From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.sex
Subject: Re: What is Clay's real motivation?
Date: 19 Jan 93 01:53:59 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1j4j56INN1b8@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
> In article <13911@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan12.093713.5445@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >> In article <13869@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# #Typical liberal.  He's trying to hide his defense of child molestation
# #under the cover of, "It's just a philosophical argument."
# #
# #More typical liberalism.  Some line needs to be drawn.  It will be
# #arbitrary.  I believe the line would make a great deal of sense drawn
# #where we assume that adulthood starts for most other items, such as
# #driver's licenses, alcohol, contracts.  But in any case, Mr. Brack
# #was arguing that ANY age being defined is wrong -- which means that
# #he would have no objection to an adult sodomizing an 8 year old, or
# #even a 3 year old.  And apparently, neither do you.
# 
# Well you are operating on the concept that 'a line must be drawn'.  That
# sounds a little strange- who will draw it? Majority? Is this absolutely
# correct then, if the majority says it is?

Not necessarily.  But if you agree that a line should be drawn where
we define adult (contracts, alcohol, etc.) then we must decide how
to draw that line, don't we?  We usually work on the majority rule
theory in this country, in the absence of Constitutional restrictions.

# ## #I couldn't make up stuff as outrageous as homosexuals keep posting
# ## #in defense of child molestation -- like Mr. Brack's postings.
# ## 
# 
# I believe you do not understand the reference frame from which some
# people are posting-  they are talking about how to set limits and
# how to uphold them.  It is a very difficult question, and one that
# changes with time.  

No, Mr. Brack was arguing that there should be NO limit.

# At least these people are attempting to have an intelligent and reasonable
# discussion- not just throwing emotional statements about, and making
# generalized claims of such and such.

Shall we have an intelligent and rational discussion of whether
homosexuals are human beings or not?  Of course not.  I would 
consider such a "intelligent and rational discussion" a frightening
preface to something rather worrisome.  Wouldn't you?

# #I see.  If we redefine you as as "subhuman" then concentration camps
# #aren't committing murder, are they?  More typical liberalism.
# 
# This is not a valid comparison.  It is just this type of inability to
# make a correct argument and then support it, that leads to all types of
# confusion over particular subjects.

I've pointed out that redefining things to suit the whim of the moment
creates great risks, especially for a minority group.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69287 talk.politics.guns:27055