pro-deathers motivated by guilt
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Defend Life newsletter, page 13 at
http://defendlife.org
Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
On face value, such a statement seems ironic and perhaps
ludicrous. Aren't they always jabber-jawing about
how inhibited and repressed we are? Well, maybe they
protesteth too much!
We read in Romans 2:12-16 how God writes His law
into the heart of every human being. St. Thomas Aquinas
calls this the "imprint of the Divine light." This imprint
makes itself manifest in the actions of the conscience.
We know, again through Scripture (specifically, the
letter from James) that sin makes inroads through the
thoughts, which are then acted upon in what we call "actual
sin." For the anti-lifer, these sinful thoughts are driven
by moral relativism. He believes that he is his own
god, rejecting all objective standards of behavior.
However, that "Divine imprint" can be obscured,
but it can never be totally eradicated from the anti-lifer's
heart. Thus, guilt and tension ensue, which is actually a
good thing: God, in His mercy, is causing this disquiet
to lead the anti-life sinner to repentance and to true freedom.
All too often, though, the anti-lifer seeks only to remove
the discomforting signals of his behavior, as he has
no intention of repenting. He does this by trying to force
us all to celebrate, if not assimilate the sinful behaviors.
One mechanism for so doing is the evisceration of
the Church. We are seeing such compromise within the
Church through the lackluster preaching that is all too
common. We see it manifest in two key ways.
Firstly, there has been the dangerous shift in emphasis
from personal to collective sin. Priests and ministers
can talk on and on about racism, war, environmentalism,
etc. In talking of sins of which everyone (to varying degrees)
is guilty, they do not call people to self-examination
and repentance of their personal sins from the pulpit.
They make people feel good about themselves.
The priests have forgotten their primary mission,
which is to save souls and lead them to heaven. Social
justice, in its right place, is ancillary to personal salvation
and sanctification. The latter is being scuttled for the
former.
The second manifestation is an overemphasis on
the message, "Come as you are." The mercy of God is
stressed, but nary a word is mentioned of God's justice.
It is a "feel-good" counterfeit of theology that puts undue
emphasis on self-acceptance and comfort; in reality,
the Gospel is more about repentance and salvation. Yes,
Jesus always loved the sinner where he was-- but Jesus
never allowed the sinner to remain in his decrepit state.
A secondary message to the "comfort" message is the
suggestion that "We are weak, so God will understand if
we surrender to our baser urges." Thus, we can stand
excused because we aren't culpable. We're all going to
heaven anyway, so "don't worry-- be happy!"
The lie has infested high places. In 1995, Richard
Holloway, then Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, claimed,
"God knew when He made us that He has given us a
built-in sex drive to go out and sow our seeds. He has
given us promiscuous genes. I think it would be wrong
for the church to condemn people who have followed
their instincts."
Unfortunately, some Catholic bishops fare no better.
A prime example can be found in most of the so-called
"Child Protection Policies" put in place in the wake of
the clergy sex scandals.
Take the archdiocese of Washington's policy, for example,
which is available on www.adw.org. Download
it and do a word search. You will not find in it the words
"sin," "penance," "sacrament," "salvation," and others of
a spiritual nature.
A message that one gets from this is that the sex-abuser's
eternal salvation matters little, and he is subject
to psychological forces beyond his control. This message
is not much different than the one foisted upon the public
by the Culture of Death, that is, "You cannot help but
engage in sexual activity out of the bounds of matrimony.
Therefore, use contraception and abortion to exterminate
any babies that might result from your promiscuity. And
don't worry - we know you can't help it!"
Our Lord, through the Teaching Magisterium of the
Church, has taught us very differently. We are created
in His image and likeness. That image is most manifest
in our possession of intellect and will: two faculties not
possessed by any other creature.
God gives us His laws to enlighten our intellects.
These laws clearly demarcate between right and wrong;
they make crystal clear His will for us. Possessing free
will, we can choose to obey or disobey Him, choose evil
over good.
This is why those who embrace the anti-life mentality
seek to blur the distinctions between right and wrong:
so that no one can accuse them of doing wrong (or so
they think).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Edward Simon, probably originally in his Another Side to the Evolution
Problem, Jewish Press, Jan. 7, 1983, 248,
cited in
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number12/Darwinpapers12HTML.htm#N_1_
I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution
brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the
theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to
the moral climate that made a holocaust possible....
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
some findings re: Hitler, pro-death Darwinists
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1149886564.932994.211090%40f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
ScottyFLL
> Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
>
> Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
Do you believe in capital punishment?
> The lie has infested high places. In 1995, Richard
> Holloway, then Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, claimed,
> "God knew when He made us that He has given us a
> built-in sex drive to go out and sow our seeds. He has
> given us promiscuous genes. I think it would be wrong
> for the church to condemn people who have followed
> their instincts."
Hmm. Well, that "lie" makes more sense than all the other drivel
you've presented. And it is truth.
> You will not find in it the words
> "sin," "penance," "sacrament," "salvation,"
Thank God!
LC
<dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:1192124633....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
> On face value, such a statement seems ironic and perhaps
> ludicrous. Aren't they always jabber-jawing about
> how inhibited and repressed we are? Well, maybe they
> protesteth too much!
Or...maybe not!:
OCTOBER 8--An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical
asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a
face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head
mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev.
Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old
pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home
at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic
undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the
autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's two wet suits, the family newspaper
chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister's rubber
briefs. Aldridge served as the church's pastor for 16 years. Immediately
following his death, church officials issued a press release asking
community members to "please refrain from speculation" about what led to
Aldridge's demise, adding that, "we will begin the healing process under the
strong arm of our Savior, Jesus Christ."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
<regurgitated fundy crap flushed>
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:43 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
> > Defend Life newsletter, page 13 athttp://defendlife.org
> >
> > Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
>
> Do you believe in capital punishment?
What has one to do with the other?
That's just a ridiculous question!
>
> > The lie has infested high places. In 1995, Richard
> > Holloway, then Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, claimed,
> > "God knew when He made us that He has given us a
> > built-in sex drive to go out and sow our seeds. He has
> > given us promiscuous genes. I think it would be wrong
> > for the church to condemn people who have followed
> > their instincts."
>
> Hmm. Well, that "lie" makes more sense than all the other drivel
> you've presented. And it is truth.
So you're pro-choice too. Good.
Susan
Dionisio
> Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
Yep. That's the irony. Defend Life? Catholic. They know all about guilt. (Ask them.)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Learn Japanese: “Say, this is an impressive traffic jam!” – “Nante komikata nandesho!”
(NON-tay koh-mee-KAH-tah nan-DAY-sho!)
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Dionisio
> On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 11, 1:43 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>>Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
>>Do you believe in capital punishment?
>
> What has one to do with the other?
Hmm... Let's see... "Anti-life" vs. the death penalty. Huh, they couldn't *possibly* have
any similarities.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Nobody "becomes" gay from the enticing propaganda -- there ISN'T any. Being gay is painful
and difficult in our society BECAUSE of other people who hate. But even if it was made to
seem glamorous and fun, either you have the orientation or you don't... you are gay (or
bisexual) or you are not. Nobody's kid will become homosexual from reading the Advocate --
the real danger is that they might become more tolerant and loving than their parents from
finally realizing that gays are no different from themselves, except in one tiny
insignificant way.
-- slba...@bu.edu (Sherry Bailey), 25 Jan 1995
ScottyFLL
> On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 1:43 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
> > > Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
> > > Defend Life newsletter, page 13 athttp://defendlife.org
>
> > > Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
>
> > Do you believe in capital punishment?
>
> What has one to do with the other?
> That's just a ridiculous question!
Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
which I find odd.
> > > The lie has infested high places. In 1995, Richard
> > > Holloway, then Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, claimed,
> > > "God knew when He made us that He has given us a
> > > built-in sex drive to go out and sow our seeds. He has
> > > given us promiscuous genes. I think it would be wrong
> > > for the church to condemn people who have followed
> > > their instincts."
>
> > Hmm. Well, that "lie" makes more sense than all the other drivel
> > you've presented. And it is truth.
>
> So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
> > > You will not find in it the words
> > > "sin," "penance," "sacrament," "salvation,"
>
> > Thank God!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ScottyFLL
I saw this earlier. Did you read the autopsy report? He had a dildo
up his bum. Yes indeedy. A big ol' dildo up in his conservative
Baptist butt.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
yawn
<replonk Fnord>
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“There's really no point to voting. If it made any
difference, it would probably be illegal”
- H. L. Mencken
David V.
Of course, we've known that for quite some time now. Religious
people are anti-life. They care little, if anything, abut this
life. They do not care who dies or how. They have no problem with
the killing of over a million people in an invasion of a country
that was of no threat to us. They care more about forcing a
pregnant woman to finish her pregnancy than they care about the
life of the mother or the life of the baby after it's born.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
David V.
> On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 11, 1:43 pm, dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:
>>
>>> Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated
>>> by guilt" Defend Life newsletter, page 13
>>> athttp://defendlife.org
>>>
>>> Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
>>
>> Do you believe in capital punishment?
>
>
> What has one to do with the other? That's just a ridiculous
> question!
Life is what the two questions have to do with each other. Those
that are anti-life would have no problem with capital punishment.
Or do they only care about life before it is born? And once that
"life" has committed an error, instead of forgiving like the
bible says and they god of love would say, they just stop caring
about that life. It's called - hypocrisy.
Ray Fischer
>Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
>Defend Life newsletter, page 13 at
>http://defendlife.org
>
>Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
You want to subjugate woman because of your guilt over your own
immoral deeds?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Baker, Janet.
Not the great English mezzo-soprano? Say it ain't so!
July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
> Defend Life newsletter, page 13 athttp://defendlife.org
>
> Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
Fact-free wankage is a prime characteristic of right-wing screeds on
all sorts of topics, including abortion.
Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Anti-aborts do not consider anyone who challenges them to be
human. As The Party did in "1984", the R/C and the Fun-deeze
will tell us who is human, who should be killed.
You see, only they know these things. Just ask them.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality.
> >
> > > Do you believe in capital punishment?
> >
> > What has one to do with the other?
> > That's just a ridiculous question!
>
> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> which I find odd.
I totally beg your pardon - I read that the other way around.
Susan
David Schwartz
> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> which I find odd.
Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
DS
Scruffy McScruffovitch
Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people that are
anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an 18 year old off to
fight and die in a war. They're not content to make people suffer here at
home when shipping them off to maximize suffering around the world is so
much better.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson
patrick...@standardregister.com
wrote:
> In News 1192188069.267979.244...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com,, David
> Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
>
> > On Oct 11, 5:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> >> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> >> which I find odd.
>
> > Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
>
> > DS
>
> I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people that are
> anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an 18 year old off to
> fight and die in a war. They're not content to make people suffer here at
> home when shipping them off to maximize suffering around the world is so
> much better.
>
Well, as far as that goes, most of the people who are pro-choice for
women's right to control their own lives seem to have no pro-choice
crusade to give men the right to control their lives by choosing not
to register for selective service. So when it comes to that one, I'm
afraid you're going to have to bite the hypocrisy bullet.
Personally, I happen to be a pro life person who is anti death
penalty. But for those pro lifers who do support capital punishment,
I can easily see where they distinguish between an innocent unborn
child and a convicted criminal. So if I, as a death penalty opponent,
can see that so easily, I'm sure you can too. Therefore, saying "they
are just content to make people suffer" is obviously politically
motivated hyperbole rather any sort of honest analysis.
Mike
I just loved the wording of the last part of page 4:
"Clothing: the decedent was received wearing two(2) wet suits, one scuba
diving mask, one pair of diving gloves, one pair of slippers, one pair
of rubber underwear, two(2) ties, five(5) belts, eleven(11) straps.
Personal Effects: one yellow metal ring intact on left ring finger, one
dildo."
"One dildo" in the personal effects, eh?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > Do you believe in capital punishment?
Not now in the U.S., which has a wretched judicial system regularly
making gross mistakes in determining the guilt or innocence of accused
individuals.
Do you believe in partial birth abortion done for reasons of personal
convenience?
> > What has one to do with the other?
> > That's just a ridiculous question!
>
> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> which I find odd.
Do you think human "life is precious"?
1868 Haeckel, 2003 Dawkins, 1997 George Williams, 1995 Dennett:
Darwinist atheists/ materialists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
Do you "find odd" anything below?
Genesis 4 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%204;&version=31;
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to
the field."[d] And while they were in the field, Cain
attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your
brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's
keeper?"
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen!
Your brother's blood cries out to me from the
ground.
Genesis 9 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209;&version=31;
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an
accounting. I will demand an accounting from every
animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an
accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
Deuteronomy 19 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2019;&version=31;
8 If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as
he promised on oath to your forefathers, and gives
you the whole land he promised them,
9 because you carefully follow all these laws I
command you today-- to love the LORD your God
and to walk always in his ways-- then you are to set
aside three more cities.
10 Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in
your land, which the LORD your God is giving you
as your inheritance, and so that you will not be
guilty of bloodshed.
11 But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait
for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one
of these cities,
12 the elders of his town shall send for him, bring
him back from the city, and hand him over to the
avenger of blood to die.
13 Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel
the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may
go well with you.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
Do you approve of the court decision mentioned below?
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the
Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 123:
The key measure was a June 26, 1935, emendation
of the Sterilization Law, allowing abortions for
women already slated to be sterilized.^25 The
Nazis also made other exceptions. On November
10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal
for Jews.^26 And in the spring and summer of
1943....
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mindreader Mitchell: Hitler was "anti-abortion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141921380.312364.144060%40i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Free Lunch
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote in
<1192224788.0...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
>Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
>I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
You are a prig.
>Do you approve of the court decision mentioned below?
>
>Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the
>Nazis_
>(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 123:
> The key measure was a June 26, 1935, emendation
> of the Sterilization Law, allowing abortions for
> women already slated to be sterilized.^25 The
> Nazis also made other exceptions. On November
> 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal
> for Jews.^26 And in the spring and summer of
> 1943....
You have demonstrated that you love evil and worship it. Do you read
from Mein Kampf in German every night?
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:33:08 -0700, in alt.atheism
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote in
>
> >On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
> >Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
> >I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
>
> You are a prig.
Are you a Roe-survivor?
> >Do you approve of the court decision mentioned below?
>
> >Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the
> >Nazis_
> >(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 123:
> > The key measure was a June 26, 1935, emendation
> > of the Sterilization Law, allowing abortions for
> > women already slated to be sterilized.^25 The
> > Nazis also made other exceptions. On November
> > 10, 1938, a Luneberg court declared abortion legal
> > for Jews.^26 And in the spring and summer of
> > 1943....
>
> You have demonstrated that you love evil and worship it.
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
become like famous mass-killer atheists, and have others worship you
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1152629227.581932.229990%40s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Do you read from Mein Kampf in German every night?
No.
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7bb70dd31802664e?hl=en&
Free Lunch
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote in
<1192225910.1...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
You clearly worship evil and will tell any lie to further your vile
agenda.
ScottyFLL
> On Oct 11, 8:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > > Do you believe in capital punishment?
>
> Not now in the U.S., which has a wretched judicial system regularly
> making gross mistakes in determining the guilt or innocence of accused
> individuals.
I'm talking about in general. Let's do the hypothetical thing and say
that no mistakes are made in determining guilt. Would capital
punishment be OK for heinous crimes if that were the case?
See, something tells me you're a hypocrite, and I'm calling you on
it. Something tells me that you only think life is precious
SOMETIMES, but not all the time.
Am I right?
Of course I am.
And that makes YOU pro-death.
ScottyFLL
> On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> > So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
> Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
Here's what I know about myself personally with respect to abortion:
#1. I will NEVER get a woman pregnant who does not want to be
pregnant. If all men would do this, there would be no need for
abortion except in situations where the mother's life is in danger.
#2. I will never get an abortion, nor will I ever have the need or
desire to get an abortion.
#3. I will never perform an abortion.
You don't like abortions? Nobody does. Not the people who have them,
not the people who perform them, not the rest of us.
But you can do your part.
Keep your dick in your pants, and tell your buddies to do the same.
There will be no unwanted pregnancy, and therefore, no abortion!@
See how simple the solution is? And it's been staring you right in
the dick all this time!
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> You clearly worship evil and will tell any lie to further your vile
> agenda.
Darwin was a great man.
Darwin to W. Graham
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters1_08.html
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
==
Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not
so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the
Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The
more civilised so-called Caucasian races have
beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for
existence. Looking to the world at no very distant
date, what an endless number of the lower races
will have been eliminated by the higher civilized
races throughout the world. But I will write no more,
and not even mention the many points in your work
which have much interested me. I have indeed
cause to apologise for troubling you with my
impressions, and my sole excuse is the excitement
in my mind which your book has aroused.
I beg leave to remain,
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully and obliged,
CHARLES DARWIN.
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the
Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
1874 Darwin: "mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese....
population of mingled Polynesian and English blood....
population of Polynesians and Negritos crossed in all degrees....
a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the
blood of other races"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136494819.673310.232510%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
1883 Darwin: "When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the
progeny seems to be eminently bad."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
> You clearly worship evil and will tell any lie to further your vile
> agenda.
The atheist H.G. Wells was a great man.
1938/9 atheism-adherent H.G. Wells on 'the Jews'
http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3435
The atheist T.H. Huxley was a great man.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146056580.480126.106210%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Study of the god Darwin's writings, including his bible, might also
prove enlightening.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
> Here's what I know about myself personally with respect to abortion:
>
> #1. I will NEVER get a woman pregnant who does not want to be
> pregnant. If all men would do this, there would be no need for
> abortion except in situations where the mother's life is in danger.
You've never had sex, have you, kid? I mean, to state with a straight face
something this stupid, you are either a virgin or a complete retard.
> #2. I will never get an abortion, nor will I ever have the need or
> desire to get an abortion.
That's because you're a man. You see, men don't have abortions.
> #3. I will never perform an abortion.
That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
> You don't like abortions? Nobody does. Not the people who have them,
> not the people who perform them, not the rest of us.
>
> But you can do your part.
>
> Keep your dick in your pants, and tell your buddies to do the same.
> There will be no unwanted pregnancy, and therefore, no abortion!@
>
> See how simple the solution is? And it's been staring you right in
> the dick all this time!
Just like your boyfriend stares in yours. Or whatever.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL wrote:
> > Here's what I know about myself personally with respect to abortion:
>
> > #1. I will NEVER get a woman pregnant who does not want to be
> > pregnant. If all men would do this, there would be no need for
> > abortion except in situations where the mother's life is in danger.
>
> You've never had sex, have you, kid? I mean, to state with a straight face
> something this stupid, you are either a virgin or a complete retard.
Or gay. Which is what I am.
> > #2. I will never get an abortion, nor will I ever have the need or
> > desire to get an abortion.
>
> That's because you're a man. You see, men don't have abortions.
DUH! If they got pregnant they sure as hell would! LOTS of 'em!
> > #3. I will never perform an abortion.
>
> That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
> countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
Point is: abortion is not an issue that really affects me
PERSONALLY. I have nothing to do with it.
If you want to say the same, be a man who can control his dick and
quit fucking women who don't want kids. And tell your buddies to do
the same.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
patrick...@standardregister.com at patrick...@standardregister.com,
typed this:
> On Oct 12, 7:29 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> wrote:
>> In News 1192188069.267979.244...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com,, David
>> Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 5:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are
>>>> anti- abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death
>>>> penalty... which I find odd.
>>
>>> Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
>>
>>> DS
>>
>> I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people
>> that are anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an
>> 18 year old off to fight and die in a war. They're not content to
>> make people suffer here at home when shipping them off to maximize
>> suffering around the world is so much better.
>>
>
> Well, as far as that goes, most of the people who are pro-choice for
> women's right to control their own lives seem to have no pro-choice
> crusade to give men the right to control their lives by choosing not
> to register for selective service.
If you're speaking about me in particular, I have long argued against
selective service registration.
So when it comes to that one, I'm
> afraid you're going to have to bite the hypocrisy bullet.
>
Not really.
ScottyFLL
Just the one? Are they sure?
David V.
>
> Do you believe in partial birth abortion done for reasons of
> personal convenience?
Do you mean "personal convenience" as in "not dying"?
You do know that that "partial birth" thing is a lie, don't you?
Sure, it happens, rarely. Only when the fetus is either already
dead or the brain has not developed at all. I can only assume
that you are completely ignorant of the reality of that
procedure.... but then you are ignorant on so many things.
David V.
> On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
>
> Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
RvW was about a woman's privacy.
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 11, 8:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> > On 11-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> > > Do you believe in capital punishment?
>
>Not now in the U.S., which has a wretched judicial system regularly
>making gross mistakes in determining the guilt or innocence of accused
>individuals.
>
>Do you believe in partial birth abortion done for reasons of personal
>convenience?
"Partial birth abortion" is a pro-liar fiction.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > So you're pro-choice too. Good.
> Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
> I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
Amazingly enough, most pregnancies continued to go to term after Roe
v. Wade!
You seem to think that millions of women were personally led to the
abortatoriums by Judge Blackmun himself, after he ooga-booga-ed them
with talk about "penumbras".
Free clue: the abortion rate was about the same before Roe as after it.
The Chief Instigator
>On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
I do, as does my wife - who had a daughter 34 months after that decision.
>I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
So have close to a hundred million people in this country. (Me, I showed up
in 1955, but it wouldn't have mattered - I was a wanted child.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (OT) (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 13 vs. Peoria, 7:35
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>Here's what I know about myself personally with respect to abortion:
>>
>>>#1. I will NEVER get a woman pregnant who does not want to be
>>>pregnant. If all men would do this, there would be no need for
>>>abortion except in situations where the mother's life is in danger.
>>
>>You've never had sex, have you, kid? I mean, to state with a straight face
>>something this stupid, you are either a virgin or a complete retard.
>
> Or gay. Which is what I am.
What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid? You
honestly think that unwanted pergnancies result exclusively from consensual
sex where "a woman wants to be pregnant"? There is no condom failure, rape,
incest, fetus deformity in your bizarro world?
>>>#2. I will never get an abortion, nor will I ever have the need or
>>>desire to get an abortion.
>>
>>That's because you're a man. You see, men don't have abortions.
>
> DUH! If they got pregnant they sure as hell would! LOTS of 'em!
>
>>>#3. I will never perform an abortion.
>>
>>That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
>>countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
>
> Point is: abortion is not an issue that really affects me
> PERSONALLY. I have nothing to do with it.
Oh, I see. Why didn't you say right of the bat that you're a self-centered
sociopath and save us all the trouble of reading your bullshit?
> If you want to say the same, be a man who can control his dick and
> quit fucking women who don't want kids. And tell your buddies to do
> the same.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
> On face value, such a statement seems ironic and perhaps
> ludicrous.
Like Janet's, when it asserted that we who support a woman's right to
choose, who have babies and adopt them, are are against their lives?
Yet, people like her want to destroy pregnant women and ignore
children are somehow great crusaders for life...
bobandcarole
wrote:
Like anybody is the least bit interested in
anything YOU have to say.....
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL wrote:
> >>>Here's what I know about myself personally with respect to abortion:
>
> >>>#1. I will NEVER get a woman pregnant who does not want to be
> >>>pregnant. If all men would do this, there would be no need for
> >>>abortion except in situations where the mother's life is in danger.
>
> >>You've never had sex, have you, kid? I mean, to state with a straight face
> >>something this stupid, you are either a virgin or a complete retard.
>
> > Or gay. Which is what I am.
>
> What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
pregnant.
> You
> honestly think that unwanted pergnancies result exclusively from consensual
> sex where "a woman wants to be pregnant"?
Quite the opposite. Do you have a comprehension problem?
> There is no condom failure, rape,
> incest, fetus deformity in your bizarro world?
Most abortions are performed on women who freely submitted to sex
(WITH A MAN) and wasn't using birth control, or wasn't using it
properly.
> >>>#2. I will never get an abortion, nor will I ever have the need or
> >>>desire to get an abortion.
>
> >>That's because you're a man. You see, men don't have abortions.
>
> > DUH! If they got pregnant they sure as hell would! LOTS of 'em!
>
> >>>#3. I will never perform an abortion.
>
> >>That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
> >>countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
>
> > Point is: abortion is not an issue that really affects me
> > PERSONALLY. I have nothing to do with it.
>
> Oh, I see. Why didn't you say right of the bat that you're a self-centered
> sociopath and save us all the trouble of reading your bullshit?
You can just killfile me. I'd be honored.
bobandcarole
It's more fun to humiliate you!!
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
You are.
Ken
> Like anybody is the least bit interested in anything YOU have to say.....
You sure got that right..No one ever gives a flying fuck what
Bobbincarol, the webtv idiot has to say
Try Googling up some of his latest stupidity
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
> > countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
If it's illegal, NO ONE can perform them.
>
> Point is: abortion is not an issue that really affects me
> PERSONALLY. I have nothing to do with it.
>
> If you want to say the same, be a man who can control his dick and
> quit fucking women who don't want kids. And tell your buddies to do
> the same.
Unless you're intelligent enough to realize that if my
rights go, yours actually go, too
(& I'm sure you are intelligent enough to realize this...)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Oct-2007, ScottyFLL <Scot...@mail2scott.com> wrote:
> > What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
>
> It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
> pregnant.
It's people who use the word "fag" who are stupid.
Just in case the idiot to whom you reply is too
stupid to have known this already....
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Oct-2007, The Chief Instigator <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote:
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu writes:
>
> >On Oct 11, 6:52 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> So you're pro-choice too. Good.
>
> >Do you approve of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision?
>
> I do, as does my wife - who had a daughter 34 months after that decision.
>
> >I was born after Roe, and am a survivor-- I survived Roe.
>
> So have close to a hundred million people in this country. (Me, I showed
> up
> in 1955, but it wouldn't have mattered - I was a wanted child.)
Hey, me too! My mom actually had worse trouble than
I did being pregnant, and yet we both have 2 kids.
"Every child a wanted child!!"
Susan
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>That's because you're not a doctor. You see, other than in uncivilized
>>>countries where abortion is illegal, only doctors can perform abortions.
>
>
> If it's illegal, NO ONE can perform them.
Well, I have to respond because this is my statement above. If you read my
sentence carefully, it says that "other than in uncivilized countries where
abortion is illegal", which means in civilized countries where abortion is
legal only doctors can perform abortions. Hope that's clear.
In countries where abortion is illegal, anyone can perform abortions, as
indeed anyone does (never mind legality for a second, it is the actual
reality that counts), so the mortality rate due to the back-alley abortions
is huge.
Yes, I realize that by extending that logic, anyone can perform abortions in
the countries where abortion is legal, but it doesn't happen because there
is no need for it - who in her right mind would choose a coat-hanger hack
over a medical doctor in a clinic?
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
>>
>>It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
>>pregnant.
>
>
> It's people who use the word "fag" who are stupid.
> Just in case the idiot to whom you reply is too
> stupid to have known this already....
How so? What is stupid about using the word "fag"? Or the word nigger, nip,
kike, slant, crout, spick, wetback, dyke, hoe, and so on?
Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people. No black
person in this world died as a result of being called a nigger, or as you
would likely prefer that I phrased it "an n-word". Otoh, a lot of blacks
suffered tremendous harm and injustice from slavery, torture, rape, lynching
and discrimination - actual actions, not words. Do you really think a black
man who was being lynched by a mob of southern Christian assholes after
having been beaten to a bloody pulp really gave a fuck that they called him
a nigger while doing it? Do you really think two homosexuals in a loving and
caring relationship who are denied their right to marry and all the
privilege that goes with it care that they are called fags while they are
being discriminated against? Is that their fucking priority? Words? Or is it
that one part of the society denies them their basic human right to a decent
life, while the other part feigns their "concern" for them by outlawing words?
It is precisely people like you that give a bad name to the liberal part of
the society by misdirecting their concern at the labels and name-calling,
instead of to the actions that actually affect people's lives.
So instead of "cripples" we now have "differently abled". Instead of "fags"
we have "same sex partners". They still are denied a visit to their dying
lover in the hospital and they can't adopt children, but hey, at least you
and your PC folks took care of the essentials: people can't call them names
anymore without being subjected to quasi-moralistic bullshit sermons.
patrick...@standardregister.com
wrote:
> In News 1192193662.618923.215...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com,,
> patrick.bar...@standardregister.com at patrick.bar...@standardregister.com,
> typed this:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 7:29 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> > wrote:
> >> In News 1192188069.267979.244...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com,, David
> >> Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
>
> >>> On Oct 11, 5:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are
> >>>> anti- abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death
> >>>> penalty... which I find odd.
>
> >>> Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
>
> >>> DS
>
> >> I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people
> >> that are anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an
> >> 18 year old off to fight and die in a war. They're not content to
> >> make people suffer here at home when shipping them off to maximize
> >> suffering around the world is so much better.
>
> > Well, as far as that goes, most of the people who are pro-choice for
> > women's right to control their own lives seem to have no pro-choice
> > crusade to give men the right to control their lives by choosing not
> > to register for selective service.
>
> If you're speaking about me in particular, I have long argued against
> selective service registration.
>
It was a general comment prompted by what you said as not intended as
an accusation against you in particular.
> So when it comes to that one, I'm
>
> > afraid you're going to have to bite the hypocrisy bullet.
>
> Not really.
>
Same thing here -- the hypocrisy meaning for the movement in general,
not any one specific pro choice supporter. I know many pro choice
people I respect.
> --
> "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
> enough to take away everything you have."
>
> Thomas Jefferson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cj
"ScottyFLL" <Scot...@mail2scott.com> wrote
> It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
> pregnant.
Most women aren't that dumb, I don't think you will impregnate any of them.
gud...@yahoo.com
> Baker, Janet. July-August 2007. "Anti-lifers motivated by guilt"
> Defend Life newsletter, page 13 athttp://defendlife.org
You must be talking about Bush.
snip
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 11, 3:39 pm, "LC" <LC__...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>
> >news:1192124633....@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On face value, such a statement seems ironic and perhaps
> > > how inhibited and repressed we are? Well, maybe they
> > > protesteth too much!
>
> > Or...maybe not!:
>
> > OCTOBER 8--An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical
> > asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a
> > face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head
> > mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev.
> > Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old
> > pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home
> > at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic
> > undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the
> > autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's two wet suits, the family newspaper
> > chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister's rubber
> > briefs. Aldridge served as the church's pastor for 16 years. Immediately
> > following his death, church officials issued a press release asking
> > community members to "please refrain from speculation" about what led to
> > Aldridge's demise, adding that, "we will begin the healing process under the
> > strong arm of our Savior, Jesus Christ."
>
> >http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
>
> > <regurgitated fundy crap flushed>
>
> I saw this earlier. Did you read the autopsy report? He had a dildo
> up his bum. Yes indeedy. A big ol' dildo up in his conservative
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Well, he wasn't dancing was he?
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 12, 7:29 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In News 1192188069.267979.244...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com,, David
> > Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
>
> > > On Oct 11, 5:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> > >> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> > >> which I find odd.
>
> > > Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
>
> > > DS
>
> > I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people that are
> > anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an 18 year old off to
> > fight and die in a war. They're not content to make people suffer here at
> > home when shipping them off to maximize suffering around the world is so
> > much better.
>
> Well, as far as that goes, most of the people who are pro-choice for
> women's right to control their own lives seem to have no pro-choice
> crusade to give men the right to control their lives by choosing not
> afraid you're going to have to bite the hypocrisy bullet.
Do you have any evidence that indicates that pro-choice people are
more likely to support selective service registration?
>
> Personally, I happen to be a pro life person who is anti death
> penalty. But for those pro lifers who do support capital punishment,
> I can easily see where they distinguish between an innocent unborn
> child and a convicted criminal. So if I, as a death penalty opponent,
> can see that so easily, I'm sure you can too. Therefore, saying "they
> are just content to make people suffer" is obviously politically
> motivated hyperbole rather any sort of honest analysis.
Obvious to you perhaps, but then you think there is such a thing as an
unborn child.
>
>
>
> > --
> > "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
> > enough to take away everything you have."
>
> > Thomas Jefferson- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
ScottyFLL
> "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@mail2scott.com> wrote
>
>
>
> > It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
> > pregnant.
>
> Most women aren't that dumb, I don't think you will impregnate any of them.
Ya weren't really following the thread, were ya...
ScottyFLL
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >>>What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
>
> >>It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
> >>pregnant.
>
> > It's people who use the word "fag" who are stupid.
> > Just in case the idiot to whom you reply is too
> > stupid to have known this already....
>
> How so? What is stupid about using the word "fag"? Or the word nigger, nip,
> kike, slant, crout, spick, wetback, dyke, hoe, and so on?
>
> Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
> and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
hurt people, to make them feel inferior, and to make them feel unsafe.
gud...@yahoo.com
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
Only after the autopsy.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>>>What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
>>
>>>>It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
>>>>pregnant.
>>
>>>It's people who use the word "fag" who are stupid.
>>>Just in case the idiot to whom you reply is too
>>>stupid to have known this already....
>>
>>How so? What is stupid about using the word "fag"? Or the word nigger, nip,
>>kike, slant, crout, spick, wetback, dyke, hoe, and so on?
>>
>>Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
>>and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>
>
> Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
> hurt people
Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass. Where do you draw the line of
"hurt" when it comes to words? Where *you* feel like? There are over 6
billion people in this world and anything anyone ever says is bound to
"hurt" someone. Who gives a shit? It is just a smokescreen to draw the
attention away from the actual *actions* that hurt people physically and to
make people feel better by fuzzy-labeling their conditions.
, to make them feel inferior, and to make them feel unsafe.
If anyone feels inferior because some asshole calls him/her a nigger, spic,
kike, slant, chink, nip, wop, frog, craut, fag, towelhead, etc. this is
something that no PC speech can resolve and should be addressed by a therapist.
And don't give me that bullshit about "feeling unsafe" because someone is
insulting you. Try calling the police and complaining that you feel
threatened because someone calls you a name and see how far you get. What
are we, five years old?
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL wrote:
> >>>>>What's that go to do with anything? Does being a fag make you stupid?
>
> >>>>It means I'm not going to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be
> >>>>pregnant.
>
> >>>It's people who use the word "fag" who are stupid.
> >>>Just in case the idiot to whom you reply is too
> >>>stupid to have known this already....
>
> >>How so? What is stupid about using the word "fag"? Or the word nigger, nip,
> >>kike, slant, crout, spick, wetback, dyke, hoe, and so on?
>
> >>Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
> >>and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>
> > Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
> > hurt people
>
> Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
What are you? Six years old?
> Where do you draw the line of
> "hurt" when it comes to words?
Civilized people generally know where the line is. One does not go up
to a black person and call him NIGGER.
> Where *you* feel like? There are over 6
> billion people in this world and anything anyone ever says is bound to
> "hurt" someone. Who gives a shit? It is just a smokescreen to draw the
> attention away from the actual *actions* that hurt people physically
"Hurt" is a term used to describe more than just physical pain.
You wanna tell us you've never been emotionally hurt?
> make people feel better by fuzzy-labeling their conditions.
>
> , to make them feel inferior, and to make them feel unsafe.
>
> If anyone feels inferior because some asshole calls him/her a nigger, spic,
> kike, slant, chink, nip, wop, frog, craut, fag, towelhead, etc. this is
> something that no PC speech can resolve and should be addressed by a therapist.
> And don't give me that bullshit about "feeling unsafe" because someone is
> insulting you.
You walk in a neighborhood of people of a different race/ethnicity
than you, and have a few guys scream out a racial slur at you, and let
me know you don't feel unsafe. (You're white? Do it in Harlem.
You're black? Do it in Howard Beach.)
The word "Fag" is often followed by violence, as well. The boys who
yell that out -- ALWAYS in groups -- are very angry when they scream
it out. Of course that makes their target feel unsafe.
> Try calling the police and complaining that you feel
> threatened because someone calls you a name and see how far you get. What
> are we, five years old?
I asked you that above. I know that I'M not 5. What about you? That
whole "words don't hurt" bullshit is what I'd expect to hear from
someone not yet out of high school. Surely, one wouldn't expect to
hear this kind of drivel from someone who's attended college.
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu
http://www.comedycentral.com/search/gsa/index.jhtml?searchterm=francis+collins&submit=search
Collins wrote
_The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief_
On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
Death
"ScottyFLL" <Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Speaking is an action.
Speaking is a thought out loud.
Reacting to that thought is an action.
The thought police cometh........
ScottyFLL
> "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Not me. I'm not the thought police. Think what you want.
In a civilized society, we don't always SAY what we think. (In fact,
even in LESS civilized societies, people aren't allowed to say what
they think.)
Bill Dukenfield
"Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality."
I guess this is why many so called christians support the murder if the
innocent in Iraq.
JAM
Death
Indeed that is the case. Do you desire that our country
be numbered among them?
Death
"Bill Dukenfield" <BillDuk...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> "Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality."
>
> I guess this is why many so called christians support the murder if the
> innocent in Iraq.
>
That's a mighty big if.
Ghod
news:1192546924.1...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
: Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
Atheism is not a philosophy...and as it only deals with one tiny
aspect of reality, it isn't really a "worldview" either.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>>Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
>>>>and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>>
>>>Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
>>>hurt people
>>
>>Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
>
> What are you? Six years old?
No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a difference
between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
>>Where do you draw the line of
>>"hurt" when it comes to words?
>
>
> Civilized people generally know where the line is.
No, there is no line. Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban porn.
Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or you don't.
Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end. Isn't this
country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon experiment?
> One does not go up
> to a black person and call him NIGGER.
So what? One is still allowed to by the First Amendment. Can you
differentiate from what is legal and what is socially acceptable?
>>Where *you* feel like? There are over 6
>>billion people in this world and anything anyone ever says is bound to
>>"hurt" someone. Who gives a shit? It is just a smokescreen to draw the
>>attention away from the actual *actions* that hurt people physically
>
>
> "Hurt" is a term used to describe more than just physical pain.
And? "Hurt" is also some people's family name. What's your point?
> You wanna tell us you've never been emotionally hurt?
Yes, I have. I certainly didn't try to make an ass of myself by suing the
person who hurt me or worse, by attempting to re-engineer the entire society
and its freedoms just to protect my overly fragile vanity, which is what
you're suggesting we should do.
>>make people feel better by fuzzy-labeling their conditions.
>>
>>, to make them feel inferior, and to make them feel unsafe.
>>
>>If anyone feels inferior because some asshole calls him/her a nigger, spic,
>>kike, slant, chink, nip, wop, frog, craut, fag, towelhead, etc. this is
>>something that no PC speech can resolve and should be addressed by a therapist.
>>And don't give me that bullshit about "feeling unsafe" because someone is
>>insulting you.
>
>
> You walk in a neighborhood of people of a different race/ethnicity
> than you, and have a few guys scream out a racial slur at you, and let
> me know you don't feel unsafe. (You're white? Do it in Harlem.
> You're black? Do it in Howard Beach.)
>
> The word "Fag" is often followed by violence, as well.
OK, then, when it's followed by violence, arrest the perps and prosecute
them to the fullest extend of the law. What is the problem? Do you actually
think that by banning slurs you will reduce the violence and hatred against
any minority? You're not that naive, are you?
> The boys who
> yell that out -- ALWAYS in groups -- are very angry when they scream
> it out. Of course that makes their target feel unsafe.
There is still no law against screaming.
>>Try calling the police and complaining that you feel
>>threatened because someone calls you a name and see how far you get. What
>>are we, five years old?
>
> I asked you that above. I know that I'M not 5. What about you? That
> whole "words don't hurt" bullshit is what I'd expect to hear from
> someone not yet out of high school. Surely, one wouldn't expect to
> hear this kind of drivel from someone who's attended college.
OK, you convinced me. In order to cure all the society ills, we need to
outlaw certain words. This will forever remove any racism, sexism, hatred of
minorities, discrimination, etc.
Your logic is the same as the one that some idiot senator employed after Abu
Ghraib torture scandal was discovered. He actually suggested demolishing the
prison, as if this would somehow magically remove the effects of torture and
warp the space-time fabric to the time where this was not known.
Get real.
Mark K. Bilbo
Fnord never lets reality stand in his way...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not
believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.”
- H. L. Mencken
Death
"Charles & Mambo Duckman" <duc...@gfy.slf> wrote in message
>
> "ScottyFLL" wrote
>
> > You wanna tell us you've never been emotionally hurt?
>
> Yes, I have. I certainly didn't try to make an ass of myself by suing the
> person who hurt me or worse, by attempting to re-engineer the entire
society
> and its freedoms just to protect my overly fragile vanity, which is what
> you're suggesting we should do.
>
G( . )( . )d answer
David V.
> in 2 parts
Your ignorance comes in many parts.
--
Dave
"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.
Matt Silberstein
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> in <QNCdnbOd8_6czoja...@giganews.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:22:51 -0500, Ghod wrote:
>
>> <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1192546924.1...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [snip]
>> : Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
>>
>> Atheism is not a philosophy...and as it only deals with one tiny aspect
>> of reality, it isn't really a "worldview" either.
>
>Fnord never lets reality stand in his way...
Reality? He never lets language stand in his way.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Al Klein
You're talking to David Fraud - what do you expect?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
ScottyFLL
> ScottyFLL wrote:
> >>>>Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
> >>>>and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>
> >>>Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
> >>>hurt people
>
> >>Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
>
> > What are you? Six years old?
>
> No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a difference
> between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
Not all "expression" is protected. You know that, right?
> >>Where do you draw the line of
> >>"hurt" when it comes to words?
>
> > Civilized people generally know where the line is.
>
> No, there is no line.
But there is. Libel is one line. Inciting people to violence is
another line. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is yet another
line.
There are lines, there have always been lines, and there will always
BE lines.
> Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
> hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban porn.
> Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or you don't.
Well, then we don't have it, do we? I mean, you are FREE to say
whatever the fuck you want... but you might be penalized by society
for doing it, legally and/or socially.
> Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end.
It's always been this way. There have always been limitations on
speech.
> Isn't this
> country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon experiment?
Are you an anarchist? Don't they have a newsgroup of their own yet?
> > One does not go up
> > to a black person and call him NIGGER.
>
> So what? One is still allowed to by the First Amendment. Can you
> differentiate from what is legal and what is socially acceptable?
>
> >>Where *you* feel like? There are over 6
> >>billion people in this world and anything anyone ever says is bound to
> >>"hurt" someone. Who gives a shit? It is just a smokescreen to draw the
> >>attention away from the actual *actions* that hurt people physically
>
> > "Hurt" is a term used to describe more than just physical pain.
>
> And? "Hurt" is also some people's family name. What's your point?
Don't be stupid.
> > You wanna tell us you've never been emotionally hurt?
>
> Yes, I have. I certainly didn't try to make an ass of myself by suing the
> person who hurt me or worse, by attempting to re-engineer the entire society
> and its freedoms just to protect my overly fragile vanity, which is what
> you're suggesting we should do.
But you think it's OK to then PURPOSELY hurt other people.
Odd, since you've been hurt yourself.
Or maybe just mean.
<snip>
Death
"ScottyFLL" <Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> But there is. Libel is one line. Inciting people to violence is
> another line. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is yet another
> line.
>
You know I've heard that for years and I have often wondered:
what theater did the founders have in mind, and what was showing?
Scruffy McScruffovitch
" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:s2hRi.7295$m8....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
Possibly the Philadelphia Theater of the Arts, build in 1762.
Mike
> ScottyFLL wrote:
>
>>>>> Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just
>>>>> words
>>>>> and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>>>
>>>> Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
>>>> hurt people
>>>
>>> Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
>>
>> What are you? Six years old?
>
> No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a difference
> between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
>
>>> Where do you draw the line of
>>> "hurt" when it comes to words?
>>
>>
>> Civilized people generally know where the line is.
>
> No, there is no line. Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
> hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban
> porn. Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or
> you don't. Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end.
> Isn't this country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon
> experiment?
So I have the freedom to start saying "I'm going to kill you" and then
detail exactly how, when, where and why I'll do so and do so as verbally
and as loudly and as often as I want as long as I don't actually touch
you? I have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? I can go
around inciting riots and murders as long as I don't actually kill
anyone myself? Most rational people realize there's a line, even if
it's, by necessity, a fuzzy one.
>
>> One does not go up
>> to a black person and call him NIGGER.
>
> So what? One is still allowed to by the First Amendment. Can you
> differentiate from what is legal and what is socially acceptable?
Can you differentiate between what is socially irresponsible and what is
attempted to be prohibited due to political and other unconstitutional
reasons?
While I don't agree that all uses of particular words should be banned
For example, I don't agree that it should be wrong for a TV station to
report that "Mark Ferman, allegedly, used the word 'nigger' early in his
carreer" but I DO agree that they shouldn't be allowed to air a story
that says "We are of the opinion that all niggers should be beaten and
killed" or "the victim was a nigger."
There's a difference between the reporting of a fact (although it might
not be in good taste) and the use of a word in order to influence
other's behavior. And if such a word is being used to transmit a
credible threat (such as "you stupid nigger! I'll kill you!",) it should
be legally actionable. And even if something IS allowable through the
1st ammendment (there's no cop that can arrest me for simply saying
"you're a nigger") that doesn't mean it should be used or that the
person saying it isn't intending harm by its use.
And please note that I was using the word "nigger" above simply for
illustration purposes and don't normally use such words simply out of
consideration of others.
<snip more such>
Mike
Theaters have been around for a LOT longer than the movies. Don't
forget, Lincoln was killed in a theater.
ScottyFLL
> Death wrote:
> > "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah, the case from which comes the phrase "shouting 'Fire!' in a
crowded theater" was decided in1919.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of
free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
theatre and causing a panic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Mike
Well, they had "moving picture shows" back in 1919, I THINK. So it's
conceivable that it was meant "can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater" but
I doubt it. I'm pretty sure it did mean "ANY type of theater."
Bill Dukenfield
oops!
Why doesn't my spell checker know when I spell the wrong word correctly?
JAM
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
Argumentum ad typo.
How sad.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Dubh Ghall
<duc...@gfy.slf> wrote:
>What are we, five years old?
Using "Sticks and stones can break my bones", as an excuse to be
offensive, certainly suggests that you are.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
typed this:
I imagine that it could apply to any situation where shouting "fire" or some
other remark would cause a panic and possibly end up in property damage or
human injury. Unless of course, there was a real fire.
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson
ScottyFLL
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:05:50 -0500, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >> "Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality."
>
> >> I guess this is why many so called christians support the murder if the
> >> innocent in Iraq.
>
> >That's a mighty big if.
>
> Argumentum ad typo.
LOL! I'm stealing that!
Dubh Ghall
Be my guest. (:-)
patrick...@standardregister.com
> On 12 Okt., 14:54, patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 7:29 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In News 1192188069.267979.244...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com,, David
> > > Schwartz at dav...@webmaster.com, typed this:
>
> > > > On Oct 11, 5:21 pm, ScottyFLL <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Naw. It's just from my observation that so many people who are anti-
> > > >> abortion (claiming that life is precious) are PRO-death penalty...
> > > >> which I find odd.
>
> > > > Seems like a consistent desire to make people suffer to me.
>
> > > > DS
>
> > > I was thinking the same thing. Not to mention that most people that are
> > > anti-abortion seem to have little problem with sending an 18 year old off to
> > > fight and die in a war. They're not content to make people suffer here at
> > > home when shipping them off to maximize suffering around the world is so
> > > much better.
>
> > Well, as far as that goes, most of the people who are pro-choice for
> > women's right to control their own lives seem to have no pro-choice
> > crusade to give men the right to control their lives by choosing not
> > to register for selective service. So when it comes to that one, I'm
> > afraid you're going to have to bite the hypocrisy bullet.
>
> Do you have any evidence that indicates that pro-choice people are
> more likely to support selective service registration?
>
Nope. But I didn't say they were, so I don't need any such
evidence.
>
>
> > Personally, I happen to be a pro life person who is anti death
> > penalty. But for those pro lifers who do support capital punishment,
> > I can easily see where they distinguish between an innocent unborn
> > child and a convicted criminal. So if I, as a death penalty opponent,
> > can see that so easily, I'm sure you can too. Therefore, saying "they
> > are just content to make people suffer" is obviously politically
> > motivated hyperbole rather any sort of honest analysis.
>
> Obvious to you perhaps, but then you think there is such a thing as an
> unborn child.
>
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that no single
explanation suffices to accurately decribe any view which is held by 2
people, much less tens of millions. Look up "stereotype".
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
> > > enough to take away everything you have."
>
> > > Thomas Jefferson- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> > - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> > - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Al Klein
wrote:
Of course not. Take a lesson from the president and be a thoughtless
asshole. Sometimes, not saying what you think is more civilized.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Death
but the action that speech produces. If you yelled fire in an empty
theatre, thus producing no action is that crossing the line?
Have people become such victims that thought is so stymied?
There is a large difference between free speech and an action.
Death
"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:tnnRi.5722$y21....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
Death
"Mike" <prab...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in message
news:ff53f6$8mf$1...@news04.infoave.net...
> Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
> > ScottyFLL wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just
> >>>>> words
> >>>>> and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
> >>>
> >>>> Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
> >>>> hurt people
> >>>
> >>> Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
> >>
> >> What are you? Six years old?
> >
> > No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a difference
> > between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
> >
> >>> Where do you draw the line of
> >>> "hurt" when it comes to words?
> >>
> >>
> >> Civilized people generally know where the line is.
> >
> > No, there is no line. Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
> > hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban
> > porn. Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or
> > you don't. Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end.
> > Isn't this country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon
> > experiment?
>
> So I have the freedom to start saying "I'm going to kill you" and then
> detail exactly how, when, where and why I'll do so and do so as verbally
> and as loudly and as often as I want as long as I don't actually touch
> you?
Or until he puts a bullet in your head.
>I have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?
If it is on fire.
>I can go
> around inciting riots and murders as long as I don't actually kill
> anyone myself? Most rational people realize there's a line, even if
> it's, by necessity, a fuzzy one.
>
Free speech is the topic, not an action caused by it.
I can stand in the street and say, don't abort your unborn
baby lady but if she enters a clinic for a successful procedure......
who had the greater freedom of expression?
Me and with words, or her and her action?
My words caused no life stopping event...........in the medical theatre.
Death
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:stoch3lonl4c9oavt...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:05:50 -0500, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Dukenfield" <BillDuk...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> "Guilt is a prime motivator for the anti-life mentality."
> >>
> >> I guess this is why many so called christians support the murder if
the
> >> innocent in Iraq.
> >>
> >
> >That's a mighty big if.
> >
>
> Argumentum ad typo.
>
I chalked it up as bad grammar and didn't comment about it.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
It was beginning. Apparently, you are not aware of the early theater in the
U.S., and how it helped bring about freedom of speech, are you?
ScottyFLL
> "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192632293.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:45 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> > > Death wrote:
> > > > "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >> But there is. Libel is one line. Inciting people to violence is
> > > >> another line. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is yet another
> > > >> line.
>
> > > > You know I've heard that for years and I have often wondered:
> > > > what theater did the founders have in mind, and what was showing?
>
> > > Theaters have been around for a LOT longer than the movies. Don't
> > > forget, Lincoln was killed in a theater.
>
> > Yeah, the case from which comes the phrase "shouting 'Fire!' in a
> > crowded theater" was decided in1919.
>
> > Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of
> > free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
> > theatre and causing a panic."
>
> Now you got it correct, it is not the shouting fire that is the problem
> but the action that speech produces. If you yelled fire in an empty
> theatre, thus producing no action is that crossing the line?
I couldn't imagine it would be.
> Have people become such victims that thought is so stymied?
I don't think that's it. I mean, I don't think it's illegal to call
someone a racial slur. I think it's unwise, and unfortunately for the
person saying it, it says more about him than it does about the person
to whom it was said.
> There is a large difference between free speech and an action.-
In the Craig mess, there was an argument that his actions were
considered "free speech". Just as burning the flag is considered free
speech.
The concept is one of freedom of "expression". The line between
speech and other actions is not necessarily as clear as you might
thinkg.
Death
> someone a racial slur.
AYE-RAB -- Anyone of Arabic descent. Popularized by the camp-singer Ray
"The Streak" Stevens' song, "Ahab The Ayrab."
BEAN -- Insult implying that most Chicanos or those of Mexican origin
cannot survive without beans being a part of their diet.
BEAN-EATER -- Please see "Bean".
BEANO -- Again, would you just see "Bean" already!
BLACKIE -- Diminutive term to any African or person with a dark skin color.
BOG-RAT -- Used to describe Irish country folk. The word comes from the
peat-bogs of Ireland.
BOG-HOPPER -- Please see "Bog-Rat ".
BOY -- Used in the south, addressed to any black person younger than the
white speaker. Sometimes used in ironic retaliation by blacks, as well.
BUCKWHEAT -- This word was used by blacks in the early 1900s as a greeting,
later changed to a derogatory term due to the buffoonish Buckwheat
character in the "Little Rascals" films.
CANUCK -- A Canadian. This word became in use after the 18th century
cartoon character, Jonny Canuck.
CHICO -- Meaning "boy" in Spanish. A popular term in the 70s, but now seen
to be of a diminutive nature.
CHINAMAN --Anyone of Chinese ancestry. Mostly used to lump all Asians
together.
CHINK -- As above. It is not known, but often speculated, where this word
came from.
CLOD-HOPPER -- Anyone who lives on a farm. Piles of cow dung were often
called clod. In more recent (and vulgar) times, it has been replaced with
SHIT-KICKER.
COLORED -- A southern term for blacks. Hardly used after the late 60s.
COON -- A black male. Starting in the 1880s, the Ku Klux Klan went on
nightly raccoon hunts due to raccoons being nocturnal. Later they became
the hunts and lynchings of blacks.
CRACKER -- Slang used by blacks to describe a person as "white as a
cracker." Later deemed derogatory.
DAGO -- Originally used to classify any Italian, Spaniard or Portuguese,
derived from the name Diego. Later used simply for Italians. Made popular
by the 1950s joke, "Why does time fly in Italy? Because every time you turn
around you see a day go."
DARKIE -- Patronizing term for any black person.
DINK -- In the U.S. it literally means a physically small person. In
England and Canada, it's a synonym for someone who is small on a mental
level. Later used during Vietnam by American soldiers to describe the
natives as small, as well as stupid.
FROG -- Anyone of French ancestry. Shortened from "frog-leg eater."
FAGGOT -- A homosexual. Origin unknown.
FAG -- See above
GOOK -- A person of Oriental descent. The word originated during World War
II when dealing with many Japanese and having their language sounding like
"gobbledy-gook" to Western ears.
GOY -- A Yiddish term for non-Jews, originally taken from the word GOYEM.
GOYEM --A Yiddish word meaning 'cattle.'
GREASER --Anyone of certain Hispanic origins, such as Mexicans or Puerto
Ricans, supposedly due to a myth of Hispanics loving grease in their hair.
GREASE-BALL -- A fucking Spic, like them guys above.
GREEK -- Anyone having anal intercourse, but most often used as a
derogatory word in place of homosexual.
GRINGO -- Any white foreigner in Central or South America. Believed to be
taken from pro-U.S. banners, "Green Go!" during the World Wars, but it was
in fact used as far back as 70 years before the first World War.
GYPSY -- Not so much of an offensive word as it once was. The Gypsy people
prefer to be called "Rom", a tribe of Egyptians who entered Europe in the
1200s.
HALF-BREED -- Anyone of a mixed racial background.
HEEB -- Anyone of Hebrew descent, but now used to describe someone as a
liberal Jew.
HICK -- Anyone of a rural background, usually poor and especially white.
HILLBILLY -- Literally, anyone living in the hill country, also used to
describe unwealthy white country folk.
HONKY -- Used by blacks to describe a white person with liberal leanings,
shortened from "horn honking after running over a nigger."
INDIAN GIVER --Anyone who presents a gift, then reclaims it. Settlers
claimed the Native Americans were always breaking promises and treaties.
INJUN -- A drunk Native American, used as if someone is slurring the word
Indian.
JAP -- 1) Short for Japanese. 2) Acronym for Jewish American Princess.
JIGABOO -- A rural or southern black, referring to their dancing. Often
mistakenly pronounced as "Chick-a-boo."
JUNGLE BUNNY -- A black person, first used as a synonym for a newly
imported slave.
KYKE -- A Yiddish word meaning self-hating Jew. Now mostly used by racists
for any type of Jewish person.
KRAUT -- A white German. Taken from the German's love of their cabbage
dish, sauerkraut.
LIMEY -- A British sailor. Derived from Admirals giving their crew limes to
prevent scurvy.
MICK -- A Scotsman or Irishman. Taken from the prefix Mc or Mac. The
original word was Mack, but somehow made it's way to Mick.
NIGGER -- Most common of racial slurs, applied to anyone of dark ancestry.
Derived from the word Negro.
NIP -- A person of Japanese descent. The true name of Japan is Nippon,
therefore Nip being a shortened version.
OREO -- Can be taken as a black person who wants to be a white person, or a
white person who wants to be black. Or of a mixed background (white and
black parents). Taken from the cookie that is dark on the outside and white
on the inside.
P.R. -- Initials for Puerto Rican, often used to call Puerto Ricans,
"Professional Robbers".
PAKI -- One of Indian heritage, mistakenly believing all Indians come from
Pakistan.
POLACK -- 1) A person of Polish descent. 2) Anyone who has a low level of
intelligence, derived from the myth that the Polish were so unintelligent
that they just let Hitler walk right into their country.
REDNECK -- A white rural southerner which worked outdoors. To avoid sunburn
they kept their shirts on, leaving the neck exposed to reddening by the
sun.
REDSKIN -- A Native American. Using paint on their faces to describe their
feelings, when settlers saw attacking Native Americans wearing red face
paint, the name stuck.
RUSKY -- A person of Russian ancestry. Taken from the Russian word meaning
"Russian", Ruskii.
SHIT-KICKER -- See CLOD-HOPPER.
SAMBO -- A black person having buffoon-ish qualities. Taken from the story,
"Little Black Sambo."
SHYSTER -- A Jewish professional who cons people. Taken from the
Shakespearian character Shylock, in "The Merchant of Venice."
SPADE -- A black male. Comes from the term, "black as the Ace of Spades."
SAND-NIGGER -- A person of Arabic descent.
SPIC -- Anyone of Hispanic origin. Originally used on police records to
describe a suspect/victim who was a SPanish/Italian Caucasian (SP.I.C.).
Now used as a short term for Hispanic.
SPOOK -- A black person. Used in the 1800s due to difficulty finding blacks
in the dark (I just report this stuff, I don't make it up!).
TACO -- A person of Mexican nationality.
TOWEL-HEAD -- A person of any nationality who usually wears a turban or
other head-dress.
UNCLE TOM -- A term used to describe blacks who aided whites or cooperates
with whites.
WET BACK -- A derogatory term used for those of Mexican nationality who
came over illegally via the Rio Grande.
WASP -- Acronym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, commonly changed to fit
most whites by making the "p" stand for Peoples or Person.
WHITE TRASH -- Poor rural whites. Used to signify that one is a dredge of
the white race.
WHITEY -- Black slang for a white person, similar to (yet opposite of)
BLACKIE.
WOP -- An Italian. Originally from the acronym With Out Passport, which was
a sign on Ellis Island where you would get in line if you were an
immigrant.
YID -- Anyone of Yiddish descent, but now used to describe a conservative
Jew (opposite of HEEB).
YELLOW -- A person of Oriental ancestry.
ZEBRA-HEAD -- A person who has 'Jungle Fever.'
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>>>>Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are just words
>>>>>>and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>>
>>>>>Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
>>>>>hurt people
>>
>>>>Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
>>
>>>What are you? Six years old?
>>
>>No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a difference
>>between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
>
>
> Not all "expression" is protected. You know that, right?
The one that does not cause physical harm is.
>>>>Where do you draw the line of
>>>>"hurt" when it comes to words?
>>
>>>Civilized people generally know where the line is.
>>
>>No, there is no line.
>
>
> But there is. Libel is one line.
Don't spring a fucking red herring on me. You know perfectly well that libel
has nothing to do with "hurt". It protects people from suffering actual
negative consequences. No one sues for "hurt".
> Inciting people to violence is
> another line. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is yet another
> line.
Omfg, not the fucking fire-in-the-theater again. Once more, neither of your
examples have anything to do with what we're discussing. If anyone is
physically threatened and/or harmed as a result of these two examples, then
the case is about the physical harm, potential or actual, not some imaginary
"hurt".
> There are lines, there have always been lines, and there will always
> BE lines.
Not where you're trying to draw them. Name-calling and racial slurs alone
cannot pass legal muster when you're trying to show physical harm.
>>Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
>>hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban porn.
>>Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or you don't.
>
>
> Well, then we don't have it, do we? I mean, you are FREE to say
> whatever the fuck you want... but you might be penalized by society
> for doing it, legally and/or socially.
Legally and socially are two completely different propositions. Btw, just as
a reminder - we are participating in the anonymous Internet newsgroup
discussion with no holds barred, that was the whole point. Social penalties
here, what are you, fucking kidding me?
>
>
>>Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end.
>
>
> It's always been this way. There have always been limitations on
> speech.
Not really. Even in the cases you mentioned above there hasn't. In the case
of libel/slander, you *can* be found legally responsible, but only if the
person files a suit and is able to win the case. You don't get penalized for
words, but the consequences of those words.
In the fire-in-the-theatre example, you will only be penalized if there is a
physical harm caused by the result of your words, i.e. if someone is killed
or injured as a result of a panic, etc. If nothing happens, nothing happens.
Inciting people to violence is a tricky business to prosecute and it depends
on the scenario. A loner lunatic standing on the street corner urging people
to kill everyone would be left alone, for example. A lunatic with his hand
on the TV microphone and another on the nuclear button would not. Yet,
again, it is not the words themselves, but the physical harm they cause, in
this example a real potential harm.
>
>
>>Isn't this
>>country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon experiment?
>
>
> Are you an anarchist? Don't they have a newsgroup of their own yet?
I am an anarchist if I don't like the ultra-right fascist path the religious
fanatics and Neocons are taking the US on?
>
>
>>>One does not go up
>>>to a black person and call him NIGGER.
>>
>>So what? One is still allowed to by the First Amendment. Can you
>>differentiate from what is legal and what is socially acceptable?
>>
>>
>>>>Where *you* feel like? There are over 6
>>>>billion people in this world and anything anyone ever says is bound to
>>>>"hurt" someone. Who gives a shit? It is just a smokescreen to draw the
>>>>attention away from the actual *actions* that hurt people physically
>>
>>>"Hurt" is a term used to describe more than just physical pain.
>>
>>And? "Hurt" is also some people's family name. What's your point?
>
>
> Don't be stupid.
You get what you equivocate.
>>>You wanna tell us you've never been emotionally hurt?
>>
>>Yes, I have. I certainly didn't try to make an ass of myself by suing the
>>person who hurt me or worse, by attempting to re-engineer the entire society
>>and its freedoms just to protect my overly fragile vanity, which is what
>>you're suggesting we should do.
>
>
> But you think it's OK to then PURPOSELY hurt other people.
No, I simply do not agree that anyone should be able to cry legal "hurt"
because he/she is called a name by someone more than likely an intellectual
inferior. You want to call me whitey, baldy, fat-ass, asshole, idiot,
stupid, Euro-trash, immigrant scum, I really don't give a flying fuck. Knock
yourself out. The minute you lay your hand on me, prepare to have it broken.
>
> Odd, since you've been hurt yourself.
>
> Or maybe just mean.
Well, "Scotty", you realize we're on a newsgroup and this virtual persona
you're talking to does not translate into the real world, don't you?
Take care, man. You're still a fag, btw...
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>What are we, five years old?
>
>
>
> Using "Sticks and stones can break my bones", as an excuse to be
> offensive, certainly suggests that you are.
Don't be stupid. I don't need an excuse to be offensive.
Charles & Mambo Duckman
>>>>>> Contrary to what you and similar people might think, words are
>>>>>> just words
>>>>>> and can cause no harm at all. It is actions that harm people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Speaking is an action. Words such as you're using here are used to
>>>>> hurt people
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sticks and stones can break my bones, dumbass.
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you? Six years old?
>>
>>
>> No, just stooping to your level. Apparently you can't tell a
>> difference between a freedom of expression and physical harm.
>>
>>>> Where do you draw the line of
>>>> "hurt" when it comes to words?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Civilized people generally know where the line is.
>>
>>
>> No, there is no line. Any attempt to draw it will necessarily produce
>> hilarious results like what happened when they tried to define and ban
>> porn. Freedom of expression os like virginity - either you have it or
>> you don't. Once you start outlawing parts of speech, there is no end.
>> Isn't this country enough fascistoid as it is, after the grand Neocon
>> experiment?
>
>
> So I have the freedom to start saying "I'm going to kill you" and then
> detail exactly how, when, where and why I'll do so and do so as verbally
> and as loudly and as often as I want as long as I don't actually touch
> you?
Read my answer to Scotty, I don't have the time to go over the same points.
Your example is like his, a case of a real physical threat, i.e. actual
physical harm, be it realized or potential. No this shite again:
> I have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? I can go
> around inciting riots and murders as long as I don't actually kill
> anyone myself? Most rational people realize there's a line, even if
> it's, by necessity, a fuzzy one.
>
>>
>>> One does not go up
>>> to a black person and call him NIGGER.
>>
>>
>> So what? One is still allowed to by the First Amendment. Can you
>> differentiate from what is legal and what is socially acceptable?
>
>
> Can you differentiate between what is socially irresponsible and what is
> attempted to be prohibited due to political and other unconstitutional
> reasons?
I can. Can you two? What social responsibility existed on the Internet, died
many years ago, dude. You're not making a case that this turd throwing
business on the newsgroups have any semblance to the actual world, are you?
>
> While I don't agree that all uses of particular words should be banned
> For example, I don't agree that it should be wrong for a TV station to
> report that "Mark Ferman, allegedly, used the word 'nigger' early in his
> carreer" but I DO agree that they shouldn't be allowed to air a story
> that says "We are of the opinion that all niggers should be beaten and
> killed" or "the victim was a nigger."
Well, Rabbit, it's a tricky business. I'd like to say that they should be
allowed to do that, but then we all know that there are psychos out there
who would jump at the opportunity to take their fathers' Klan uniforms from
the attic, dust them off and go on a good ole' lynchin' spree.
So, yes, although I advocate unlimited freedom of expression, I am aware of
the fact that unfortunately, people are not able to handle it very well. It
is like nuclear weapons - it's all fun and games until a psycho lands one.
> There's a difference between the reporting of a fact (although it might
> not be in good taste) and the use of a word in order to influence
> other's behavior. And if such a word is being used to transmit a
> credible threat (such as "you stupid nigger! I'll kill you!",) it should
> be legally actionable. And even if something IS allowable through the
> 1st ammendment (there's no cop that can arrest me for simply saying
> "you're a nigger") that doesn't mean it should be used or that the
> person saying it isn't intending harm by its use.
Legally speaking, he isn't. That should be all that mattered, emphasize on
should.
>
> And please note that I was using the word "nigger" above simply for
> illustration purposes and don't normally use such words simply out of
> consideration of others.
Duly noted. I would like to point out yet again that words, standing alone,
are not offensive and can not be eradicated. Context matters, of course, but
I cringe every time I hear the phrase "an n-word", because the PC of it is
as idiotic as the slur itself, which again, never hurt anyone. Like I said,
all black people who were lynched in the good Christian south didn't really
give a fuck what the redneck assholes were calling them when they were
torturing and killing them.
I'm done with this thread.
Mike
> "ScottyFLL" <Scot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192632293.4...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 17, 9:45 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>>> Death wrote:
>>>> "ScottyFLL" <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> But there is. Libel is one line. Inciting people to violence is
>>>>> another line. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is yet another
>>>>> line.
>>>> You know I've heard that for years and I have often wondered:
>>>> what theater did the founders have in mind, and what was showing?
>>> Theaters have been around for a LOT longer than the movies. Don't
>>> forget, Lincoln was killed in a theater.
>> Yeah, the case from which comes the phrase "shouting 'Fire!' in a
>> crowded theater" was decided in1919.
>>
>> Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of
>> free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a
>> theatre and causing a panic."
>>
> Now you got it correct,
He's had it correct the whole time.
it is not the shouting fire that is the problem
> but the action that speech produces.
No, it was the speech that was the problem due to the EFFECTS of it.
Your logic above would indicate that the people who fled the theater in
panic were the ones who should be punished and not the person who
actually yelled "fire" since all he did was speak and it was the OTHERS
who did the actions.
If you yelled fire in an empty
> theatre, thus producing no action is that crossing the line?
And you can go shout "White men should kill all niggers" in the middle
of your empty living room all you want as well. But if you're shouting
it on a street corner or using it as part of a plot to actually do so,
then you might have problems.
> Have people become such victims that thought is so stymied?
Thought ISN'T stymied. What is prohibited is SPEECH (there's a
difference between "thought" and "speech", BTW) that is used with the
INTENTION of causing harm to others. Speech that simply has a side
effect of causing harm isn't prohibited.
> There is a large difference between free speech and an action.
No-one claimed otherwise. But plots to kill the prez (or even your
neighbor) are still illegal even if it never got past the "speaking to
one another about it" phase. Not all speech is illegal.
Mike
The point was that I can instill fear and dread in another person
without actually harming them physically and such "assaults" where the
fear is imminent danger has always been illegal. Now when it's an empty
threat where it's clear that the threat could never be carried out ("I'm
gonna drop an a-bomb on your house") then there's nothing illegal. But
words CAN cause harm in another person.
>
>> I have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?
>
> If it is on fire.
But not when it's not.
>
>> I can go
>> around inciting riots and murders as long as I don't actually kill
>> anyone myself? Most rational people realize there's a line, even if
>> it's, by necessity, a fuzzy one.
>>
>
> Free speech is the topic, not an action caused by it.
No, the consequences of your speech and whether speech can cause harm in
another are the topic.
> I can stand in the street and say, don't abort your unborn
> baby lady but if she enters a clinic for a successful procedure......
> who had the greater freedom of expression?
> Me and with words, or her and her action?
> My words caused no life stopping event...........in the medical theatre.
But if you stood there saying "abort that child and I'll kill you" and
you made it sound like a credible threat then you DID violate the law
with those words.