From: kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: a question for gaylord (re: Re: A question for Welch and any prolifer)
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 02:37:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.024805.20391@crd.ge.com> keegan@sunroof.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>tommyk@castle.ed.ac.uk (T Kelly) writes:
>-> keegan@windsurf.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) writes:
>-> >-> >name one law that forces a belief.
>-> 
>-> In the USA today, there is a law against most forms of killing
>-> of persons.  That law is based on a belief that it is somehow
>-> "wrong" or "undesirable" for people to go around killing other
>-> people.
>
>so what does that have to do with a law forcing a belief?

Legislators believe that murder is wrong + they force murderers to be 
incarcerated/executed => legislators force their beliefs on murderers.

>-> To someone who rejects that belief, the laws against murder
>-> force them to behave in a certain way.
>
>you've shown no belief to be rejected.

Yes he has. He has cited the belief that murder is "wrong" or "undesirable".
That is the belief which is being forced on murderers via incarceration or
execution.

>-> Now granted, the law doesnt force them to *believe* - but then
>-> again, neither do proposed anti-abortion laws.
>
>so what's your point? the guy said "laws force beliefs" or
>something similar (you deleted it). i questioned his remark and
>asked him to support it. he hasn't, of course.

But at least 2 people *HAVE*, Jimmy. 

>-> Anti-murder laws don't take into consideration that a person
>-> may not accept the belief that killing persons is "wrong" or
>-> "undesirable".  The law doesn't try to force the person to
>-> change his belief. But it does force him to act according to
>-> that belief - or face the consequences.
>
>too bad we're talking about beliefs, rather than behavior.

Yes, we're talking about the beliefs of the law-makers, which is FORCED on
the murderers in an attempt to change their behavior, and the behavior of
those with murderous inclinations.

>-> Similarly, anti-abortion laws won't take into consideration
>-> that a person may not accept the belief that killing foetuses
>-> is "wrong" or "undesirable".  But it will force him (sic) to
>-> act according to that belief - or face the consequences.
>
>so you're arguing that laws force behavior. they don't even do
>that. they simply attach penalties to some behavior.
>
>but the issue was belief, not behavior.

Indeed. The belief(s) of the law-makers. It was obvious from context that 
Gaylord was referring to the beliefs of those being forced.

>-> So in this way, there are laws which force belief.
>
>you've shown no way that laws force belief.

They force the belief(s) of the law-makers.

>-> In fact, in this way, inasmuch as we can find one person who
>-> disagrees with a law, ALL laws force belief - as the original
>-> poster claimed.
>
>hold it now, you still haven't even found a single law that
>forces a belief.
>
>so you know what belief means?

Keegan, stop playing stupid head games. You MUST know by now that a plausible 
interpretation for "laws force beliefs" exists - namely, the interpretation
that it is the LAW-MAKERS' BELIEFS which are forced on the law-breakers or
the public-at-large.

Either address this interpretation, or drop your dispute with Gaylord. It 
serves no useful purpose to *PRETEND* that Gaylord meant something other than
what he did. That's just straw man tactics.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion