regards to Mayor Sharon Sayles-tax-Belton
A.D. Harcus
Your recent anouncements about the plan to get the Twins stadium built leaves me cold.
The idea that you would suggest raising a 1/2 cent metrol sales tax, is disgusting.
No sales tax should ever be considered anywhere in Minnesota, unless the state is
prepared to give back some of the income taxes.
Why tax an already beleaguered populace, when the financial solution for the stadium
was long ago suggested by Rep Day. The so called Reusse solution.
I would do Day's plan one better. Put 100 slots at Canterbury, and make a gaming
Off Track Betting parlor, part of the plan of the new Stadium, along with 100 slots
at the ballpark. Let the OTB gaming parlor at the stadium stay open from 8 am to
3:00 am. Dedicate the money 80 percent to retiring cost of building the stadium. 10
percent to Canterbury, and 10 percent for Natives that have no access to casino profits.
After the stadium is paid for, the money could be captured for anything else
our "leaders" deem fit. K-12, Higher education, infrastructure, convention centers,
youth sports, music and extracurricular programs for public schools <my personal favorite.
I'm really tired of Minnesota (mostly DFL) politicians cowtowing to lobbyist paid for
by the rich casino natives. How many Minnawonkaton sioux vote for anyone in the
legislature? I don't begrudge the Mystic Lake folks their 50 thousand a month tax
free income, but I don't see why its sacrosanct either. Putting in slots at
Canterbury wouldn't be a threat to the Mystic Lake people, it would probably improve
their lot, but attracting serious horse players to the area.
Bottom line - slots at Canterbury makes sense, Sayles-Belton SALES TAX - DOES NOT.
The sales tax idea is dumb, and completely lacks imagination. But then SSB has never
been known for imagination, or originality. It's really time for Sharon to wake up.
You are overseeing a dying city, and you are surrounded be a Republican / subburban
sea, that has no use for you, your ideas, or you rising intonation-city hall speak.
Your imitation of Jimminy Crickett in St Paul, is sad and dreary. To think the Music
Man's securing a NHL franchise has got you moving, strikes me as pathetic.
Sharon - do all of us Minneapolitan's who still care about our city, a favor.
Go away.
Drew Lanz
In article <33b5bbb0...@news.visi.com>, she...@yuck.net (Steve Sheldon) says:
> Anything that requires the people to pay for a new stadium his a bad
>idea.
<SNIP>
Mr.Sheldon, I don't think I remember agreeing with you much.
In any case, it's happening here. I'll do you one better,
though.
1. Bring in whatever gambling is desired.
2. Collect the taxes at the local level.
3. Build no stadium with state tax money.
Regards,
Drew ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~|
| I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back. |
| drew...@skypoint.com |
| http://www.skypoint.com/~drewlanz |
"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on
the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin
in the operation of public employment, public education
or public contracting." (1996 CA Prop 209)
Drew Lanz
In article <33B7AC...@worldnet.att.net>, "A.D. Harcus" <Tar...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>
>For anyone opposed to legal - state regulated gambling, or the
>expansion of gambling I have this question;
>Does that mean you support illegal gambling, or deny that it exists?
>I prefer it to be legal, so the public can gain some benefit.
>I think the Twins getting a new outdoor stadium a benefit, no matter
>who owns the Twins. All of that subject to negotiations.
It's funny to watch. Politicians assigned duties are performed to
a mediocre degree, yet they are motivated to do something well
outside of their assigned duties. This motivation causes them to
come up with plenty of "painless" financing schemes. They then
plan to use the newly found easy-money on the new duties.
How 'bout allowing the gambling and it's taxation _WITHOUT_
building the stadium.
Provide better police protection and roads. The extra-credit
points will not apply until the required assignments are turned
in.
Drew Lanz
In article <33b854c2...@news.visi.com>, she...@yuck.net (Steve Sheldon) says:
> How about bailing out a few people who only make $20k a year?
>Instead of $350 million going to a stadium, we send $2,000 to 175,000
>people so they can pay off their debts?
I don't know about that, but for working people at or
approaching the poverty line; those most often cited
as needing help from our Loving Government(tm) .....
Use the money to pay their State, Federal, Property, and
FICA taxes until they are above the poverty line.
I always get a kick out of hearing the politico speak
of Loving Government(tm) programs for helping poor people.
They never seem to offer a solution like mine.
Michael. Schneider
> On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 17:53:31 -0500, "A.D. Harcus"
> <Tar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Your recent anouncements about the plan to get the Twins stadium built
leaves me cold.
>
> Your post leaves me cold.
>
> >The idea that you would suggest raising a 1/2 cent metrol sales tax, is
disgusting.
> >
> >No sales tax should ever be considered anywhere in Minnesota, unless
the state is
> >prepared to give back some of the income taxes.
>
> The sales tax is a dumb idea.
>
> The gambling parlors are a bad idea.
>
> Anything that requires the people to pay for a new stadium his a bad
> idea.
>
> If Carl want's a stadium, let him build it himself. If you think
> that state should help him out, and we're so sure gambling is the
> answer, then give him a permit to open a casino in his stadium.
On occasion, Steve and I are in complete agreement on something.
This is one of them.
That raggedy-ass megamillionaire can cough up his own coinball or move
to some other city where the shee-, er, decent folk don't mind being
fleeced by their local scumba-, er, honorable politicians to pay for it
all.
Me: I'll be happy watching the Saints. They have a better record and a
helluvalot more character.
- Mike. +--+--+
"Impending doom takes all the fun out of decadent living!" - Yago
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater: Your source of unfiltered news.
A.D. Harcus
I don't think gambling and rape are the same,
if you do, your a nut.
A.D. Harcus
Steve, I have a lot of sympathy with what your are saying. I also
am no fan of Carl Pohlad. I simply would like to preserve the Twins,
and think that the retractable roof stadium would be a desirable thing.
