Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:16:00 EST
From:         MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

From:         Travis Kidd <TKIDD@CLEMSON.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: questions for tkidd

On Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:29:00 EST MING the Destroyer <199561011@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
said:
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:41:11 CDT fred <CCHILDER@UNMCVM.BITNET> said:
> > Did your wife have a FUCKING good reason for a divorce?  If not then
> >                      ^^^^^^^such LANGUAGE! and from a good christian
> >         boy, too.  this country's going down the tubes.
> Huh??  Did I ever mention Christian in any of my posts??  I believe in
> morality.  I said nothing about Christianity.  For the record, I be-
> lieve in Christianity, but I would hardly go so far as to say I am the
> most devout Cristian that ever was.
>
>         yeah.  i think you have.  also, the morality that you believe in
When???  Show me a post.

-->is it really that important to you?

          (and want the states, not the feds, to enforce ;) is the judeo-
>         christian moral tradition.  there are other moral systems and
>         standards out there, but people like yourself tend to equate
>         morality and christianity, and then claim that those operating
>         on some other morality are in actuality immoral.
Not necessarily, although I think the J-C ethic is the best one.

-->best one as in "best one for me" or "best one for everyone"?  if you
think the latter, you are sorely mistaken (imvho).  it is NOT the best
one for me, for example.  i would be extremely miserable if i had to live
your life, but i can understand that you might be quite happy with it.

>
> > vorce suit, there should be STRONG preponderance of the evidence point-
> > ing to adultery or another good cause for divorce.
> >
> >         what constitutes a good reason?  how about "we simply don't love
> >         each other anymore.  we tried to make it work, but it didn't."?
> >         or would one of them have to beat the other or cheat on the other
> >         and accept the jail term so that they could get divorced?
> Well, I won't go into the technicalities of what is a good reason and
> what is not.  But I will say that your reason is not a good one.  Hey--
> you made the vows "for better or for worse"--now you must live by them.

>         so you would rather have unhappy couples and emotionally tortured
>         children than divorced and happier people.  sounds charitable.
Perhaps the people could go to a marriage counselor.  The couple should
have thought about how unhappy they would be when they took their vows.

-->most people who get divorces have already gone the marriage counselor
route, with little success.  generally, couples think that they will be
happy together, but are wrong for any number of reasons.  so you say
"too bad, sucker.  you made a vow. now you gotta live with it."

-->i knew a man who didn't believe in divorce, and he eventually killed himself
because his wife drove him mad.  this is the sort of suffering you are willing
to enforce on people, simply to satisfy your notion of "morality"?  sometimes
it is better to break a vow (any good situational ethics expert can give
you scads of examples).

>         also sounds like a good way to promote mental instability.
>         all for promoting *your* moral agenda, which is better than mine.
Can't argue with you here.

-->which sentence were you agreeing with?

> Making murder illegal hasn't kept people from killing.
>
>         murder, unlike the things listed above, is an action which
>         significantly intrudes on anothers' rights and freedoms.  as such,
>         the state needs to protect those rights.  someone posted something
>         much more eloquent about this when the infamous jay steven sultan
>         was comparing murder and homosexuality.
It doesn't intrude on another's rights and freedoms.  It simply
causes another to not exist anymore.
What about rape??  Under the libertarian system, rape would be no more
a crime than harrassment.
("I had to catch a flight but some guy raped me and made me miss my
flight.  Now I want damages.")

-->what *are* you babbling about?

> > > 3. Are you willing to live in a society where the thought police follow
> > > you around to be sure that you are not thinking unclean thoughts?
> > No.  Everyone has a right to their thoughts.  Actions are another
> > matter.
> >
> >         thats like saying that everyone has a right to think about
> >         voting independant, as long as they actually vote republican
> >         or democrat.
> What I meant was, people don't NECESSARILY have a right to their ac-
> tions.  They may in some instatances.
>
>         they may in SOME instances?  i would say that they do in ALL
>         instances, unless a damn good reason can be found for restricting
>         it.
And who defines what a damn good reason is???  You???

-->the people, the government, the courts.  and me.

> >         so you don't like bud lite.
> I have yet to taste an alcoholic drink that tastes good.  And no play-
> ing mix-and-match--I can do that with Kool-aid.
>
>         try Mead (its a wine made with honey instead of grapes).  its
>         hard to find, tho.
Oh.  OK.  BTW, If I were absolute ruler of the universe, I would ban
the sale and importation of all alcoholic beverages over 4% (8 proof).
You can make it, you can give it to friends, but you can't sell it.

-->why would you want to do a silly thing like that?  just because *you*
don't like the taste of alcohol, you don't want other people to enjoy it
either?  is this why you want to outlaw sex?

> > And probably children of single parents who had sex outside of marriage.
> >
> >         often.  now who gets to take care of the kids while mom is
> >         in jail?
> Adoptive parents, foster parents, or the state.
>
>         so not only do the few of us, well, the few of you, who will
>         remain out of jail have to pay higher taxes to support all
>         the people having sex outside of marriage, but you also have to
>         pay all the child care costs too?
>
>         can you say 80% income tax?
>         sure, i knew you could.  i LIKE the way you say that.
Perhaps judges will make an exception for already-mothers.  It should
all be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  I don't believe in
robo-government.

-->since you are going to have so many cases that you won't be able to
process them with the system as impersonal as it is, how are you going
to do this case-by-case thing?  i mean, look how long it takes just to
deal with a damned parking ticket.  it can take years.

> -Travis
>
>         were yoiu the one who claimed that we were justified in
>         kidnapping that guy from mexico?  or was that someone else?
>         how do you feel about our kidnapping of noriega from his country,
>         where he was under the jurisdiction of the laws of panama,
>         but has been tried under the laws of the us?  just curious...
I don't think we should have captured Noriega.  Then again, if it is
in the interests of national security, I don't have a problem with it.
But I am glad to see him convicted.

-->even if the conviction is clearly illegal (such as making someone
liable for laws that they were never subject to?).  are you that insensitive
to issues of soverignty (sp?)?

>         brni
-Travis

-->brni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU