Exceptions to Free Speech?
David / Amicus
Exceptions:
Child pornography
Threats against the President
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater
+++++++++++
others?
Porter Smith
@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net:
New Jersey has a statute covering "Terroristic threats":
"A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to
commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or to
cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public
transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in
reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience."
David Johnston
wrote:
Libel and slander versus private citizens.
theget
> This was being discussed on the radio.
> Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater
I believe that it must be shouted _falsely_. Shouting fire when there
is a fire is not, AFAIK illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Theget
Hunter
Ami...@webtv.net says...
Libel (written lies about someone), slander (spoken lies about
someone) and even then they have to have a likelihood of them being
believed by the reader/listener and to be written/spoke with
malicious intent with foreknowledge of their falseness.
Also national security issues like government secrets, Gag laws,
incitement to riot.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
D.F. Manno
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> This was being discussed on the radio.
>
> Exceptions:
>
> Child pornography
>
> Threats against the President
>
> Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater
_Falsely_ yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Yelling "fire" in a
crowded theater when there actually is a fire is OK.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"...the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the
dream shall never die."
David / Amicus
actual children (under 18) are used.
Otherwise one can write child porn, make animated child porn etc..
I think the ACLU although against the making of child porn is not
against a person possessing it.
I remember a case years back where some guy got on a snail mail child
porn mailing list and he ordered some stuff and was arrested and the
ACLU went to his defense.
David Johnston
wrote:
>Regarding child pornography - I understand that it's only illegal if
>actual children (under 18) are used.
>
>Otherwise one can write child porn, make animated child porn etc..
Not in the United States.
Snakes on a plane
wrote:
>This was being discussed on the radio.
You're missing the biggest exception that being the right
to spend as much money as you want to get a candidate elected.
(Are campaign finance laws unconstitutional?)
Ares, God of War
wrote:
>Regarding child pornography - I understand that it's only illegal if
>actual children (under 18) are used.
Wrong. There have been cases where child pornography was
prosecuted where the images on the computer were
animated images and no actual children were used.
Michael Ejercito
Michael
David Johnston
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/
RICHMOND, Va. - Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are
drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first
conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.
D.F. Manno
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/
>
> RICHMOND, Va. - Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are
> drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first
> conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.
Which undermines the only acceptable reason for banning child porn: that
the production of it necessarily entails the sexual abuse of children.
theget
Are you sure about this? I've heard of places overseas where
handdrawn kiddie porn is illegal, even if no live models were used,
but I thought this was legal in the US.
Theget
theget
Is there a test for how realistic the pictures of the children have to
be? What if stick figures are used?
Theget
theget
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael Ejercito
>
Thanks for the link.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Sep 28, 3:35 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:24:13 -0700, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Regarding child pornography - I understand that it's only illegal if
>> >actual children (under 18) are used.
>>
>> >Otherwise one can write child porn, make animated child porn etc..
>>
>> Not in the United States.
>
>Are you sure about this?
I'm sure.
nob...@junk.min.net
09/28/09
>> >> prosecuted where the images on the computer were
>> >> animated images and no actual children were used.
>> > Which case was this?
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28319199/
>>
>> RICHMOND, Va. - Child pornography is illegal even if the pictures are
>> drawn, a federal appeals panel said in affirming the nation's first
>> conviction under a 2003 federal law against such cartoons.
>Thanks for the link.
Does plain text (stories, e-mails) not qualify as pornography and child
pornography? I know there are some novels, for example, that are very
sexuallly graphic, but they aren't considered pornographic.
David Johnston
The law in question is specifically against images. It doesn't apply
to written text, and checking, it _seems_ like the United States
doesn't ban text of that nature.
David / Amicus
to written text, and checking, it _seems_ like the United States doesn't
ban text of that nature.>>
I don't remember now if it was in real life or on one of the L&Os but
there was controversy over whether a released pedophile could write or
possess child porn literature (non pictoral).
D.F. Manno
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
>
> >Does plain text (stories, e-mails) not qualify as pornography and child
> >pornography? I know there are some novels, for example, that are very
> >sexuallly graphic, but they aren't considered pornographic.
>
> The law in question is specifically against images. It doesn't apply
> to written text, and checking, it _seems_ like the United States
> doesn't ban text of that nature.
Pornography, with the exception of child port, is legal. _Obscenity_ is
illegal, and the legal definition of obscenity is not restricted to
images.
A work is obscene when, taken as a whole, it appeals to the prurient
interest; is completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or
social value and violates local community standards. All three tests
must be met.
You'll note no distinction is made between words and images.
Pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Obscenity is not.
Ares, God of War
I don't know the case but there have been a number of
convictions for this and I believe it has been
upheld by higher courts.
It's somewhat rare but it has occured in US courts.
>
>
> Michael
The Undertaker
The problem is the definition of pornography. The all too common
definition of pornography is "I can't define it but I know it when
I see it."
The definition of pornography is very broad and
if you take a picture of your kid at the baach
in a bathing suit there are jurisdictions where that
would be considered pornography.
Vince
In some cases a nut clerk at the photo lab will sometimes call the
police if he/she finds something like that or a shot of the child nude
on the old bear shin rug or in a bath tub.
I myself have taken such shots in the past with no problems, its only
been the last 20 or so years where they started going wild over such things
theget
> The law in question is specifically against images. It doesn't apply
> to written text, and checking, it _seems_ like the United States
> doesn't ban text of that nature.
Then what about the nudes at this link? (Probably not safe for work,
because, well, nudes.)
http://www.ascii-art.de/ascii/my/big2.shtml
Does the law say what an image is?
Theget
theget
> Which undermines the only acceptable reason for banning child porn: that
> the production of it necessarily entails the sexual abuse of children.
I'd agree.
But I suspect the goal of many people who don't want anyone possessing
any portrayals, either text or images, is to control your mind.
This is just a stepping stone for them.
Plus IMO they want to courts to be clogged with cases of this type.
All those nude cherubs must go.
Theget
Vince
There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 1:17 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> The law in question is specifically against images. It doesn't apply
>> to written text, and checking, it _seems_ like the United States
>> doesn't ban text of that nature.
>
>Then what about the nudes at this link?
Do I sound like a judge?
theget
> Do I sound like a judge?
You seem more knowledgeable about this than me.
Theget
David Johnston
The judgement call of where something stops qualifying as an image of
a child would depend on the old standard of "I knows it when I sees
it" as exercised by the judge of the case should it be filed.
theget
> There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
> almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
> They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
Cart. Horse.
Theget
theget
Not a finding of fact by a jury?
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 6:50 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:46:18 -0700 (PDT), theget
>>
>> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 29, 5:39 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Do I sound like a judge?
>>
>> >You seem more knowledgeable about this than me.
>>
>> The judgement call of where something stops qualifying as an image of
>> a child would depend on the old standard of "I knows it when I sees
>> it" as exercised by the judge of the case should it be filed.
>
>Not a finding of fact by a jury?
Stuff like this usually gets finally resolved on appeal.
D.F. Manno
Vince <vpil...@optonline.net> wrote:
> There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
> almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
> They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
They probably also found bibles, too. Maybe even "Reader's Digest."
theget
> In article <4ac272d7$0$4987$607ed...@cv.net>,
>
> Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
> > almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
> > They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
>
> They probably also found bibles, too. Maybe even "Reader's Digest."
Have you seen the kind of stuff that's in the bible?
Read about Lot's daughters?
See what what's his name told pharaoh about his wife being his siter?
Ever read Judges 19,20 and 21?
Didja hear the one about what King David did to get some woman he saw
bathing?
And that's the way I like it.
Theget
Vince
Well based on that anyone who watches porn would become a child abuser,
which we know is not the case
nob...@junk.min.net
>>
>>> There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
>>> almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
>>> They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
>>
>> Cart. Horse.
>>
>> Theget
>Well based on that anyone who watches porn would become a child abuser,
>which we know is not the case
Or become a rapist - seems a lot of them also watch/possess porn. They
(and child abusers) might go to stripper bars, too. Heck, they probably
exceeded the speed limit when driving.
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.2R
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince
> In <4ac2da78$0$22547$607e...@cv.net>, on 09/30/09
> at 12:11 AM, Vince <vpil...@optonline.net> said:
>
>
>>>> There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
>>>> almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
>>>> They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
>>> Cart. Horse.
>>>
>>> Theget
>
>
>> Well based on that anyone who watches porn would become a child abuser,
>> which we know is not the case
>
> Or become a rapist - seems a lot of them also watch/possess porn. They
> (and child abusers) might go to stripper bars, too. Heck, they probably
> exceeded the speed limit when driving.
>
>
> Alan
>
Paige Matthews
wrote:
There was a congress person testifying before congress last week
claiming that porn makes boys gay.
Vince
This may be a silly question, but what party was he/she from?
theget
> In <4ac2da78$0$22547$607ed...@cv.net>, on 09/30/09
> at 12:11 AM, Vince <vpilu...@optonline.net> said:
>
>
>
> >>> There was an story in READERS DIGEST some years back where it said in
> >>> almost all child abusers homes they found adult porn, well DUHHHH!
> >>> They also tried to say this porn is what made them what they are.
>
> >> Cart. Horse.
>
> >> Theget
> >Well based on that anyone who watches porn would become a child abuser,
> >which we know is not the case
>
> Or become a rapist - seems a lot of them also watch/possess porn. They
> (and child abusers) might go to stripper bars, too. Heck, they probably
> exceeded the speed limit when driving.
>
Then no more racy films for them.
Theget
theget
wrote:
> There was a congress person testifying before congress last week
> claiming that porn makes boys gay.
I would really love to know how that works. Did they say? Or was it
just another unsupported claim.
I'm sure this stuff works with congress. Let 'em try it on usenet and
see how far they get.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 3:10 pm, Paige Matthews <replyonuse...@emailprivate.com>
>wrote:
>
>> There was a congress person testifying before congress last week
>> claiming that porn makes boys gay.
>
>I would really love to know how that works. Did they say?
The arguement I recall relied upon regarding homosexuality as
self-centered sexuality. Porn leads to masturbation which leads to
sexual attraction to your own member, and therefore other similar
members.
Vince
The right users that other nonsense of how since gays can't have kids
they look for Recruits among the very young.
theget
Sounds more like some idea they've put into their own heads, perhaps
from personal experience, rather than collecting actual data and
finding out if it's true.
Theget
theget
I've heard that stories like this about the Hirja community are very
frequent. I don't know if they're true. I suppose one must be careful
about what one hears about cultures that one isn't personally familiar
with.
But I've always considered it to be strange that people believe this.
I honestly don't think that someone can be persuaded, in the ordinary
meaning of the word, to be homosexual, or heterosexual for that
matter.
But perhaps I am unusual and most people make a conscious decision
about their sexuality instead of discovering it? I would think it
would be similar to deciding not to laugh at particular jokes and
deciding to laugh at others.
Theget
Paige Matthews
wrote:
I believe he was republican, it was aired on cable news.
Vince
1, Well you sure took your time answering
2, That figures it would be a repub
Michael Ejercito
> This was being discussed on the radio.
>
> Exceptions:
>
> Child pornography
>
> Threats against the President
>
> Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater
>
> +++++++++++
>
> others?
Perjury.
Michael
Chris ®
>also watch/possess porn.
I'd say porn prevents more rapes than it causes.
-
"Sometimes, there just aren't enough rocks" - Forrest Gump
Chris ®
>into their own heads, perhaps from
>personal experience, rather than
>collecting actual data and finding out if it's
>true.
The origins of sexual orientation has been politicized. There are lots
of people who think there is conclusive scientific proof that they are
born gay or predisposed to become gay. That's simply not true. There are
those who think you can turn gay and then be "cured" of it. I am equally
doubtful that this concept has been proven scientifically.
I think the pursuit of what causes sexual orientation is pointless. Is
it really relevant whether or not it's inborn or chosen? People choose
their religion, yet still have absolute rights protected by the
Constitution.
theget
> >Sounds more like some idea they've put
> >into their own heads, perhaps from
> >personal experience, rather than
> >collecting actual data and finding out if it's
> >true.
>
> The origins of sexual orientation has been politicized. There are lots
> of people who think there is conclusive scientific proof that they are
> born gay or predisposed to become gay. That's simply not true. There are
> those who think you can turn gay and then be "cured" of it. I am equally
> doubtful that this concept has been proven scientifically.
>
> I think the pursuit of what causes sexual orientation is pointless.
Knowledge is almost never pointless.
> Is
> it really relevant whether or not it's inborn or chosen?
It may be. Suppose that in some cases sexual orientation (whatever it
may be) is the result of some disease that may have some negative
effect and may be cured..
> People choose
> their religion, yet still have absolute rights protected by the
> Constitution.
I think it might be harder to write a law that protects sexual
orientation. The First Amendment gives protection to thought and
expression, but not action. IMO a considerable difference.
Theget
Chris ®
>that protects sexual orientation. The First
>Amendment gives protection to thought
>and expression, but not action. IMO a
>considerable difference.
I think sexual orientation is thought and expression. The act itself is
already legal (unless some lazy state hasn't yet repealed it's sodomy
laws). I don't see the difference between someone claiming he is gay or
claiming he is Jewish. Both involve choice and both involve actions.
theget
> >I think it might be harder to write a law
> >that protects sexual orientation. The First
> >Amendment gives protection to thought
> >and expression, but not action. IMO a
> >considerable difference.
>
> I think sexual orientation is thought and expression. The act itself is
> already legal (unless some lazy state hasn't yet repealed it's sodomy
> laws). I don't see the difference between someone claiming he is gay or
> claiming he is Jewish. Both involve choice and both involve actions.
I suppose it depends who you ask. There are some people who think
being Jewish isn't a choice but genetic.
I tend to think that for most gays it isn't a choice to be gay, sexual
acts are a choice though.
But sexual orientation isn't limited to gay or straight. There are
others. In some cases different, in others more, shall we say
specialized. Perhaps you meant to say that there are some that you
think ought to be legal and others not?
Theget
Theget
D.F. Manno
headban...@webtv.net (Chris (R)) wrote:
> I think sexual orientation is thought and expression. The act itself is
> already legal (unless some lazy state hasn't yet repealed it's sodomy
> laws). I don't see the difference between someone claiming he is gay or
> claiming he is Jewish. Both involve choice and both involve actions.
Bullshit. People no more choose to be gay than they choose to have blue
eyes or black hair.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
theget
> People no more choose to be gay than they choose to have blue
> eyes or black hair.
I'm fascinated. For purposes of the statement above, how do you
define "gay"?
Would it be closer to a) Engages in homosexual behavior including sex.
b) Desires sexual and emotional congress with members of the same sex.
c) Something else?
I ask because I've heard of gay men who for most of their lives choose
to live heterosexual lives, being husbands and fathering families.
That's a choice they made, although I suppose we might still say they
were gay, even if they never acted that way. Bisexual perhaps?
I presume that somewhere in the world there are straight people who
for the sake of convenience engage in gay behaviors as a matter of
choice too. Certainly this is a facet of life in prison.
Anyway, I'm curious about your definition.
Theget
D.F. Manno
<5905096d-3cd0-4cc5...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > People no more choose to be gay than they choose to have blue
> > eyes or black hair.
>
> I'm fascinated. For purposes of the statement above, how do you
> define "gay"?
>
> Would it be closer to a) Engages in homosexual behavior including sex.
> b) Desires sexual and emotional congress with members of the same sex.
> c) Something else?
Someone who is sexually attracted only to members of the same sex.
> I ask because I've heard of gay men who for most of their lives choose
> to live heterosexual lives, being husbands and fathering families.
>
> That's a choice they made, although I suppose we might still say they
> were gay, even if they never acted that way. Bisexual perhaps?
Some of them were bisexual. In many cases, though, those men were in
denial, or were in the closet and using the marriage/relationship to
hide their true sexual orientation.
> I presume that somewhere in the world there are straight people who
> for the sake of convenience engage in gay behaviors as a matter of
> choice too.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience." There are no
doubt people identify as straight who have engaged in sex with members
of their own sex, whether it be experimentation, thrill-seeking, etc.
> Certainly this is a facet of life in prison.
I'd call that a special case - straights doing it for lack of other
sexual outlets, for protection, or through intimidation/force.
theget
> In article
> <5905096d-3cd0-4cc5-a241-dbb27404a...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > > People no more choose to be gay than they choose to have blue
> > > eyes or black hair.
>
> > I'm fascinated. For purposes of the statement above, how do you
> > define "gay"?
> Someone who is sexually attracted only to members of the same sex.
Ok. I understand now. Thank you.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience."
That was a poor choice of words on my part. But I think you answered
my question. Is it ok if I don't clarify?
Theget
Hunter
dbb274...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, the...@bigmailbox.net
says...
> On Oct 25, 3:05 pm, "D.F. Manno" <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > People no more choose to be gay than they choose to have blue
> > eyes or black hair.
>
> I'm fascinated. For purposes of the statement above, how do you
> define "gay"?
>
> Would it be closer to a) Engages in homosexual behavior including sex.
> b) Desires sexual and emotional congress with members of the same sex.
> c) Something else?
B), because you have to have the desire first to commit the act. Yes
I know some heterosexual men either force themselves on men or have
homosexual sex out of "necessity" the former is usually in a prison
setting the latter a matter of prostitution. The first dominance the
second dependance, but there isn't an actual preference for the same
sex and under different circumstances would not have it, so they are
not homosexual even if they have to engage in that conduct. Maybe you
can make an argument for the man who is forcing himself in someway on
the other guy is gay, since he is starting it. Personally I have a
good right hand and a perfect imagination about Grace Park or Rosie
Perez, Katherine Heigl or Gabrielle Union or a billion other women
not to have a guy if I am in prison.
> I ask because I've heard of gay men who for most of their lives choose
> to live heterosexual lives, being husbands and fathering families.
>
> That's a choice they made, although I suppose we might still say they
> were gay, even if they never acted that way. Bisexual perhaps?
No, it is usually they are conforming to society's expectations but
it doesn't change their basic make up, so yes they are still gay if
they have an innate desire to sleep with or is attracted to
romantically to a member of the same sex. Let's say as a matter of a
thought experiment. You are a man and you like women and only women
but you are born in a society where you are EXPECTED to have
homosexual sex. You are the deviant" for desire to have sex with
women. You will be hated all your life being told your desire for
women is disgusting and dirty and one of the worst sins. You even
almost gotten or have been beaten up for your desire for women. What
would most of your kind do as a survival mechanism? Marry a man. You
are not disgusted with yourself for having sex with a man because
that is what society approves of you doing you doing so you are not
taught to hate the thought of having sex with a man. You may even
love the man you with, but you are not really sexually attracted to
him even if you manage to do the act with him. You may even deny the
truth of you liking women to yourself. However, you still dream of
sex with a woman but you don't dare try. Then one day you do say to
yourself This is not me. I am tired of hating myself, of having to
constantly lie to myself and others. I quit this sham." And you come
out and find yourself a nice girl.
You have always liked girls but you denied yourself until you
couldn't go through with it any more. That is what has happened to a
lot if not most gaymen-and women-including certain politicians. You
conform to society's expectation.
I believe homosexuality has a biological cause. It happens in nature
with the lower animals. It is not a choice. Sure you can choose to
ACT on that impulse, but having the impulse, the orientation itself
is not a choice.
>
> I presume that somewhere in the world there are straight people who
> for the sake of convenience engage in gay behaviors as a matter of
> choice too. Certainly this is a facet of life in prison.
>
> Anyway, I'm curious about your definition.
>
> Theget
----
Yes you are right about that as I said above. Of course many of those
choices are not but rape either actual forcible rape or made clear to
them they are not free to choose if they want their protection from
other prisoners. The other situation of course is poverty and having
to chose prostitution. Since of course the customers are
overwhelmingly men straight or gay that is what he will have sex
with even if he couldn't stand it normally.
Male prostitutes who have women as customers are of course called
"Gigolos" and "Kept Men" and usually I think stay with the client for
days, weeks, months and even years on end. The woman has essentially
bought a relationship that *includes sex*, while men just by the sex,
even if they are steady customers to one particular Hooker.
There are exceptions either way of course. Men who only patronize one
prostitute and not only pays her fee but gives her gifts, takes her
to parties even gives her a apartment because for some reason he
doesn't have the skills to start a normal relationship with a woman
and a woman who treats her men like living dildos and go from male
prostitute to prostituet just as fast as any man.
And conversely some lesbians who otherwise wouldn't have sex with a
man would prostitute themselves to men out of necessity because that
is the market.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
David / Amicus
genetic.>>
Judaism as a religion can be a choice. Like Liz Taylor and Sammy Davis
Jr were converts. And Karl Marx though born into a Jewish family left
it.
But aren't Jews also a race? Like I remember on one of the L&Os one of
the stories was about Tay Sachs disease. Judd Hirsch was in it.
David Johnston
wrote:
><<There are some people who think being Jewish isn't a choice but
>genetic.>>
>
>
>Judaism as a religion can be a choice. Like Liz Taylor and Sammy Davis
>Jr were converts. And Karl Marx though born into a Jewish family left
>it.
>
>
>
>
>But aren't Jews also a race?
Jews are mostly comprised of several different ethnic groups.
theget
> <<There are some people who think being Jewish isn't a choice but
> genetic.>>
Context! Hallelujah!
>
> Judaism as a religion can be a choice. Like Liz Taylor and Sammy Davis
> Jr were converts. And Karl Marx though born into a Jewish family left
> it.
> But aren't Jews also a race?
For the purposes of that statement, please define race.
> Like I remember on one of the L&Os one of
> the stories was about Tay Sachs disease. Judd Hirsch was in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease
According to a quick glance at this article, the disease (besides
being common in non jewish Quebecquois, who have a slightly different
mutation) is common in Ashkenazis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi
but it doesn't say it is common in Sephardics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic,
who seem to have their own assorted ailments.
So would you view Jews as being members of one race or two?
Or perhaps three? Vide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng_Jews
Or more?
Of course, the question of who is Jewish is a sensitive one.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/475/was-thomas-jefferson-jewish-researchers-find-tjs-possibly-jewish-genes/
As is the question of Jewish intelligence, some diseases might make
you smarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence
Enjoy, and thanks for the context. It's nice to include who wrote
what when you quote.
Theget
David / Amicus
who wrote what when you quote.>>
Sorry! Try as I might I just can not master smalifying to repost.
But to be honest sometimes people repost / quote way toooo much. You
have to keep scrolling down and down and down and down to get where to
see what the new responder is writing.
D.F. Manno
<3c2be57b-a73b-4455...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience."
>
> That was a poor choice of words on my part. But I think you answered
> my question. Is it ok if I don't clarify?
It's not like I can force you.
theget
> Theget wrote <<Enjoy, and thanks for the context. It's nice to include
> who wrote what when you quote.>>
>
> Sorry! Try as I might I just can not master smalifying to repost.
I appreciate the attempt.
>
> But to be honest sometimes people repost / quote way toooo much. You
> have to keep scrolling down and down and down and down to get where to
> see what the new responder is writing.
True. As in many things a balance must be struck and it is often
difficult to get it right.
Theget
theget
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience."
>
> > That was a poor choice of words on my part. But I think you answered
> > my question. Is it ok if I don't clarify?
>
> It's not like I can force you.
That's good then. But it sounds like you want me to try.
I meant to say that in some circumstances straight men may, for a
variety of reasons, engage in homosexual behavior. These reasons
might include things like a lack of available women. Or they may be
forced into it to save their lives. I, um, conveniently picked the
words "the sake of convenience." to convey these ideas succinctly. I
just couldn't think of a better way to put it.
Clearer?
Theget
D.F. Manno
<0c7815d3-b595-45c3...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > > D.F. Manno wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience."
> >
> > > That was a poor choice of words on my part. �But I think you answered
> > > my question. �Is it ok if I don't clarify?
> >
> > It's not like I can force you.
>
> That's good then. But it sounds like you want me to try.
No, that was meant as a joke.
> I meant to say that in some circumstances straight men may, for a
> variety of reasons, engage in homosexual behavior. These reasons
> might include things like a lack of available women. Or they may be
> forced into it to save their lives. I, um, conveniently picked the
> words "the sake of convenience." to convey these ideas succinctly. I
> just couldn't think of a better way to put it.
>
> Clearer?
Yes.
theget
>
> theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > D.F. Manno wrote:
> > > theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> > > > D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the sake of convenience."
>
> > > > That was a poor choice of words on my part. But I think you answered
> > > > my question. Is it ok if I don't clarify?
>
> > > It's not like I can force you.
>
> > That's good then. But it sounds like you want me to try.
>
> No, that was meant as a joke.
Drat. Foiled again by my own seriousness.
Theget
nob...@junk.min.net
><<There are some people who think being Jewish isn't a choice but
>genetic.>>
>Judaism as a religion can be a choice. Like Liz Taylor and Sammy Davis
>Jr were converts. And Karl Marx though born into a Jewish family left
>it.
All religions can be a choice. People can choose to convert (or be forced
to convert, which is a reason there are over a billion Christians and over
a billion Muslims - conversion by the sword. Heathens and infidels were
persecuted and killed if they didn't convert to Christianity or Islam.)
Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.2R
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vince
> In <11617-4AE...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>, on 10/29/09
> at 02:32 PM, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) said:
>
>
>
>> <<There are some people who think being Jewish isn't a choice but
>> genetic.>>
>
>
>> Judaism as a religion can be a choice. Like Liz Taylor and Sammy Davis
>> Jr were converts. And Karl Marx though born into a Jewish family left
>> it.
>
> All religions can be a choice. People can choose to convert (or be forced
> to convert, which is a reason there are over a billion Christians and over
> a billion Muslims - conversion by the sword. Heathens and infidels were
> persecuted and killed if they didn't convert to Christianity or Islam.)
>
>
> Alan
>
Funny enough Judaism for the most part doesn't look for converts.
My 2nd niece converted when she married a real low life from Israel
Orthodox no less.
She remarks about being a better Jew then Christian.
When his brother comes over he doesn't want her eating or in the same
rm with them. She still works on Saturday however.
Go figure