Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:43:00 EDT
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.
          (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.
>
> > 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.

>         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.

> 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.")

> > > 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???


> >         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.

> > 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.

> -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.


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