Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dear Fellow Atheists: Stop Being Jerks
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Apr 16, 2013, 5:21:51 AM4/16/13
to
by Don Rasmussen
As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
time.
Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their worldview.
This makes me crazy because, as an agnostic myself, I get linked to these
sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
I live in a state that�s 90% Christian. Should their rights, freedoms and
liberties be curtailed to accommodate my non-practicing butt? Of course
not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because I expect, or at
least hope for, the same in return.
.
How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like they
not only disgust me, but I�m entitled to legislate my disgust upon them?
How many nativity scenes have to be banned before Christians accept me?
It�s a ridiculous strategy that makes enemies, divides people and carves
up freedom; throwing away the parts that aren�t easily digestible.
According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having no
religion has doubled since 1989. The �non� movement needs to take a
moment now, in this incredible growth period to ask what it wants to be.
Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian Right
and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and curtail as
much freedom as possible to alleviate our own insecurities about being a
distrusted minority? How is any agnostic or atheist materially
diminished by people of faith enjoying their freedom?
I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
date once doused me with a beer upon learning I didn�t share her
religion. I have had a marriage proposal refused because her parents
wouldn�t accept their daughter marrying a non-Christian. I recently lost
out on a high profile, high paying political job because the politician
in question �had concerns� about having a non in the office�they have
daily prayers, you see, and �it would just be uncomfortable for
everyone.� (read: uncomfortable for him.)
Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges, or
otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a variety
of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished women who share
my religious skepticism that I can date. I don�t need a lawsuit and I
don�t need anyone to be forced to accept me or love me, I have family for
that and they�re stuck with me. Everyone else is off of the hook.
So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
you stand to lose.
.
As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
time.
Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their worldview.
This makes me crazy because, as an agnostic myself, I get linked to these
sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
I live in a state that�s 90% Christian. Should their rights, freedoms and
liberties be curtailed to accommodate my non-practicing butt? Of course
not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because I expect, or at
least hope for, the same in return.
.
How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like they
not only disgust me, but I�m entitled to legislate my disgust upon them?
How many nativity scenes have to be banned before Christians accept me?
It�s a ridiculous strategy that makes enemies, divides people and carves
up freedom; throwing away the parts that aren�t easily digestible.
According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having no
religion has doubled since 1989. The �non� movement needs to take a
moment now, in this incredible growth period to ask what it wants to be.
Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian Right
and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and curtail as
much freedom as possible to alleviate our own insecurities about being a
distrusted minority? How is any agnostic or atheist materially
diminished by people of faith enjoying their freedom?
I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
date once doused me with a beer upon learning I didn�t share her
religion. I have had a marriage proposal refused because her parents
wouldn�t accept their daughter marrying a non-Christian. I recently lost
out on a high profile, high paying political job because the politician
in question �had concerns� about having a non in the office�they have
daily prayers, you see, and �it would just be uncomfortable for
everyone.� (read: uncomfortable for him.)
Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges, or
otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a variety
of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished women who share
my religious skepticism that I can date. I don�t need a lawsuit and I
don�t need anyone to be forced to accept me or love me, I have family for
that and they�re stuck with me. Everyone else is off of the hook.
So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
you stand to lose.
.
raven1
Apr 16, 2013, 2:16:10 PM4/16/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>by Don Rasmussen
>
>As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
>Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
>the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
>loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
>Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
>time.
>
>Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>
>So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their worldview.
Except that no one is doing that. What atheists and agnostics object
to is our tax dollars being used to promote religion, or religious
beliefs being taught in public schools as science. Go flog this
strawman somewhere else.
wrote:
>by Don Rasmussen
>
>As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
>Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
>the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
>loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
>Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
>time.
>
>Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>
>So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their worldview.
to is our tax dollars being used to promote religion, or religious
beliefs being taught in public schools as science. Go flog this
strawman somewhere else.
SkyEyes
Apr 16, 2013, 4:10:26 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> >requires tolerance. It’s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> >victory or defeat for any “side” slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> >requires tolerance. It’s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> >victory or defeat for any “side” slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
I'm a former smoker, but until I developed allergic asthma in 2008, I
agreed with Ubiquitous about smoking banks being overkill. Then I
developed asthma and learned how smoke in a public space can literally
bring a person to her knees, fighting to breathe.
Actually, even excessive use of perfume does that. Worst asthma
attack I've ever had in my life resulted from the gal next to me in a
computer class slathering her hands with a highly scented hand lotion
during a break.
As the old rule goes, your right to swing your fist stops at the end
of my nose. Therefore, people need to keep their smoking limited to
places where unsuspecting members of the public won't be harmed by
their smoke, i.e., in their own cars and homes. That's not a matter
of overkill, it's a matter of public safety. Unless, of course,
you're implying that members of the public who have health issues
should never go outside their own homes so that smokers can remain
"free" and you can demonstrate how much "grace" you have.
--
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
--
Davej
Apr 16, 2013, 4:23:55 PM4/16/13
to
> [...]
public property in Texas should be declared 90% Christian property.
The US Constitution is just some old crappy, sappy ideas on a sheet of
paper and should probably be donated to wipe some homeless person's
ass.
> Should we seek to limit and curtail as much freedom as possible
> to alleviate our own insecurities about being a distrusted minority?
> How is any agnostic or atheist materially diminished by people
> of faith enjoying their freedom?
>
In other words 90% of the people in Texas are born-again Christians so
> to alleviate our own insecurities about being a distrusted minority?
> How is any agnostic or atheist materially diminished by people
> of faith enjoying their freedom?
>
public property in Texas should be declared 90% Christian property.
The US Constitution is just some old crappy, sappy ideas on a sheet of
paper and should probably be donated to wipe some homeless person's
ass.
Christopher A. Lee
Apr 16, 2013, 4:42:26 PM4/16/13
to
Fuck off, pathological liar.
thomas p.
Apr 16, 2013, 4:48:11 PM4/16/13
to
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:a45rm8dvh0n0pv8uh...@4ax.com...
shining example.
snip--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:a45rm8dvh0n0pv8uh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>>by Don Rasmussen
>>
>>As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>>requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>>can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>>of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>>victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>>
>>Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>>property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>>grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>>perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
Talking about flaws in reasoning, calling Locke a libertarian is certainly a
> wrote:
>
>>by Don Rasmussen
>>
>>As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>>requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>>can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>>of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>>victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>>
>>Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>>property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>>grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>>perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
shining example.
snip--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
casey
Apr 16, 2013, 5:54:56 PM4/16/13
to
had to find out where it came from.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/
Don Kresch
Apr 16, 2013, 6:41:11 PM4/16/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
scrawled in blood:
>On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>> >requires tolerance. It’s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>> >victory or defeat for any “side” slowly chips away at individual choice.
>>
>> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>>
>> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
>> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
>You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
asthmatic has no say.
That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
scrawled in blood:
>On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>> >requires tolerance. It’s the only way the whole notion of a free people
>> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>> >victory or defeat for any “side” slowly chips away at individual choice.
>>
>> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>>
>> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
>> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
>You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
asthmatic has no say.
That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
casey
Apr 16, 2013, 7:01:01 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 17, 8:41 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> >> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> >> >requires tolerance. It s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> >> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> >> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> >> >victory or defeat for any side slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> >> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> >> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> >> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> >> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> >> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> >> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Does social responsibility mean anything to you?
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> >> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> >> >requires tolerance. It s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> >> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> >> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> >> >victory or defeat for any side slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> >> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> >> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> >> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> >> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> >> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> >> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Siri Cruise
Apr 16, 2013, 7:42:03 PM4/16/13
to
In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
Employees are protected from hazardous conditions, whether they wish it or no.
The workplace safety rules aren't there to protect owners or customers.
--
Daddy says Mormons are all programmers because their god is Cobol. Should
I ask Mormons to reschedule Bullwinkle?
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Employees are protected from hazardous conditions, whether they wish it or no.
The workplace safety rules aren't there to protect owners or customers.
--
Daddy says Mormons are all programmers because their god is Cobol. Should
I ask Mormons to reschedule Bullwinkle?
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
%
Apr 16, 2013, 7:50:59 PM4/16/13
to
Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you
>>> have to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of
>>> smoke.
>>
>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> asthmatic has no say.
>>
>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
> California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety
> laws. Employees are protected from hazardous conditions, whether they
> wish it or no. The workplace safety rules aren't there to protect
> owners or customers.
everything is what i say
> In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you
>>> have to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of
>>> smoke.
>>
>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> asthmatic has no say.
>>
>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
> California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety
> laws. Employees are protected from hazardous conditions, whether they
> wish it or no. The workplace safety rules aren't there to protect
> owners or customers.
Siri Cruise
Apr 16, 2013, 7:51:49 PM4/16/13
to
In article <d0a69342-e50e-4596...@i20g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
Does denying the holocaust so risk violent anti-semitism that public safety
demand outlawing such denials? Some countries say yes, others say no.
casey <jgkj...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > As the old rule goes, your right to swing your fist stops at the end
> > of my nose.
>
> The above so succinctly expresses the concept I just
> had to find out where it came from.
What constitutes 'nose' or 'fist' or 'swinging' are not always easy to define.
> > As the old rule goes, your right to swing your fist stops at the end
> > of my nose.
>
> The above so succinctly expresses the concept I just
> had to find out where it came from.
Does denying the holocaust so risk violent anti-semitism that public safety
demand outlawing such denials? Some countries say yes, others say no.
casey
Apr 16, 2013, 8:07:09 PM4/16/13
to
On Apr 17, 9:51 am, Siri Cruise <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <d0a69342-e50e-4596-be1b-b7630a427...@i20g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
The internet is probably full of misinformation and we need to
learn what weight to put on a given piece of information. Are
we to become hostages to those who get offended because
someone believes or promotes something you believe is a lie?
The important thing is that you are free to call it a lie.
A reasonable person would accept that the evidence is that
the holocaust did take place just as it took place in Cambodia
and certain African states and I suspect many other places.
> In article <d0a69342-e50e-4596-be1b-b7630a427...@i20g2000pbq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > As the old rule goes, your right to swing your fist stops at the end
> > > of my nose.
>
> > The above so succinctly expresses the concept I just
> > had to find out where it came from.
>
> What constitutes 'nose' or 'fist' or 'swinging' are not always easy to define.
> Does denying the holocaust so risk violent anti-semitism that public safety
> demand outlawing such denials? Some countries say yes, others say no.
In theory I believe in free speech and that includes telling lies.
> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > > As the old rule goes, your right to swing your fist stops at the end
> > > of my nose.
>
> > The above so succinctly expresses the concept I just
> > had to find out where it came from.
>
> What constitutes 'nose' or 'fist' or 'swinging' are not always easy to define.
> Does denying the holocaust so risk violent anti-semitism that public safety
> demand outlawing such denials? Some countries say yes, others say no.
The internet is probably full of misinformation and we need to
learn what weight to put on a given piece of information. Are
we to become hostages to those who get offended because
someone believes or promotes something you believe is a lie?
The important thing is that you are free to call it a lie.
A reasonable person would accept that the evidence is that
the holocaust did take place just as it took place in Cambodia
and certain African states and I suspect many other places.
Dakota
Apr 16, 2013, 9:25:35 PM4/16/13
to
the smoking ban. If businesses that complied were more successful,
others would follow but there might still be a few places where
smokers could gather without being harassed.
Siri Cruise
Apr 16, 2013, 10:14:54 PM4/16/13
to
In article <kkkth0$u6v$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Businesses should have been given the option of complying or not with
> the smoking ban. If businesses that complied were more successful,
> others would follow but there might still be a few places where
> smokers could gather without being harassed.
Letting businesses gamble on the safety of their employees might work if you
> Businesses should have been given the option of complying or not with
> the smoking ban. If businesses that complied were more successful,
> others would follow but there might still be a few places where
> smokers could gather without being harassed.
include full disclosure to emoloyees so they can decide what risks to endure,
and if the business takes full financial liability for subsequent medical and
disability care of employees instead of expecting SSA and other government
programs to pay for them.
Olrik
Apr 16, 2013, 11:37:50 PM4/16/13
to
Le 2013-04-16 18:41, Don Kresch a �crit :
Ever went to a pub, �Kresch�?
Just out of curiosity, are you in a contest with some other posters here
to see who's coming up with the most utterly idiotic comments? Because I
must say you're doing it right. Kudos!
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> by Don Rasmussen
>>>
>>>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>>>> requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> by Don Rasmussen
>>>
>>>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>>>> can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>>>> of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>>>> victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>>>> of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>>>
>>>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>>>> property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>>>> grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>>>> perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>>>
>>> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
>>> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>>
>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
But he opens it to the public.
>>>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>>>> property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>>>> grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>>>> perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>>>
>>> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
>>> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>>
>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> asthmatic has no say.
>
> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
Ever went to a pub, �Kresch�?
Just out of curiosity, are you in a contest with some other posters here
to see who's coming up with the most utterly idiotic comments? Because I
must say you're doing it right. Kudos!
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Yap
Apr 17, 2013, 2:41:38 AM4/17/13
to
superstition be banned...since it sucks our vital resources into
massive unproductive activities.
What good would a church be when there is no pixie in the sky, to
respond to those praying inside?
It only demonstrates that the believers are very weak people.
Don Kresch
Apr 17, 2013, 8:04:02 AM4/17/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
scrawled in blood:
>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>
>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> asthmatic has no say.
>>
>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
They violate the property rights of the owners of the
scrawled in blood:
>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>
>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> asthmatic has no say.
>>
>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
raven1
Apr 17, 2013, 8:14:58 AM4/17/13
to
Dakota
Apr 17, 2013, 12:48:44 PM4/17/13
to
On 4/17/2013 1:41 AM, Yap wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:21 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>> requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> On Apr 16, 5:21 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
>> can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
>> of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>> victory or defeat for any �side� slowly chips away at individual choice.
>> of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
>>
>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>> property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>> grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>> perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
How is private property diminished by those who demand that religious
>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
>> property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
>> grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
>> perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
symbols be removed from public property? Why should expressions of
grace and tolerance be required of non-believers but not of believers?
>
>> Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
>> the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
>> loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
>> Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
>> time.
>
The imposition of religious belief with the force of law is exactly
>> Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief with
>> the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form of the
>> loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who disagrees?
>> Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less civilized over
>> time.
>
what groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation are fighting.
ffrf.org/
>
>> Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>> book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>> with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>
Believers are free to worship as they choose. They are not free to
>> Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>> book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>> with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>
install religion in government. Our nation's wise founders included
protection from religion in the very first amendment to our Constitution.
>
>> So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>> everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their worldview.
>> So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>> This makes me crazy because, as an agnostic myself, I get linked to these
>> sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
>>
>> I live in a state that�s 90% Christian. Should their rights, freedoms and
>> sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
>>
>> liberties be curtailed to accommodate my non-practicing butt? Of course
>> not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because I expect, or at
>> least hope for, the same in return.
>
The rights of the majority are rarely imperiled. It's the rights of
>> not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because I expect, or at
>> least hope for, the same in return.
>
the minority- including your non-practicing butt - that need protection.
>
>> .
>> How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like they
>> not only disgust me, but I�m entitled to legislate my disgust upon them?
>> .
>> How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like they
>> How many nativity scenes have to be banned before Christians accept me?
>> It�s a ridiculous strategy that makes enemies, divides people and carves
>> up freedom; throwing away the parts that aren�t easily digestible.
>
Christians have plenty of places where they can install their nativity
scenes without violating the Constitution. By insisting that the
displays be installed on public property, they are making enemies,
dividing people, and imposing their religious beliefs in violation of
our Constitutional rights.
>
>> According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having no
>> religion has doubled since 1989. The �non� movement needs to take a
>> According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having no
>> moment now, in this incredible growth period to ask what it wants to be.
>> Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
>> authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian Right
>> and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and curtail as
>> much freedom as possible to alleviate our own insecurities about being a
>> distrusted minority? How is any agnostic or atheist materially
>> diminished by people of faith enjoying their freedom?
>
When people of faith trod upon the Constitution, everyone's freedom is
>> Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
>> authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian Right
>> and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and curtail as
>> much freedom as possible to alleviate our own insecurities about being a
>> distrusted minority? How is any agnostic or atheist materially
>> diminished by people of faith enjoying their freedom?
>
in peril.
>
>> I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
>> date once doused me with a beer upon learning I didn�t share her
>> I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
>> religion. I have had a marriage proposal refused because her parents
>> wouldn�t accept their daughter marrying a non-Christian. I recently lost
>> out on a high profile, high paying political job because the politician
>> in question �had concerns� about having a non in the office�they have
>> daily prayers, you see, and �it would just be uncomfortable for
>> everyone.� (read: uncomfortable for him.)
>>
>> Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges, or
>> otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
>> disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a variety
>> of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished women who share
>> my religious skepticism that I can date. I don�t need a lawsuit and I
>> Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges, or
>> otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
>> disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a variety
>> of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished women who share
>> don�t need anyone to be forced to accept me or love me, I have family for
>> that and they�re stuck with me. Everyone else is off of the hook.
>
I you were turned down for the job because of the color of your skin,
you you find it offensive and consider filing a lawsuit? If so, why do
you so readily accept discrimination on the basis of religion?
>
>> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
>> what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
>> Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
>> you stand to lose.
>
We are not dismantling Constitutional freedom. We are demanding that
>> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
>> what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
>> Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
>> you stand to lose.
>
our Constitutional freedoms be protected.
MarkA
Apr 17, 2013, 1:17:18 PM4/17/13
to
--
MarkA
If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
MarkA
Apr 17, 2013, 1:25:25 PM4/17/13
to
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous wrote:
> by Don Rasmussen
aren't calling for the dismantling of anyone's Constitutional freedom.
We're calling for an end to the preferential treatment that has been
historically shown to Christian in the USA. The Christians, for their
part, have come to see their preferential treatment as a "right". It
isn't. There are plenty of church yards (tax exempt, even) in the USA
that can display Ten Commandment monuments and Nativity scenes; we don't
have to use courthouses and public parks for the purpose.
So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists. What
do I have to lose? Only my status as a second class citizen. That's
actually quite a lot. Just ask any Black who grew up in the South in the
50's.
> by Don Rasmussen
>
>
> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
> what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
> Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
> you stand to lose.
>
Ah, the plea for "accommodation". The only problem is that we atheists
>
> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask yourself
> what you really gain by demanding and supporting the dismantling of
> Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview; and then ask what
> you stand to lose.
>
aren't calling for the dismantling of anyone's Constitutional freedom.
We're calling for an end to the preferential treatment that has been
historically shown to Christian in the USA. The Christians, for their
part, have come to see their preferential treatment as a "right". It
isn't. There are plenty of church yards (tax exempt, even) in the USA
that can display Ten Commandment monuments and Nativity scenes; we don't
have to use courthouses and public parks for the purpose.
So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists. What
do I have to lose? Only my status as a second class citizen. That's
actually quite a lot. Just ask any Black who grew up in the South in the
50's.
%
Apr 17, 2013, 2:00:47 PM4/17/13
to
Yap wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:21 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed,
>> liberty requires tolerance. It�s the only way the whole notion of a
> On Apr 16, 5:21 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> by Don Rasmussen
>>
>> As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed,
>> free people can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes
>> Balkanized into factions of competing interests that inevitably lead
>> to less freedom as each victory or defeat for any �side� slowly
>> Balkanized into factions of competing interests that inevitably lead
>> chips away at individual choice.
>>
>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are
>> private property and private choice diminished, the individual act
>> of expressing grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is
>> replaced by a dictate that perverts that interaction and undermines
>> freedom.
>>
>> Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief
>> with the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form
>> of the loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who
>> disagrees? Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less
>> civilized over time.
>>
>> Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>> book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>> with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>>
>> So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>> everything that isn�t rigidly non-religious according to their
>>
>> Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are
>> private property and private choice diminished, the individual act
>> of expressing grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is
>> replaced by a dictate that perverts that interaction and undermines
>> freedom.
>>
>> Why be nice and seek accommodation when you can impose you belief
>> with the force of law and the threat of state violence (in the form
>> of the loss of some part of your liberty or property) on anyone who
>> disagrees? Excessive laws make us less tolerant, less civil and less
>> civilized over time.
>>
>> Now multiply that cultural effect across thousands of laws now on the
>> book whose only function is to replace tolerance with dictate, choice
>> with obligation, and self-interest with state interest.
>>
>> So it is with the absurd effort of atheists and agnostics to ban
>> worldview. This makes me crazy because, as an agnostic myself, I get
>> linked to these sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
>>
>> I live in a state that�s 90% Christian. Should their rights,
>> linked to these sad, angry jerks who never read John Locke.
>>
>> freedoms and liberties be curtailed to accommodate my non-practicing
>> butt? Of course not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because
>> I expect, or at least hope for, the same in return.
>>
>> .
>> How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like
>> they not only disgust me, but I�m entitled to legislate my disgust
>> butt? Of course not. I extend my grace to everyone around me because
>> I expect, or at least hope for, the same in return.
>>
>> .
>> How can I ask 27 million Texans to put up _with me_ if I act like
>> upon them? How many nativity scenes have to be banned before
>> Christians accept me? It�s a ridiculous strategy that makes enemies,
>> divides people and carves up freedom; throwing away the parts that
>> aren�t easily digestible.
>>
>> According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having
>> no religion has doubled since 1989. The �non� movement needs to take
>> According to Gallup, the number of Americans who identify as having
>> a moment now, in this incredible growth period to ask what it wants
>> to be. Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
>> authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian
>> Right and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and
>> curtail as much freedom as possible to alleviate our own
>> insecurities about being a distrusted minority? How is any agnostic
>> or atheist materially diminished by people of faith enjoying their
>> freedom?
>>
>> I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
>> date once doused me with a beer upon learning I didn�t share her
>> to be. Should the non-religious represent the same intolerance and
>> authoritarianism that they have complained about from the Christian
>> Right and the Statist Left for years? Should we seek to limit and
>> curtail as much freedom as possible to alleviate our own
>> insecurities about being a distrusted minority? How is any agnostic
>> or atheist materially diminished by people of faith enjoying their
>> freedom?
>>
>> I understand religious bigotry as most agnostics/atheists do. A blind
>> religion. I have had a marriage proposal refused because her parents
>> wouldn�t accept their daughter marrying a non-Christian. I recently
>> lost out on a high profile, high paying political job because the
>> politician in question �had concerns� about having a non in the
>> office�they have daily prayers, you see, and �it would just be
>> uncomfortable for everyone.� (read: uncomfortable for him.)
>>
>> Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges,
>> or otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
>> disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a
>> variety of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished
>> women who share my religious skepticism that I can date. I don�t
>> Yet it has never occurred to Me to respond by suing, filing charges,
>> or otherwise throwing a fit about it. I have told people with views I
>> disagree with to pike off. I have refused to hire people for a
>> variety of reasons, and there are lots of educated, accomplished
>> need a lawsuit and I don�t need anyone to be forced to accept me or
>> love me, I have family for that and they�re stuck with me. Everyone
>> else is off of the hook.
>>
>> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask
>> yourself what you really gain by demanding and supporting the
>> dismantling of Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview;
>> and then ask what you stand to lose.
>>
>> .
>
> For the good of the vast population, it is imperative that
> superstition be banned...since it sucks our vital resources into
> massive unproductive activities.
>
> What good would a church be when there is no pixie in the sky, to
> respond to those praying inside?
> It only demonstrates that the believers are very weak people.
i'm glad you believe there's a pixie in the sky
>>
>> So if you too are a religious skeptic, critic, even enemy, ask
>> yourself what you really gain by demanding and supporting the
>> dismantling of Constitutional freedom to satisfy your own worldview;
>> and then ask what you stand to lose.
>>
>> .
>
> For the good of the vast population, it is imperative that
> superstition be banned...since it sucks our vital resources into
> massive unproductive activities.
>
> What good would a church be when there is no pixie in the sky, to
> respond to those praying inside?
> It only demonstrates that the believers are very weak people.
Don Kresch
Apr 17, 2013, 6:57:17 PM4/17/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:17:18 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
scrawled in blood:
Prove that there is such a thing as social responsibility.
scrawled in blood:
Siri Cruise
Apr 17, 2013, 9:57:04 PM4/17/13
to
In article <js3tm8tvaadcrm3ed...@4ax.com>,
yards or a toxic waste dump in back. A business is even more restricted.
Enforcement of some laws is more difficult because of 4th amendment, but even
that can be overridden.
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
> >>
> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> >> asthmatic has no say.
> >>
> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
> >
> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
We don't have those rights. I'm not allowed to keep abandonned cars in my front
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
> >>
> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> >> asthmatic has no say.
> >>
> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
> >
> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
yards or a toxic waste dump in back. A business is even more restricted.
Enforcement of some laws is more difficult because of 4th amendment, but even
that can be overridden.
Siri Cruise
Apr 17, 2013, 9:59:31 PM4/17/13
to
In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists. What
Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists. What
Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
Siri Cruise
Apr 17, 2013, 10:01:44 PM4/17/13
to
In article <309f9c16-85c5-4e85...@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the good of the vast population, it is imperative that
> superstition be banned...since it sucks our vital resources into
How dare we let people think whatever they want. We need goodthinkers only.
> For the good of the vast population, it is imperative that
> superstition be banned...since it sucks our vital resources into
Siri Cruise
Apr 17, 2013, 10:11:47 PM4/17/13
to
In article <kkmjjt$681$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> How is private property diminished by those who demand that religious
> symbols be removed from public property? Why should expressions of
> grace and tolerance be required of non-believers but not of believers?
It would be a denial of the First Amendment if it is not done in neutral
> How is private property diminished by those who demand that religious
> symbols be removed from public property? Why should expressions of
> grace and tolerance be required of non-believers but not of believers?
fashion. That means all religions/beliefs/systems of thought/whatever you want
to claim have to be treated the same. If you ban religious symbols and
statements, you also have to antireligious symbols and statements.
Coins have in god we trust, and they should also have there is no god, in gods
we trust, in goddess we trust, etc.
Jeanne Douglas
Apr 17, 2013, 10:37:20 PM4/17/13
to
In article
<chine.bleu-51F0E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
displays. The atheist display was repeatedly vandalized.
So the city did the only other thing they could--they banned them all.
Nobody's being discriminated against; everybody is being treated exactly
the same. America at its very best.
> Coins have in god we trust, and they should also have there is no god, in
> gods
> we trust, in goddess we trust, etc.
I'd rather have E pluribus unum back.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
<chine.bleu-51F0E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <kkmjjt$681$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How is private property diminished by those who demand that religious
> > symbols be removed from public property? Why should expressions of
> > grace and tolerance be required of non-believers but not of believers?
>
> It would be a denial of the First Amendment if it is not done in neutral
> fashion. That means all religions/beliefs/systems of thought/whatever you
> want
> to claim have to be treated the same. If you ban religious symbols and
> statements, you also have to antireligious symbols and statements.
Santa Monica tried to be all-inclusive; they allowed any and all
> In article <kkmjjt$681$1...@dont-email.me>, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How is private property diminished by those who demand that religious
> > symbols be removed from public property? Why should expressions of
> > grace and tolerance be required of non-believers but not of believers?
>
> It would be a denial of the First Amendment if it is not done in neutral
> fashion. That means all religions/beliefs/systems of thought/whatever you
> want
> to claim have to be treated the same. If you ban religious symbols and
> statements, you also have to antireligious symbols and statements.
displays. The atheist display was repeatedly vandalized.
So the city did the only other thing they could--they banned them all.
Nobody's being discriminated against; everybody is being treated exactly
the same. America at its very best.
> Coins have in god we trust, and they should also have there is no god, in
> gods
> we trust, in goddess we trust, etc.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Olrik
Apr 17, 2013, 11:38:46 PM4/17/13
to
Le 2013-04-17 18:57, Don Kresch a �crit :
A family with a budget?
Olrik
Apr 17, 2013, 11:41:13 PM4/17/13
to
Le 2013-04-17 08:04, Don Kresch a �crit :
sociopath freak.
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>>> to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>
>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>
>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>
>> California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
No, they just supersede them. �Owners� are *not* gods, you little
> scrawled in blood:
>
>> In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>>> to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>
>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>
>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>
>> California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
sociopath freak.
> Don
> aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
> Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
>
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 12:47:03 AM4/18/13
to
In article <hlwdjsd2-2DC548...@news.giganews.com>,
My god doesn't need his name printed on that which belongs to Caesar.
Dakota
Apr 18, 2013, 1:42:47 AM4/18/13
to
phrase that it no longer has any religious meaning. It's no more
religious than screaming "Oh, god. Oh, god. Oh, god" during a sexual
climax. No one screams "E pluribus unum." :)
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 2:44:55 AM4/18/13
to
SkyEyes
Apr 18, 2013, 3:39:19 AM4/18/13
to
On Apr 16, 4:01 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 8:41 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> > scrawled in blood:
>
> > >On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> > >> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> > >> >requires tolerance. It s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> > >> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> > >> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> > >> >victory or defeat for any side slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> > >> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> > >> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> > >> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> > >> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> > >> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> > >> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
> On Apr 17, 8:41 am, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:10:26 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net>
> > scrawled in blood:
>
> > >On Apr 16, 11:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 5:21:51 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >by Don Rasmussen
>
> > >> >As the great libertarian philosopher John Locke rightly observed, liberty
> > >> >requires tolerance. It s the only way the whole notion of a free people
> > >> >can operate. Without tolerance, politics becomes Balkanized into factions
> > >> >of competing interests that inevitably lead to less freedom as each
> > >> >victory or defeat for any side slowly chips away at individual choice.
>
> > >> >Most people see smoking bans as a good thing, but not only are private
> > >> >property and private choice diminished, the individual act of expressing
> > >> >grace and tolerance towards fellow citizens is replaced by a dictate that
> > >> >perverts that interaction and undermines freedom.
>
> > >> Replace "smoking bans" with "bans on drunk driving" and read it back
> > >> again. See if you can spot the flaw in Rassmussen's line of reasoning.
>
> > >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
> > >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> > Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> > asthmatic has no say.
>
> > That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
> > >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>
> > Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
> > asthmatic has no say.
>
> > That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>
> Does social responsibility mean anything to you?
Do you really have to ask, casey?
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 8:06:32 AM4/18/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:59:31 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
> MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
>> What
>
> Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
>
> Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
True that. OTOH, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
> In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
> MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
>> What
>
> Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
>
> Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
Even if it pisses him off.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 8:16:02 AM4/18/13
to
Don Kresch
Apr 18, 2013, 8:40:34 AM4/18/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:57:04 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> I'm not allowed to keep abandonned cars in my front
>yards
So your right is being violated.
scrawled in blood:
>In article <js3tm8tvaadcrm3ed...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>> >>
>> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> >> asthmatic has no say.
>> >>
>> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>> >
>> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>
>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>> property.
>
>We don't have those rights.
Yes, we do.
>In article <js3tm8tvaadcrm3ed...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>> >>
>> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>> >> asthmatic has no say.
>> >>
>> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>> >
>> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>
>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>> property.
>
>We don't have those rights.
> I'm not allowed to keep abandonned cars in my front
>yards
Don Kresch
Apr 18, 2013, 8:41:27 AM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:16:02 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
scrawled in blood:
>(crying snipped)
Prove that there is such a thing as social responsibility.
scrawled in blood:
Prove that there is such a thing as social responsibility.
raven1
Apr 18, 2013, 9:00:59 AM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:40:34 -0500, Don Kresch
the right of another person not to be injured or endangered by his
actions?
>> I'm not allowed to keep abandonned cars in my front
>>yards
>
> So your right is being violated.
So if someone wants to keep their property in a condition (ie:
abandoned cars on their front lawn) that lowers the value of nearby
properties, you're just fine with that? Selfish prick.
<spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:57:04 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <js3tm8tvaadcrm3ed...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> >> asthmatic has no say.
>>> >>
>>> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>> >
>>> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>>
>>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>>> property.
>>
>>We don't have those rights.
>
> Yes, we do.
Why does the owner's right to use his property as he sees fit trump
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:57:04 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <js3tm8tvaadcrm3ed...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>> >In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>> >> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> >> asthmatic has no say.
>>> >>
>>> >> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>> >
>>> >California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>>
>>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>>> property.
>>
>>We don't have those rights.
>
> Yes, we do.
the right of another person not to be injured or endangered by his
actions?
>> I'm not allowed to keep abandonned cars in my front
>>yards
>
> So your right is being violated.
abandoned cars on their front lawn) that lowers the value of nearby
properties, you're just fine with that? Selfish prick.
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 9:52:48 AM4/18/13
to
a lot of second dates?
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 9:56:05 AM4/18/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:04:02 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>
>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>
>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>
>>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
>
>
Yes. Yes they do. Just as requiring car makers to conform to safety
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>
>>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>
>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>
>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>
>>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>
> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
> property.
>
>
standards violates their rights to produce unsafe cars.
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 10:08:50 AM4/18/13
to
In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> Yes, we do.
Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights. Explain them to the judge
when they take you into court. Write us from jail. Otherwise you don't believe
what you say.
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> Yes, we do.
Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights. Explain them to the judge
when they take you into court. Write us from jail. Otherwise you don't believe
what you say.
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 10:10:33 AM4/18/13
to
In article <pan.2013.04.18....@nowhere.invalid>,
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:59:31 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
> > MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
> >> What
> >
> > Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
> >
> > Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
>
> True that. OTOH, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
> Even if it pisses him off.
Not every christian or atheist is an asshole. Actually most aren't.
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:59:31 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
> > MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
> >> What
> >
> > Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
> >
> > Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
>
> True that. OTOH, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him.
> Even if it pisses him off.
Dakota
Apr 18, 2013, 10:35:06 AM4/18/13
to
about your sanity.
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 1:59:49 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:10:33 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <pan.2013.04.18....@nowhere.invalid>,
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:59:31 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
>> > MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
>> >> What
>> >
>> > Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
>> >
>> > Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
>>
>> True that. OTOH, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to
>> him. Even if it pisses him off.
>
> Not every christian or atheist is an asshole. Actually most aren't.
Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists who,
> In article <pan.2013.04.18....@nowhere.invalid>,
> MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:59:31 -0700, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2013.04.17....@somewhere.invalid>,
>> > MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, no, I don't mind pissing off a bunch of self-important theists.
>> >> What
>> >
>> > Yes, some of you want to be assholes. Rest of us have to endure that.
>> >
>> > Or as it was also stated, an eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.
>>
>> True that. OTOH, the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to
>> him. Even if it pisses him off.
>
> Not every christian or atheist is an asshole. Actually most aren't.
despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand why having a
Nativity scene in the public park, while the church across the street has
a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a problem. And, they would
scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to Allah, or the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, in the same park.
MarkA
Apr 18, 2013, 2:03:13 PM4/18/13
to
44.900616 N, 93.566740 W.
I was unaware of that definition of "excelsior". Thank you.
.... you doing anything later? ;)
Don Kresch
Apr 18, 2013, 6:58:14 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
scrawled in blood:
>In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we do.
>
>Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
I do.
Are you finished with your tantrum?
scrawled in blood:
>In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, we do.
>
>Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
Are you finished with your tantrum?
Don Kresch
Apr 18, 2013, 7:01:56 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:56:05 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
scrawled in blood:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:04:02 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>>
>>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>>
>>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>>
>>>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>
>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>> property.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. Yes they do.
Glad you agree.
btw: why shouldn't people be able to purchase cars without
airbags or seat belts. It's not your fucking business--stay the fuck
out.
When you realize that your aesthetics do not trump the rights
of others, you'll have taken your first step into adulthood. Until
then, you're no fucking better than the fundie who confuses aesthetics
with morality and calls gays "evil".
scrawled in blood:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:04:02 -0500, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:03 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>>In article <3qkrm8h34rvlli918...@4ax.com>,
>>> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >You don't have to replace "smoking bans" with anything. All you have
>>>> >to do is witness how an asthmatic suffers in the presence of smoke.
>>>>
>>>> Is that asthmatic on the asthmatic's property? No? Then the
>>>> asthmatic has no say.
>>>>
>>>> That includes places like bars. A bar is the owner's property.
>>>
>>>California smoking bans are based on employment and public safety laws.
>>
>> They violate the property rights of the owners of the
>> property.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. Yes they do.
btw: why shouldn't people be able to purchase cars without
airbags or seat belts. It's not your fucking business--stay the fuck
out.
When you realize that your aesthetics do not trump the rights
of others, you'll have taken your first step into adulthood. Until
then, you're no fucking better than the fundie who confuses aesthetics
with morality and calls gays "evil".
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 7:19:57 PM4/18/13
to
In article <jju0n8h3mehh9987p...@4ax.com>,
Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, we do.
> >
> >Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
>
> I do.
You're a screamer alright.
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, we do.
> >
> >Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
>
> I do.
Christopher A. Lee
Apr 18, 2013, 7:25:24 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:19:57 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Daddy says Mormons are all programmers because their god is Cobol.
If anItalian programs in C, does a Japanese program in "Hai".
wrote:
>Daddy says Mormons are all programmers because their god is Cobol.
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 7:28:42 PM4/18/13
to
Don Kresch
Apr 18, 2013, 9:14:35 PM4/18/13
to
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:19:57 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
scrawled in blood:
>In article <jju0n8h3mehh9987p...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, we do.
>> >
>> >Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
>>
>> I do.
>
>You're a screamer alright.
Let me know when you're coherent.
>In article <jju0n8h3mehh9987p...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 07:08:50 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in blood:
>>
>> >In article <5dqvm89frl8mj5lkv...@4ax.com>,
>> > Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, we do.
>> >
>> >Actions speak louder than words. Stand up for rights.
>>
>> I do.
>
>You're a screamer alright.
linuxgal
Apr 18, 2013, 10:30:12 PM4/18/13
to
MarkA wrote:
> Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists who,
> despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand why having a
> Nativity scene in the public park, while the church across the street has
> a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a problem. And, they would
> scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to Allah, or the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster, in the same park.
Muslims would also scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to
> Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists who,
> despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand why having a
> Nativity scene in the public park, while the church across the street has
> a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a problem. And, they would
> scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to Allah, or the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster, in the same park.
Allah. They take the commandment against graven images far more
seriously than Christians do.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
Siri Cruise
Apr 18, 2013, 10:24:25 PM4/18/13
to
In article <JMCdnXB5xLypA-3M...@giganews.com>,
linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> MarkA wrote:
> > Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists who,
> > despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand why having a
> > Nativity scene in the public park, while the church across the street has
> > a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a problem. And, they would
> > scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to Allah, or the Flying
> > Spaghetti Monster, in the same park.
>
> Muslims would also scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to
> Allah. They take the commandment against graven images far more
> seriously than Christians do.
They use passages in stylised arabic script that accomplish the same end.
> MarkA wrote:
> > Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists who,
> > despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand why having a
> > Nativity scene in the public park, while the church across the street has
> > a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a problem. And, they would
> > scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to Allah, or the Flying
> > Spaghetti Monster, in the same park.
>
> Muslims would also scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to
> Allah. They take the commandment against graven images far more
> seriously than Christians do.
%
Apr 18, 2013, 11:46:31 PM4/18/13
to
Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <JMCdnXB5xLypA-3M...@giganews.com>,
> linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> MarkA wrote:
>>> Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists
>>> who, despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand
>>> why having a Nativity scene in the public park, while the church
>>> across the street has a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a
>>> problem. And, they would scream bloody murder if you put up a
>>> monument to Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in the same
>>> park.
>>
>> Muslims would also scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to
>> Allah. They take the commandment against graven images far more
>> seriously than Christians do.
>
> They use passages in stylised arabic script that accomplish the same
> end.
yea but they copy catted me
> In article <JMCdnXB5xLypA-3M...@giganews.com>,
> linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> MarkA wrote:
>>> Perhaps. But I know a surprisingly large number of religionists
>>> who, despite being otherwise intelligent people, can't understand
>>> why having a Nativity scene in the public park, while the church
>>> across the street has a front lawn of exactly the same size, is a
>>> problem. And, they would scream bloody murder if you put up a
>>> monument to Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in the same
>>> park.
>>
>> Muslims would also scream bloody murder if you put up a monument to
>> Allah. They take the commandment against graven images far more
>> seriously than Christians do.
>
> They use passages in stylised arabic script that accomplish the same
> end.
0 new messages