, say, Hitlerian
>*thought, or racism on that level?  

	On what level are you speaking here?  I am talking about the level
	of feelings and words.  If a person wants to waste their time hating
	niggers/spics/jews/YouNameIt, if they want to rant and spew that hatred
	either by spoken or written word ro by image, LET THEM.  They are, IMO
	misguided fools that waste their lives on endeavors that serve only to
	diminish themselves, that eat at them like a cancer of the worst form.
	
	When they bring it to the level where they are manifesting that hatred
	in the form of harmful action against others, then I have a problem
	with it and believe that they have stepped over the line.  I suppose
	one could argue endlessly on what constitutes "harmful" action, but
	in general I look at it as any physical act of violence or of trespass
	into another persons "space".  For example, I do not believe a person 
	has the right to follow another person around and rant their beliefs at
	them, particularly after it has been made clear that they do not wish
	to be subjected to such things.  As can be plainly seen, there is a 
	fairly broad gray area here and I do not believe that legislation alone
	can solve such problems.

>How can I tolerate any belief system
> which classifies people based on their color, or their ethnic background
>*?

	If the belief system resides within the confines of a persons head,
	or between a group and does not go beyond in the form of violence,
	it is easily tolerated.  If you cannot tolerate it, it is YOU that 
	makes it so.   Tolerating is not the same as condoning, despite what
	many other people might have you believe.  E.g., just because your
	boss is an asshole and you tolerate his behavior, it does not follow
	necessarily that you condone his assholitude :) (my apologies to your
	boss).

	And in the most pragmatic vein, it matters not a whit whether you 
	think you tolerate it or not.  You probably cannot do anything about 
	it anyway.  Perhaps you confuse tolerance with agreement?
>
>>   You must accept and respect others for what they are, no matter how heis
>>   their beliefs may seem to you.  If you do not respect others, you meritne
>>   yourself.  Where do you suppose this gets you?  Intolerance is intolera,
>>   no matter what clothing you wrap it in.  So if you are going to be agai it
>>   then really be against it in deed as well as word.  Otherwise you will arl
>>   appear as a slobbering, empty headed buffoon to anyone with minimal act
>>   intelligence.  Quite embarassing I'd say.
>
>*SO again, Andy, in all seriousness, and Weaver aside, how should I
>*respect Hitler, or Stalin, or you-name-it?  

	Well first of all, these guys are both dead so it is in many ways
	moot to discuss respect for these fellows.  Second, you were not there,
	you do not know who these people really were and you cannot be certain
	of what the exact truth was regarding their places in history.  

	As for those that are here today, the fact remains that your knowledge
	of such persons (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Ytzhak Shamir, Idi Amin etc.)
	is severely over mediated by such things as the press.  They could
	say Hussein is a saint and you would have never have been able to 
	verify it, unless you pulled up stakes, moved to Iraq and perhaps
	made all strong attempts to become one of his buddies.

	The fact is you don't really know the truth about Weaver.  You know
	what you have heard via the mediating forces (TV, radio, papers etc)
	and no more.  He *could* be a saint for all any of us really know.
	If the Guv is after his ass, what do you *think* the FBI et al are
	going to say about him?  Do you put it past them to make things up
	or to use bullshit tactics to create a grossly misleading impression
	as to the material facts of the case?

	My point here is since you do not know for sure, how can you form a
	concrete opinion?  How can you condemn him?  Maybe he *is* a scumbag
	and them again maybe he is not.

>Believe me, despite my
>*inflammatory remarks, I do cherish our ability in this country to believe
>* as we wish.  Yet there are sokme things which I find so vile, so anti-
>*humanity, that _I_ cannot find it within me to tolerate or respect it.

	Well, you cannot have it both ways.  Either you really do cherish
	the right to believe as your heart tells you, or you do not.  By
	the sound of your statements here you do not, except when those beliefs
	are sufficiently sanitary, relative to your set of beliefs.  I think
	you would have to agree that this is not exactly free of hipocrisy.
	Again, do not confuse tolerance with agreement.  I accept any system
	of beliefs, but many I disagree with.  I have no problem accepting
	the beliefs of persons who think that Jews should be kiln furniture.
	I also do not agree with this point of view and would not be amenable
	to having it become physical reality.  In other words, I don't give
	a rats rosy ass what a person believes or feels.  Indeed I encourage
	people to express such feelings if they harbor them.  That way I know
	what I am dealing with.  One must look to the practical aspects of
	such matters, I believe.

>*LEt me put in a little personal perspective.  In the county neighboring
>*theone I grew up in, blacks are still afraid to travel.  When I was a
>*carpenter about 8-9 years ago, we did a job out there and a balck guy
>*that worked with us refused to go into the McDonalds (!!) because he knew
>* he would be refused service, because he had in the recent past.
>*  My wife worked at a state trout hatchery there for a while; the black
>* guy that delivered the fish food always worked his ass off to get out
>*of the county before dark, cause he, with good reason, feared for his
>*safety.  In the same time period, a major multinational firm had their
>*company picnic at the big lake in the county.  One of their black
>*employees was walking down the road with acouple of white female
>*coworkers.  Two locals drove up and shot him in the head, killed him
>* cause he was black.  City folks have built their big homes on the lake
>*nd had their black yardmen come up to do some work, and have been told
>*quite seriously to desist or have their homes burned to the ground.  I
>*should tolerate this?  Why?

