From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Subject: On dislike and FOA
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:27:10 GMT

We certainly have thrashed the subjects surrounding FOA, haven't we?

The core of FOA relies on the implicit assumption that our wants, desires,
dreams, goals, and all else that we enagge in in our pursuit of happiness
is subjective.

I.e., what I like, what makes really happy, could be utterly disgusting to
you.

Some posters seem totally ignorant of the subjectivity of happiness. One
poster actually modified FOA to be limited whenever it makes other people
unhappy!

In any case, let's once again try to deal with homosexuality and FOA.

Homosexuality is NOT liked by most people. But, it IS tolerated by most
people. This is not only what I intuitively feel is correct, but is also
reflected in the Roper polls for Newsweek -- most people don't think
homosexuality should be illegal, but most people also don't think
that EEO type laws should apply. Tolerated, not accepted.


I don't think homosexuality is immoral. And it obviously is moral.

But, I don't want my kids exposed to it except in fashions I am in
control of.

Consider it like Tourettes Syndrome (an organic brain defect where
people utter obscene or socially shocking noises / movements). This
syndrome is traced to an actual area of the brain -- when it is damaged,
that's what happens.

Obviously, the right injury could render ANY of us subject to the syndrome.

And, from what I read, it is otherwise totally harmless.

Yet, I don't want my kids to, say, have a teacher that uncontrollably
shrieks "Shit" at the top of their lungs.

Whatever homosexuality is or is not, whether it is learned or organic
or a mixture, I don't want my kids exposed except under conditions I
have control of.

Obviously, most homosexual posters on the net don't like nor understand
this position. "They" take it as a direct affront if not an insult.

Too bad -- but, if MY inherent and absolute right to control FOA and for
my minor children is violated, then "they" have NO compalint when some
State like Georgia rules butt-fucking illegal.

We ALL have FOA, or none of us have FOA.

FOA IS subjective.

That means EACH and EVERY individual decides for his/her self what the
rules of happiness are. The State can't.

Some yahoss assert that FOA is fine, as long as "society this" or
"common rules" that.

Uh-uh -- no way Jose. We ridicule the concept of "Freedom Of The Press,
Subject to Censorship of Society (i.e. State censorship of course)",
and FOA is no different.

It is NOT for the State to decide what makes some/most of us happy.

The only proper nature for the State is to maximize the ability of
each and every one of us to PURSUE (not gain) happiness.

The State can not morally coerce one individual, even if that made
millions happier. We accept this principle now -- how many hate mongers
could the State just murder with little or no loss to us all? Yet, we
all agree that the State can not just off David Duke for example.

Yet a lot of people would be happier if David Duke wasn't around.

That is why I say "needs of the individual outweigh the needs of society".

And it can be no other way.

If "needs of the individual outweigh the needs of society", the we DON'T
murder David Duke. If you believe the opposite, then you must agree with the
State murdering David Duke. there is no middle ground in this arena.

It is either wrong or right.







-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7260 ca.politics:9700