(btw, I wouldn't give the Vikings a red cent-to each his own)
As far as gambling, I remember once sitting in a barber shop on
Broadway, this was years ago. I lost count the number of times he
slipped behind a curtain and took bets over the phone. Illegal
bookmaking is just as prevalent today.
Add that, to the enormous profits at Mystic Lake, I still think there
would be nothing wrong tapping into this huge pool of cash.
Rather than a metrosales tax, this *would* be a relatively painless
way of making money for the state. If the Twins are let go,
then fine, but this mountain of cash is there. If an off track
betting room, was made part of the new stadium, it would take in
money from an area, much larger than the metro.
As much as I would like to see the new baseball only stadium built,
and the Twins kept in Minnesota. I'd rather see them leave than
for sales tax to be expanded anywhere in the state.
*hey - somebody had to say they want the stadium here, or you'd all
just be talking to yourselves. <falling on sword>
Fabian Gonell
A.D. Harcus <Tar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33BB95...@worldnet.att.net>...
> I don't think gambling and rape are the same,
> if you do, your a nut.
I don't think the idea that if you oppose legalizing something you must
either support its continued underground existence or believe it doesn't
happen is very logical. If you do, you're stupid.
Drew Lanz
>I don't think gambling and rape are the same,
>if you do, your a nut.
It is a nearly perfect parallel for the insane reasoning
provided.
(I Paraphrase as)
[A behavior] is occurring. The fact that it's
illegal does not stop [the behavior]. For this
reason, [the behavior] should be legalized and
taxed.
I don't oppose legalized gambling. I do oppose your absurd
reasoning; it is unnecessary anyway. I do suggest that any
legalized gambling tax money should be used for the actual
functions of Government. The desires of the Twins be damned.
A.D. Harcus
Your parents named you Fabian, you're burdenned.
Jeff Drummond
In article <5phfn2$5ve$1...@darla.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
|> "A.D. Harcus" <Tar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|>
|> >Steve, I have a lot of sympathy with what your are saying. I also
|> >am no fan of Carl Pohlad. I simply would like to preserve the Twins,
|> >and think that the retractable roof stadium would be a desirable thing.
|> >(btw, I wouldn't give the Vikings a red cent-to each his own)
|>
|> Why a retractable roof stadium?
|>
|> How about just a plain stadium like other teams have?
Because no one is _building_ "plain" stadiums anymore. Milwaukee is
getting a retractable roof; so is Seattle. Ergo, the Twins need one
too.
If we're going to submit to Pohlad's blackmail, then at least give
him what he wants; otherwise, we'll be doing this again in another
few years.
Of course, it would be better not to submit to blackmail at all; but
it's a mistake to think a blackmailer will be satisfied with only a
fraction of what he wants.
[ snip ]
|> >Add that, to the enormous profits at Mystic Lake, I still think there
|> >would be nothing wrong tapping into this huge pool of cash.
|>
|> Yes, it's very easy to tax the poor and stupid.
Of course! Most of us with money and intelligence don't care for
taxes.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"'Keep, yuppie ballparks, your storied pomp!' cries she
With silent dome. 'Give me your loyal, your poor,
Your huddled fans yearning for no-frills glee,
The wretched refuse of your teeming, overpriced outdoors.
Send these, the domeless, over-taxed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the puffed eyesore!'"
-Emma "Libby" Lazarus in _The_MetroMuffin:_Engulfing_The_Twins_
Steve Sheldon
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 15:02:00 -0500, Loren Willis
<lwi...@nospam.visi.com> wrote:
>But the truth is that we will be doing this in a fews years even if we
>build a new stadium. MLB does not have any control on player salaries.
>Large market teams can always pay more than small/middle market teams.
>So even with a new stadium, filled to capacity, the Twins will not be
>able to generate the revenue to compete on the player salary level. And
>given current attendance, they won't fill the new stadium, beyound the I
>just want to see it once experience.
I'm still trying to understand the logic that makes them think, if
they can only get 12,000 people to a game now, if they build a new
stadium they will get 30,000 people and still play the same type of
baseball.
They didn't have any problems filling the games back in '87 and '91,
did they? And they were played in that same crappy stadium.
Dan Goodman
In article <33BB95...@worldnet.att.net>,
A.D. Harcus <Tar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I don't think gambling and rape are the same,
>if you do, your a nut.
What some of us think is that the argument "It's going to happen anyway,
so we should legalize it" applies _equally_ to _all_ activities which are
currently illegal -- or it applies to none at all.
If you want to argue that gambling, or marijuana, or whatever should be
legal because it's harmless or even beneficial, fine. You'll get
disagreement from some people, but it's a reasonably logical argument.
If you want to say that gambling should be legal because it happens
anyway, then you've got to accept the same logic applied to other things
which are currently illegal. If you disapprove of those other things,
that doesn't affect the logic.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Nevets
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 04:02:43 -0500, mi...@nospam.visi.com
(Michael-Schneider) wrote:
>In article <19970820014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>tar...@aol.com (Tarfumn) wrote:
>
>> I don't see it at all. Rape is a crime of violence. Gambling
>> is a crime because there's a law against it. Its also something
>> the participants engage in by choice.
>
>
> Precisely. Rape is an *initiation of force* (i.e., a moral crime).
>
> Gambling is not a moral crime - laws against it are.
I suppose that rather depends on what religion you subscribe to.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Any Jew who sees "Schindler's List" and doesn't come away wanting every
>Jew in the U.S. to own an assault rifle has something very wrong with him.
>
> -- Guy Norman LaFrance
You seem to have difficulty appreciating the differences in religious
beliefs.
Nevets
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 10:32:36 -0500, mi...@nospam.visi.com
(Michael-Schneider) wrote:
>In article <340404d0....@news.visi.com>, she...@yuck.net (Nevets) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 04:02:43 -0500, mi...@nospam.visi.com
>> (Michael-Schneider) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <19970820014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> >tar...@aol.com (Tarfumn) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't see it at all. Rape is a crime of violence. Gambling
>> >> is a crime because there's a law against it. Its also something
>> >> the participants engage in by choice.
>> >
>> >
>> > Precisely. Rape is an *initiation of force* (i.e., a moral crime).
>> >
>> > Gambling is not a moral crime - laws against it are.
>>
>> I suppose that rather depends on what religion you subscribe to.
>
>
>
> It's a matter of what *truth* you subscribe to.
>
> Gambling is not an initiation of force.
You said that Gambling is not a moral crime, I was simply stating
that that depends on what religion you subscribe to.
Just because something doesn't involve an initiation of force, does
not mean it isn't a moral crime in the eyes of some people.
At any rate, this argument was long dead, and I've forgotten the
context for which rape was brought up.
Russ Anderson
On Sat, 23 Aug 1997, Nevets wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 1997 04:02:43 -0500, mi...@nospam.visi.com
> (Michael-Schneider) wrote:
>
> >In article <19970820014...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> >tar...@aol.com (Tarfumn) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see it at all. Rape is a crime of violence. Gambling
> >> is a crime because there's a law against it. Its also something
> >> the participants engage in by choice.
> >
> >
> > Precisely. Rape is an *initiation of force* (i.e., a moral crime).
> >
> > Gambling is not a moral crime - laws against it are.
>
> I suppose that rather depends on what religion you subscribe to.
Women are afraid to walk the streets at night because
someone may jump out and force them to play BINGO.
Russ Anderson
Michael--Schneider
In article <5tv4nh$4...@dawn.mmm.com>, cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) wrote:
> Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>
> >>>> I suppose that rather depends on what religion you subscribe to.
> >>>
> >>> It's a matter of what *truth* you subscribe to.
> >>
> >> [T]he last two sentences seem -- to me -- to say the same thing.
> >
> > The word "subscribe" in each sentence refers to different actions. In
> > the first, it refers to leaps of faith; in the second, it refers to
> > logical analysis. (Of course, anyone can *say* they know the "truth",
> > but whether they can prove it is another matter.)
>
> In fact, whether they can even prove it to themselves is another matter.
It is *intregal* to "the matter".
> Hence, many "truths" are, as you said, "leaps of faith". All we "know"
> comes to us through our perceptions; the only fact we can prove is that
> we exist (because we think -- _cognito ergo sum_).
Come now Chris; you're here daily arguing for *more* than that!
> >> ANY RATIONAL person would consider the [Holocaust] immoral.
> >
> > What the mob thinks has to be considered for pragmatic reasons, but it
> > has not logical bearing on the argument.
>
> First, "Any rational person" is not a mob; it's an individual. Second,
> why are you contesting your own "logical analysis" point (see above).
I didn't write the first sentence. (Somethings seems snipped from between.)
> >>> The simple fact of the matter is that NO ONE wants to be murdered,
> >>> raped or stolen from. *That* is what makes them crimes of morality...
> >
> > The "moral law" is *right* there, and there are no exceptions to it.
>
> But, as you said above, "What the mob thinks [...] has not logical bearing
> on the argument." By your own apparent standard, it has no bearing.
"NO ONE" refers to an *individual*, not a collective.
> I'll even give you the same "out" from above and rephrase to say, "Any
> rational person would not want to be...etc." But if a mob has no bearing,
> why does a mere individual?
Because a mob qua mob is a non-entity.
There are only individuals, alone or in bunches.
> >>> ...they are things done to you *against your will*
> >>
> >> Children frequently have things done to them against their will...
> >
> > Children are not independent beings, adults are.
>
> Children are exempt from moral consideration? Surely not.
I didn't say that.
(We could get into a HUGE discussion over "*What* are "children" and
*why* are they "different"", and I would really rather do that sort of
thing over in humanities.philosophy.objectivism.)
> > Saying the law "may do" things is NOT the same as proving the law is
> > right. What the law "may do" is whatever the government gets away with,
> > moral or not.
>
> Okay, let's say I'm a different kind of person,
What "kind"?
> and I decide I've had
> enough of your conspiracy posts, and, since you don't appear willing to
> stop them, the only way to stop them is to stop you. Permanently.
You'd be a liar, since that isn't the "only way". And usenet is not
your private property, upon which I have trespassed.
Since you'd have no *right*, your action would be immoral.
> The law would -- by force if necessary, and by extreme force if it was
> absolutely necessary -- prevent that. Against my will. Wouldn't you
> agree that the law was, in this case, quite moral?
The "law" would not "prevent" you from committing your crime (which is
why I consider "there oughta be a law" arguments so spurious), all the
"law" would do is specify how you are to be punished after the fact.
I don't need the "law" to decide for me how you should be punished
should you attempt to kill me. In that regard, the government can only
initiate force by immorally preventing me from defending myself by prior
restraints.
The "law" is only so much running around and looking important by
pompous idiots. In the end, what matters is whether or not one person
initiated force against another, and whether or not he suffered just
consequences from the POV of his victim. All the rest is mere chattering
of bystanders.
> Consider World War II -- an example of extreme force. Moral? Or not?
You use the word force without the relevent qualifier: initiated.
Germany, at al, *initiated* force.
> We go on to talk about illegal and dangerous drugs. A poor example in
> that I tend to agree with you about personal freedom and that the self
> should have free will.
>
> But:
> > If he harms only himself, that is no more "immoral" than if he'd
> > purchased an ax and hacked off his arm for some silly reason. And IT
> > DOES NOT MATTER IF HARMS OTHERS, he is responsible for his behavior,
> > not his tool.
>
> It "does not matter if [he] harms others"? Surely you meant something
> else, since that seems to contradict your whole point. Explain?
No, I meant exactly that. *HE* is responsible, not "gambling", or
"drugs", or "assault rifles", or "lawn jarts", or "the 70mph speed limit".
Tools do not think or act on their own, and are therefore morally inert.
> > If a lie is the *only* way to procure a result which in other
> > circumstances would require the initiation of force, then the two are
> > morally equivalent. Which is why a con man is morally equivalent to a
> > thief, and deserves the same treatment.
>
> The lie is NOT the only way to procure the result. It is //a// way. But
> you later expand the idea of "force" to include "coercion",
I do not "expand the idea". Quiet the contrary, I limit it to a more
exacting definition.
> and I think
> we can boil it all down to the idea of "against the will".
>
> So, I take your point to be that "immoral" == "against the will". Is
> that a fair statement?
No.
A thug wielding a butcher knife when confronted by an armed homeowner
as he clambers over the latter's daughter's bedroom window sill doesn't
want to die - dying is "against his will". But if Pop shoots him anyway,
he has not acted in an immoral manner.
Why?
Because he was *defending* his property and his loved ones.
Men (like the thug, or the Nazis) who *initiate* force have accepted a
code of hypocrisy in which they desire to do to others what they would not
want done to themselves. Such men are simple preditors, and declared their
immoral intent by their actions, and consequently their "will" is of no
consequence in their victims *moral* attempt to defend themselves.
> > If you were the only person on Earth, and you sniffed paint thinner
> > while hacking off your arm with an ax, what would be "immoral" about it?
>
> Depends on which "truths" I subscribe to, doesn't it.
> define morality. If I subscribe to the Christian God, it's immoral for
> obvious reasons ('cause God said so).
Fine, so "forbid" *yourself* to snort coke and gamble. Your God, who
commands you under implied punishment of eternal anguish for not obeying,
leaves you little other choice - if you believe in that sort of thing.
You have no right to command others, however, in their *personal* affairs.
> If I subscribe to the "Truth" that
> I can make a difference and that waste is A Bad Thing, then it's immoral
> because it's wasting my ability to make a difference. If I subscribe to
> the "Truth" that I'm just a container for DNA, well then it's not immoral
> at all.
The Nazis "subscribed to the 'Truth'" that Jews and Poles, and, well,
just about everyone else, was inferior, and so then their behavior wasn't
"immoral at all".
Now how would *you* go about arguing against that sort of mentality.
(If you can, apply it to your own arguement.)
> > "Immoral" is a word person B uses to describe the behavior of person A,
> > and that word can only have a non-arbitrary meaning i[f] the behavior of
> > person A could directly affect the health and property of B, *such as B
> > is entitled to*. If B is not entitled to anything of A's (as by contract),
> > then anything A does to himself cannot be "immoral" in the eyes of B,
> > provided B is rational.
>
> So, you define morality in terms of the self.
Of course.
"Do not unto others as thou would not have done to thine own self."
> There is no such thing for you as a moral principle?
Of course there is.
I refrain from murdering, raping and stealing, not for the *mere*
pragmatic wish not to be caught and punished, but because, "in terms of
the self", such behavior done to me is horrible to contemplate.
It is *because* I think of myself, that I think of others.
> What about the larger picture? What about the
> damage that can be done to a society or a group of people?
(See above.)
"Society", like "mob", is an abstraction, a non-entity. There are only
individuals alone or together.
If one imagines "crimes against society" without specifying a harmed
*individual* victim, he is fantasizing.
> >> [Drugs are] a kind of "initiation of force" against yourself,...
> >
> > If you *want* to do it to yourself, it isn't "force". (The word "force"
> > is being used in the sense of "coercion".)
>
> I can't agree. Many drug addicts //don't// want to do it to themselves,
> but can't stop.
Bullcrap. The heart and lungs are involuntary muscles, the rest require
commands from the *brain* to do anything, such as pushing the plunger on a
syringe, or popping a pill, lighting a cig, or bending over cut lines for
a snort. An addict who says he "doesn't want to" but says he "can't stop"
is lying. The *truth* is that he *won't* stop because he *doesn't* want
to.
"Addiction: the inability of an idiot to summon the infinitesimal
amount of willpower required to cease participation in some harmful vice."
-- Aphorisms of an Autodidact
> Some can't stop until they are dead.
That's between them and their brain.
> One can even make
> the statement that taking drugs is often due to being coerced by peers.
You mean their peers are initiating force by holding them down and
injecting them with drugs against their will?
Or do you a moron *voluntarily* doing what other morons say he ought to
do, to be "cool"?
Ya know, *I* never had a problem with "peer presure".
> >> Gambling has the potential to destroy the self and the family. So,
> >> again, there is as much -- or more -- damage to the "victims" as in
> >> rape or theft.
> >
> > "Potential" implies exceptions, which implies that "gambling", in and
> > of itself, is not the problem.
>
> Perhaps, but also perhaps not. I have to wonder what total Good comes
> from it verses what total Bad comes from it.
If smoking marijuana makes me happy, that's a *good* for me, and your
opinions are irrelevent in that moral regard, because I do not serve you.
> Unlike you, I have a view
> that includes such things as moral principle,
It's called "utilitarianism", and its a philosophy primarily spouted by
tyrant wannabes looking for a psuedo-rational explanation for their
immoral behavior in forcing others to conform to their "good will".
There are no "moral principles" in it whatsoever.
> and a concern for the whole
> social fabric (please note, I'm not claiming any high moral ground here,
> just saying we've got different views).
Don't you *want* to "claim the high moral ground"?
(Again, back to how-do-you tell a Nazi he is *wrong* in philosophical
terms. The only difference between your arguments and the Nazis are the
social group he is seeking "total good" for and his unswerving quest to
achieve them.)
The individual does not *serve* "society", save by immoral force.
> My personal view of what is immoral/moral largely has to do with what is
> destructive verses what is constructive. I see gambling as mostly on the
> destructive side of the equation.
If you aren't gambling, what *business* is it of yours deciding how
*other* people spend their time and money?
> It seems destructive of the Indian
> nations that foster it. It is frequently destructive of the family as
> well as of the individual. And I see little that is constructive.
Well then *they* will have to live with the consequences of *their*
stupidity.
That's freedom.
> [shrug] Just my personal view, and I was just trying to expand your own
> view to appreciate others.
>
>
> nuf sed,
I prefer freedom.
Chris Sonnack
Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
> The child, while an innocent, was going to get them killed by its actions.
But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown. Likely, yes, but certain, no.
That's what makes it tricky; killing a child is a definite act that must
be weighed against a //probability// of another.
Are you sure you agree that killing an innocent life is a moral action
when weighed against the probability of getting killed? How do you weigh
the probability and at what point does killing an innocent child become
an immoral action?
p.s.
Michael, you might want to watch the over-quoting. You quoted an entire
post and added about four lines. That's considered Bad Form on USENET
(some would call it immoral [grin]).
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Waste is a terrible thing to Mind.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Drew Lanz
In article <5u1n4t$o...@dawn.mmm.com>, cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) says:
>Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>> The child, while an innocent, was going to get them killed by its actions.
>But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown. Likely, yes, but certain, no.
>That's what makes it tricky; killing a child is a definite act that must
>be weighed against a //probability// of another.
>Are you sure you agree that killing an innocent life is a moral action
>when weighed against the probability of getting killed? How do you weigh
>the probability and at what point does killing an innocent child become
>an immoral action?
This bothered me then, and I am just reminded of it now.
Utter nonsequetur: The parent _could_ have held the nose and
mouth of the child while restraining the limbs. This would
have been uncomfortable and - depending on the duration -
dangerous/fatal. This case would then be a probability of
death as compared with another probability of death.
(no, I've never tried it)
Russ Anderson
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Scott Smith wrote:
> On 26 Aug 1997 22:07:02 GMT, j...@cray.com (Jeff Drummond) wrote:
>
> >I think you have to start with the premise that people gamble (or
> >skydive or play Parcheesi) because they derive some benefit from it.
> >But rather than try to figure out if that benefit is "worth it" in
> >a "social fabric" sense, you should to focus on whether they can
> >pursue those activities without violating your (or other peoples')
> >rights.
>
> IMHO, it is like anything else...alcohol, fatty foods, race car
> driving, skydiving, marijuana, Parches, etc. It is up to the
> individual to choose whether or not to participate, thus taking
> the inherent risks associated with the chosen activity. Whether
> or not any of these things are "worth it" in our "social fabric"
> is on an individual level.
I agree.
> I believe that you hit upon the bottom line, if someone does
> choose to participate in any given activity, and they are
> able to do so without violating anyone elses rights...where
> is the harm?
I also think that pro athletes that use drugs, like Len Bias,
Don Rodgers and Dave Parker make good examples of how drugs
can destroy your career and/or kill you. Don't suspend
players for drug use - let them play. Then kids can see
what drug use does to eye/hand coordination.
> If the activity does infringe on anothers rights, it becomes
> a social or legal issue to deal with on an individual basis,
> IMHO.
Like tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, I think that gambling
should be legal but there should also be requirements that
the advertising tell of the risks associated with the activity
(ie warning lables) and that advertising not be aimed at children
(ie the Turtle Lake turtle, which always gets my kids attention).
Russ Anderson
Michael--Schneider
> Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>
> > The child, while an innocent, was going to get them killed by its actions.
>
> But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown. Likely, yes, but certain, no.
> That's what makes it tricky; killing a child is a definite act that must
> be weighed against a //probability// of another.
>
> Are you sure you agree that killing an innocent life is a moral action
> when weighed against the probability of getting killed? How do you weigh
> the probability and at what point does killing an innocent child become
> an immoral action?
>
>
> p.s.
> Michael, you might want to watch the over-quoting. You quoted an entire
> post and added about four lines. That's considered Bad Form on USENET
> (some would call it immoral [grin]).
Unfortunately, usenet these days is undergoing a weird deal in which
replies to posts arrive before posts.
And if I don't quote, I get people ragging on me for snipping
what-they-think are relevent portions.
Michael--Schneider
In article <5u2r4s$fn0$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, John Logajan
<jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com> wrote:
> Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> wrote:
> > So, I take your point to be that "immoral" == "against the will". Is
> > that a fair statement?
>
> Not sure what he'd say his point was, but I'd say that that statement
> is not sufficient. For instance, an adult son or daughter may marry
> "against the will" of the parent -- obviously not the sort of "immorality"
> we want to ascribe to an individualist philosophy.
>
> The Libertarians have it that immorality involves acts of aggression --
> initiated violence or its threat. That is a much more narrow concept than
> the rather open ended "against one's will."
>
> It covers all the usual moral crimes, murder, assault, rape, endangerment...
> and less directly theft and fraud.
>
> On the flip side, it allows a whole lot of freedom to be different -- no
> interference with religious differences, no censorship, no prohibition
> of symbolic acts like flag burning, freedom of association, no prohibition
> of drug use (except in so far as it offers immediate endangerment to
> the public -- such as stoned or drunk pilots/drivers/nuclear power
> plant operators, etc.}
>
> This is an example of a minimalist moral philosophy -- it makes as few
> assumptions as possible -- that's what I was hinting at about "simplicity"
> and "elegance" as compared to convoluted moral philosophies that require
> page after page of statute and regulation to define.
>
> The prohibition against initiating aggression would seem to be universal
> as well as timeless. There is no special pleading, no exceptions and
> qualifications. No exess baggage of moral presumptions that come out
> of nowhere.
>
> Don't murder, don't assault, don't threaten to aggress, don't commit
> fraud, don't steal.
*Exactly* "Black & White".
> Smoking, drinking, swearing and other "immoral" actions are left to the
> individual and his chosen religion -- not to the state to enforce.
>
> --
> - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 612-633-8928 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
Michael--Schneider
In article <5u20dk$64c$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>, drew...@skypoint.com (Drew
Lanz) wrote:
> In article <5u1n4t$o...@dawn.mmm.com>, cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) says:
> >Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>
> >> The child, while an innocent, was going to get them killed by its actions.
>
> >But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown. Likely, yes, but certain, no.
> >That's what makes it tricky; killing a child is a definite act that must
> >be weighed against a //probability// of another.
>
> >Are you sure you agree that killing an innocent life is a moral action
> >when weighed against the probability of getting killed? How do you weigh
> >the probability and at what point does killing an innocent child become
> >an immoral action?
At the point the child is not threatening you, but you persist.
Chris Sonnack
John Logajan (jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com) wrote:
>> But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown.
>
> Actually, any act of self-defense is against a "potential" threat of
> death, since if you wait until you are killed before you defend yourself
> -- it is too late. Therefore there is always a possibility of mistaking
> the nature of the attack.
Very true, but some threats are more immediate than others. Someone
threatening you with a weapon is much more immediate than someone
walking towards you who's "looking at you funny."
> This is a class of problems dealing with imperfect information --
> though the moral standards might be clear, the situation is not clear.
>
> It would be a mistake to invent a murky moral standard to fight imperfect
> information, because the very nature of imperfect information prevents
> an appropriate selection of situational moral standards.
Another very good point, John. The problem, as I see it, is that we often
have imperfect information in life. (In fact, Heisenberg pretty much made
it clear that perfect information -- in the literal sense of the word --
is impossible.) There are often times when we must weigh a certain act
against an uncertain one.
A trivial example: suppose I don't like my supervisor and wonder if I
should quit the company. I have to weigh the certain act of quiting
(losing benefits, vacation time, etc.) against the uncertain act that
the situation might get better. (There's no morality issue here; example
just serves to illustrate a class of situation.)
A less trivial set of examples is similar to the above: sometimes we
have to weigh a potential threat against a certain action against that
threat. I'll mention the A-Bombing of Japan again; many people feel
that was an immoral act because we had won the war at that point, and
a big reason behind the act was a desire to test our new "toys". Other
people feel millions of (American) lives were saved. What //might//
have happened had we not dropped the bombs was unknown then (and now),
so the morality is -- at least somewhat -- murky.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TODAY'S MESSAGE: "There is no message."
Chris Sonnack
Drew Lanz (drew...@skypoint.com) wrote:
> Utter nonsequetur: The parent _could_ have held the nose and mouth of
> the child while restraining the limbs. This would have been uncomfortable
> and - depending on the duration - dangerous/fatal. This case would then
> be a probability of death as compared with another probability of death.
> (no, I've never tried it)
A very good point, Drew. I seem to recall thinking there were other
options at the time, as well. And it raises the very important point
that there are usually other options in any situation. Sometimes
creative problem solving is required to find a more perfect answer.
But, it's still a good illustration of a general kind of problem when
you have to weigh a certain (possibly immoral) action on your part
against a potential (possibly immoral) action on someone else's part.
The whole issue of these threads is really about one question:
Is morality a simple, absolute issue to define, or is it more
complex and subject in some sense to the local environment.
My contention is the latter. Michael and John contend for the former.
It's making for a fairly interesting and challenging debate. How say
you?
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As to those junk mailing lists: Death does not release you, you know.
Steve Sheldon
mi...@nospam.visi.com (Michael--Schneider) writes:
>In article <5u1n4t$o...@dawn.mmm.com>, cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) wrote:
>> Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>>
>> > The child, while an innocent, was going to get them killed by its actions.
>>
>> But that they MIGHT be killed is an unknown. Likely, yes, but certain, no.
>> That's what makes it tricky; killing a child is a definite act that must
>> be weighed against a //probability// of another.
>>
>> Are you sure you agree that killing an innocent life is a moral action
>> when weighed against the probability of getting killed? How do you weigh
>> the probability and at what point does killing an innocent child become
>> an immoral action?
>>
>>
>> p.s.
>> Michael, you might want to watch the over-quoting. You quoted an entire
>> post and added about four lines. That's considered Bad Form on USENET
>> (some would call it immoral [grin]).
> Unfortunately, usenet these days is undergoing a weird deal in which
>replies to posts arrive before posts.
> And if I don't quote, I get people ragging on me for snipping
>what-they-think are relevent portions.
For once, I'm going to have to agree.
The volume of posts to usenet, and the way newsreaders work these days
(off-line) doesn't make it easy to find an original post.
Chris Sonnack
John Logajan (jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com) wrote:
> The Libertarians have it that immorality involves acts of aggression --
> initiated violence or its threat. That is a much more narrow concept
> than the rather open ended "against one's will."
>
> [...]
>
> This is an example of a minimalist moral philosophy -- it makes as few
> assumptions as possible -- that's what I was hinting at about "simplicity"
> and "elegance" as compared to convoluted moral philosophies that require
> page after page of statute and regulation to define.
And I think it's an outstanding starting point for humans, PLUS I think
it's the absolute //maximum// that a government should do when it comes
to such things.
The point where we certainly diverge is when it comes to the concept of
a person's spirituality (or heart and mind, if you prefer). I think there
are things that damage the self and the social group, and it is here that
the issues become complex.
There is also, to my mind, an social environment component. To wit:
> The prohibition against initiating aggression would seem to be
> universal as well as timeless. ^^^^
Would you then define warrior nations as immoral? Or just primative?
And if primative, does that mean morality is only self-evident to a
"developed" society?
To us, initiating war with another nation might be immoral, but to
another society, it might be a way of life. As you pointed out, an
entire nation believed the Holocaust was the "right thing to do."
They //believed// (as you pointed out so well) that they were defending
their way of life -- they were //reacting// not initiating. The various
warrior nations of history have had similar views.
> Don't murder, don't assault, don't threaten to aggress, don't commit
> fraud, don't steal.
>
> Smoking, drinking, swearing and other "immoral" actions are left to the
> individual and his chosen religion -- not to the state to enforce.
We agree //absolutely// and without qualification on this!
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Experience is a comb life gives you after you lose your hair.
