From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: More and More of the Usual Re: The usual
Date: 22 Nov 1992 02:01:55 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Nov21.030236.24001@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <1ejobqINNjc0@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins)) writes:
>    >Are people so narrow minded and ignorant and selfish that we
>    >must inact legislation in order to protect people from the
>    >actions of others. It appears that the answer is yes.
>
>And there you have it. Being narrow minded, ignorant, and selfish
>are NOT illegal. Indeed, they are subjective judgements (gee, what do you
>mean, you don't like my work of art depicting a man urinating into a
>representation of you most hold deity! narrow minded bigot ...).
>

Nobody said that ignorance, selfishness, narrow mindedness are illegal.

But we definitely need certain rules to allow for the equality of our
society to be realized...

Example-  XV Amendment:  The right of citizens of the United States to
vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Is this a coercive rule?  What do you think? 

I mean we know that 'facist' wouldn't have such laws, except for themselves.

So you are narrowed minded by saying that I am not allowed to try and create
legislation to protect people from other people?  If the majority of people
are convinced that a civil rights law is needed, then what should happen?

I would suggest that you do a little bit of historical analysis of world
affairs and histories. 

>But some facists just have to have coercive laws aimed at things they don't
>like.
>

Get off trying to label everything as 'facist', you seem to be somewhat
obsessed.

Do we have laws that require you to have gays, blacks, asians, etc. come
and visit your home or enter your home without your permission?  I don't
think so.  But if a business goes into the 'public sector' then they
take on certain types of social values and conducts that are required
or at least desired for a society to function well.

Let's go one step furthur- we have a Bill of Rights that guarantees 
many rights that we take for granted.  But isn't that a little coercive?
Let's take the XIII Amendment that forbids slavery, but I have decided
that I want slaves... and now I can't and according to section 2 Congress
can enforce this ruling upon me.  So where do we draw the lines on what
is coercive and what is not?

>And then they wonder why they in turn are hit with laws against their
>favorite whatevers.
>

I assume you are talking about laws such as sodomy etc....  These laws
came into being long before any gay or straight persons started to
complain about them as a violation of personal freedom.  You are putting
the chicken before the egg, of course I am only trying to surmise what your
statement above means- actually like a lot of the statements you make.

>    >It is one thing to dislike a piece of clothing or the color
>    >of a dish, but to dislike (and vehemently) something which is
>    >part of a persons physical, mental, or emotional states is
>    >bordering on bigotry. And I am not talking about disliking
>    >someone becuase they are murders, crazy, etc. etc.
>    >
>    >I am talking about disliking someone becuase they are fat,
>    >maybe ugly to you, the color of their skin, the color of
>    >their hair, etc. etc.
>    >
>    >Disliking someone because they are gay, is irrational...
>
>So you believe that disliking something that is part of "a persons physical,
>mental, or emotional states" is bordering on bigotry?
>
>Well, you don't seem to like me because of my mental and emotional
>states, you little bigot you.
>
Did I ever say that I didn't like you becuase of what you say.  Oh I
remember I said that people may not like you becuase of what you say
and post... I don't think I said I didn't like you directly becuase
of your mental and emotional states, and if I did it was sarcastic
in nature... you know like you do.

Oh and you did say above   'seems'  that I don't like you. You must
have made a conclusion for yourself.

>Or do you really like me but have been just too shy? In that case,
>since you like me, can I borrow $1,000?
>
I will loan you a $1000 at an interest rate that I will set, and
will a repayment schedule that you must meet promptly, and you
can then take it or leave it... and of course your possesions will
be your collateral..

>You couldn't construct a coherent logical position if your life depended
>on it.
>
>So we can't like/dislike somebody for their appearance, physical, mental,
>or emotional states.
>
>WHAT'S LEFT? Their aura's?
>

You must be very insecure that you cannot simply accept others for
who and what they want to be, or what they are.

>
>
>
>-- 
>I believe Gennifer Flowers.
>
Get the hot story now, Flowers used by powerful politicians.
Xref: sparky ba.politics:7273 ca.politics:9723