	I did not say to tolerate bullets in the head.  These examples
	clearly cross the line of what is acceptable.  What you need to
	do IMO (and take it for what it's worth) is to learn to distinguish 
	between the two.  These are clearly diferent from the case of a person
	harboring racial hatreds and/or expressing them publicly.

>*I am not sensitive only to black/white issues, so do not misunderstand
>*me.  There is plenty of anti-white racism, and anti-Asian, etc.
>*And when racism is cloaked in the robes of religion as well...I just do
>*not know how I should respect this.  

	By just accepting it for what it is: another persons professed
	belliefs.  Does not mean you have to git yer scatter gun and go
	nigger hunting, mi capisce?  To not show due respect is really
	rather childish, certainly wasteful and foolish, and potentially
	dangerous.  I have known many persons who'd shoot your ass stone
	dead in a second and without a second thought if you were to get
	up in their faces and say something with the sentiments you expressed
	in your earlier post.  Gotta see the bigger picture, or you may
	find yourself pretty dead someday.  And don't misunderstand, I fail
	at this at times myself, but I try like hell to keep myself on the
	right track.

>I do not respect anti-Semitism, nor
>*do I respect anti-Arab sentiment by militant Israelis.  When people say
>* they are acting because that is what God wants, yes it pushes the big
>*skepticism button.  God gave Judea and Samaria to the Hebrews, so screw
>* the Palestinians?  The OT talks about the "sons of Ham" and the "mark
>*of CAin" so we can be prejudiced against blacks?  The US government is
>*"ZOG" to the Weaverites?  Yahweh is healing wounds?  No, I do not buy it.
>*Yes, I know, I don't have to buy it...but it always seems to me that
>*groups who think hateful thoughts soon commit hateful acts.
>*That is what I fear with people like Weaver, and his supporters.

	Well, does it really make sense to respect an ideology or a belief?
	Depends on the use of the word respect, really.  If you mean
	respect as in "abide by" then I would fully agree with you.  However
	if you mean respect as in showing proper courtesy, then the statement
	is essentially meaningless.  It is the people that repsect must be 
	shown for, even if you vehemently disagree with what they believe 
	and/or stand for.  To do anything less is to behave in a fashion that 
	is perhaps similar to those you disagree with.
>
>*Andy, I do realize it would be intellectually pure if I were tolerant of
>*the intolerant.  I am not, however intellectually pure, nor am I
>*Christ-like.

	It is neither intellectually pure nor Christ-like to do as I 
	suggest.  It is a simple matter of making a personal decision
	to change the way one regards certain classes of things.   The
	hardest part is becoming soft enough in one's attitude to allow
	yourself the chance to change for the better, which is not easy
	since profound and fundamental change is always a scary thing.

	By making such a change you increase your personal power because
	you have increased your prerogatives.  Persons like yourself really 
	have few choices open to them and the decisions you make are really 
	quite without meaning since they are more or less really fixed from 
	the beginning.  Changing this is easy, not impossibly Christ-like.
>
>*I would like to know why your dislike for racism is different from mine
>* as you suggested.Email is preferred, to the address in my .sig.

	Well since I've rambled on this far here, I guess I'll continue.  I
	see racism from a pragmatic angle, whereas you do not, though perhaps
	you might disagree.  However, before I continue, perhaps I should make
	mention of what I mean by "racism".

	For me, racism is the recognition of racial differences between
	persons.  It is also the misapplication of this recognition in ways 
	that are generallly detrimental to those upon whom such misapplications
	are imposed.

	So by my definition, I am a racist of sorts, and so is basically 
	everyone else, but let us use the second definition for the purposes
	of this discussion.

	I do not see racism in terms of right and wrong since such valuations 
	are essentially without meaning.  I see it as a waste of time.  For me 
	it adds no value.  Indeed I find that racism, when manifested as racial
	hatred, has a detrimental effect.  I see it as hurtful and therefore
	harmful to others and so I choose not to abide by its way as I have no
	desire to harm others unecessarily.  

	You, on the other hand do see it as an issue of right and wrong and
	are therefore compelled to take a stand that is morally imposed from
	without, rather than one that you choose for your own reasons.  This
	is unfortunately static and can really put you between a rock and a
	hard place a times.  Also, since you are doing what is absolutely
	right in all places and at all times and not what is right for you
	personally you must impose this upon all who disagree to whatever
	degree you are able to impose it upon them.  E.g., if right now you
	were given supreme power over all persons on earth, would you not at
	least be tempted to ban all racism?  Racist speech?  Sentiment?
	Practice?  I suspect you would.  I would not.  There is the difference
	between us.

>*Oh, and Andy, don't worry, I won't be reproducing.

	As you wish.

	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:20665 talk.politics.misc:44140