Jeff Drummond
In article <5u1ps6$a...@dawn.mmm.com>, cjso...@mmm.com (Chris Sonnack) writes:
|> Jeff Drummond (j...@cray.com) wrote:
|>
|> >> I have to wonder what total Good comes from it verses what total Bad
|> >> comes from it.
|> >
|> > One might ask what total Good comes from, say, skydiving?
|>
|> A fair question. Please bear with me for a little background so I can
|> answer the question?
|>
|> First, Good and Bad are qualities, not switches. That is, there can be
|> an amount of Good and an amount of Bad. Second, they are NOT mutually
|> exclusive qualities -- they are more like the "X" and "Y" of a graph.
|>
|> Let's say Good==X and Bad==Y. If a situation has a lot of X (Good) and
|> very little Y (Bad), it's a Very Good situation. Likewise, a large Y
|> and a small X is a Very Bad situation.
|>
|> Sometimes, both X and Y are small, and sometimes -- this is where life
|> gets challenging and interesting -- BOTH X AND Y ARE LARGE! That's when
|> you have to really weigh consequences and //think// about things.
|>
|> That said, skydiving has both Good and Bad. The Good is that it is the
|> most thrilling thing I've ever done. Another Good is that it's a way to
|> learn to face my fear and overcome it, and it's a way I learn what I am
|> capable of when my life depends on it. That is, it causes me to grow.
|>
|> In many places where my fear might have intruded, I think, "Shit, I
|> jumped out of a PLANE! I can face this." That's a Good Thing.
|>
|> The Bad thing about it is that I could die, and that would make a number
|> of folks very sad. Life would continue, but there would be great pain
|> that I had caused. I'm not married, nor do I have children, and that's
|> a definite factor in my equation.
|>
|> If I did have a wife and kids, would I skydive? The answer is, it
|> depends. Then my "X" and "Y" would both be very large, and I would have
|> to carefully consider what I was doing.
That's a fine testimonial that helps define the Good that _you_ derive
from skydiving; but it doesn't answer the question as posed: what
is the _total_ Good of skydiving? That is, the sum of Good and Bad
over all of society (since that seems to be standard by which you're
judging gambling).
Presumably, we could elicit similar testimonials from (at least some)
gamblers.
The question of total Good (or Bad) is unanswerable in my opinion,
because I don't think anyone can [repeating myself] "measure or put
any value on the enjoyment that people [other than oneself] derive
from gambling, skydiving, or any form of entertainment."
|> > How is gambling destructive of the Indian nations that foster it?
|> > The Indian nations seem to like gambling (or at least the revenue
|> > it provides). Of course, it's possible they're missing something,
|> > but if so, what?
|>
|> My understanding (poor as it may be) is that it has caused problems
|> for them. Dividing the wealth has caused divisiveness, and sudden
|> wealth has caused the typical "neuvo rich" problems. There is, I think,
|> a serious question as to whether that kind of extreme commercialism
|> is a healthy thing for any society in the long run, because of how it
|> warps values.
I don't doubt that a large and sudden influx of money has caused some
problems. But it's their money and their problems. And I don't mean
that in a callous way, but no one seemed especially concerned about the
problems of Indian nations when they were dirt poor (and there were
many problems). It's a little ironic that now that they've got more
money than they know what to do with, everyone's worried about them.
|> But, Jeff, please understand, I think gambling is a //small// evil;
|> one I've practiced myself in Las Vegas. I personally think it BELONGS
|> out in the middle of a desert, but it's a deeply personal view. I would
|> never campaign in any way to eliminate it as it exists here. I just
|> have my personal opinion and will never enter a MN gambling house.
The fact that you see gambling as evil (even a small evil) is, IMHO,
the issue. As long as you see it as evil, you're going to think that
something "has to be done about it."
But for me, gambling is not really a moral issue at all; any more than
skydiving or rock climbing. I think anyone who consistently gambles
with an inflated expectation of winning is making an error in judgment;
but it's their judgment, their money, and they will have to live with
the consequences. If they ask my opinion, I'll tell them that; and if
it's a close friend or relative I'll probably volunteer it unasked. But
the bottom line is that it's still their call; and I _have_ to respect
that, just as I demand that they ultimately must respect my choices.
Isn't saying that gambling (or some other activity) belongs out in
the middle of a desert another way of saying you don't trust people's
judgment?
I think moving things out into the desert isn't an answer to a moral
problem, it's an evasion of morality. If gambling is immoral, ban it;
if it's moral, allow it anywhere.
|> > WRT individuals, many people gamble as a form of entertainment. I
|> > guess I fall into that category although I don't find gambling to
|> > be especially entertaining (though I'd pick gambling before skydiving).
|>
|> I agree. The problem is the large amount of money involved (money is
|> power; power corrupts; gambling is Big Money; Big Money corrupts
|> absolutely...yeah, it's a cliche, but cliches become such because
|> there is an element of time-tested truth to them).
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The big money is in the casinos
and lotteries, not the gamblers themselves. Casinos make a lot of money
not just because a few people lose their life's savings (a few do, but
not that many), but mostly because a lot of people lose far more modest
amounts of money. So are you saying that casinos and lotteries are
corrupt? How? Do you mean to imply they cheat?
A casino or lottery which cheats or misrepresents the odds of winning
is guilty of fraud and should be punished accordingly.
But if you're saying that gambling is corrupt simply because it makes
a lot of money, then I have to disagree.
|> There is also the issue (to me) of what gambling does to the soul (or
|> heart and mind, if you prefer). There is a false hope behind gambling
|> as implemented in our society (i.e. the house always wins). The few
|> winners there are, provide elusive hope for the many losers.
Certainly there is false hope in gambling. There's false hope in drugs.
There's false hope in inner-city kids expecting to become professional
athletes. There's false hope in options trading. There's false hope in
Windows 95.
I don't know what can be done about it; except to try to educate
people to more realistically evaluate their expectations and how to
work towards their goals.
But banning gambling (or moving it out into the desert) is treating
the symptom, not the disease. There'll be no end of false hopes for
people to chase.
[ snip ]
|> > Couldn't one say skydiving is a destructive form of entertainment
|> > (i.e., immoral) since the small--but nonzero--number of deaths
|> > resulting from skydiving outweigh any conceivable benefit arising
|> > from "mere" entertainment?
|>
|> This, and all the rest you said here, is absolutely true. (I would
|> argue, per above, that skydiving has tangible benefits, though.)
Well, I think a gambler would see your tangible benefits and raise you
a no-chance-of-physical-destruction.
|> One issue is the number of people affected: a skydiver dies and his
|> loved ones suffer to various extents. Gambling, as I said, is Big
|> Money and affects huge numbers of people, both the buyer and seller.
So in the end, gambling is immoral because it's just so darn popular?
Judging the morality of something by the number of people adversely
affected is pragmatism (i.e., the moral is whatever "works"). But
pragmatism has some serious problems.
First, _who_ decides what works and what doesn't? Obviously, it can't
be left up to individuals; so who decides? The democratic majority?
The very same people who are flocking to casinos in droves? People
are already voting, with their dollars, to support gambling. Why
do you expect them to vote against it at the ballot box?
[As an ironic aside, I think most people, if they had to choose,
would rather lose everything they own at a casino than lose their
life in a skydiving accident. I mean, with gambling, it's _only_
money. Moreover, gambling is pretty forgiving compared to skydiving
(or rock climbing). People who lose their life's savings gambling
aren't losing it on a single card game or spin of the roulette
wheel--they're losing it incrementally, night after night, for
months or even years. So, if left to the electorate, gambling
might well be legalized and skydiving outlawed. Are you prepared
for that outcome?]
Second, by what criteria? I can't imagine how you draw the line
between what's an acceptable level of suffering and what isn't.
Or how you begin to equate N deaths caused skydiving with M
bankruptcies caused by gambling. Yet this is the task you are
proposing.
Third, there's no way a pragmatist can know, a priori, what works
and what doesn't. Nor can a pragmatist reject, a priori, anything
as immoral. Dueling. Murder for hire. The response of the
pragmatist has to be "Let's try it and see."
|> Further, how many people //train// to gamble? To skydive, you must,
|> by law, become educated by trained professionals. Further, the education
|> process is designed to weedout individuals who have no business jumping.
|> The same is not true for gambling -- anyone of proper age can do it,
|> sometimes with disasterous results.
If you're proposing mandatory training before undertaking risky
activities, then what about parenthood? No training required and
the results can sometimes be disasterous (and no way to set a
meaningful age barrier, either). Who sets the training program?
What happens to those that fail? Do you really want to go down
that road?
Freedom means risks, sometimes even to innocent people. Your freedom
to skydive means your friends and family might get hurt (at least,
emotionally) through no fault of their own if you should have a fatal
accident.
|> > I think you have to start with the premise that people gamble (or
|> > skydive or play Parcheesi) because they derive some benefit from it.
|> > But rather than try to figure out if that benefit is "worth it" in
|> > a "social fabric" sense, you should to focus on whether they can
|> > pursue those activities without violating your (or other peoples')
|> > rights.
|>
|> That's one consideration, but I also have some concern for what an
|> institution does to, or for, the society in which I exist. We make
|> illegal a number of things because they are bad for society as well
|> as the individual. Gambling is a tricky one to my eyes -- not easy
|> to determine the total Good verses the Total Bad. But I don't think
|> that means you should stop trying.
Your concern is admirable, Chris; but, IMHO, you will never be able to
make the total Good/total Bad determination for the reasons I've stated.
If, and to the extent that, you want to help people, I think your time
would be better spent educating people to make smarter choices rather
than trying to limit their choices.
That's another two cents worth.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
|<------ I've wasted this much bandwidth today ------>|
John Logajan
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> wrote:
> Would you then define warrior nations as immoral? Or just primative?
> And if primative, does that mean morality is only self-evident to a
> "developed" society?
Immoral.
Michael--Schneider
> Drew Lanz (drew...@skypoint.com) wrote:
>
> > Utter nonsequetur: The parent _could_ have held the nose and mouth of
> > the child while restraining the limbs. This would have been uncomfortable
> > and - depending on the duration - dangerous/fatal. This case would then
> > be a probability of death as compared with another probability of death.
> > (no, I've never tried it)
>
> A very good point, Drew. I seem to recall thinking there were other
> options at the time, as well. And it raises the very important point
> that there are usually other options in any situation. Sometimes
> creative problem solving is required to find a more perfect answer.
>
> But, it's still a good illustration of a general kind of problem when
> you have to weigh a certain (possibly immoral) action on your part
> against a potential (possibly immoral) action on someone else's part.
>
> The whole issue of these threads is really about one question:
>
> Is morality a simple, absolute issue to define, or is it more
> complex and subject in some sense to the local environment.
>
> My contention is the latter. Michael and John contend for the former.
> It's making for a fairly interesting and challenging debate. How say
> you?
Let me throw you a loop: Morality is too complex to be left to
regligious or governmental administration.
Chris Sonnack
John Logajan (jlog...@mirage.skypoint.com) wrote:
>> Would you then define warrior nations as immoral? Or just primative?
>> And if primative, does that mean morality is only self-evident to a
>> "developed" society?
>
> Immoral.
Okay. Then I think we've reach the point of diminishing returns, and
we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
regards,
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The world is always turning towards the morning!
Michael--Schneider
> > Let me throw you a loop: Morality is too complex to be left to
> > regligious or governmental administration.
>
> No loop there, since it's pretty much what I've been saying all along.
>
> What the political and religious entities in ones environment consider
> moral is often interesting and makes a good starting point. After all,
> they usually institutionalize a great many years of human experience.
>
> But in the end, each person must define their own morality.
And every person, to the very last, does not wish to be murdered, raped
or stolen from. That is what makes the initiation of force morally wrong.
*Absolutely*. A person who does it anyway has not "defined" his morality
differently; he's just being hypocritical.
Jeff Penrod
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5si2mg$j7f$1...@darla.visi.com>...
> If you want to say that gambling should be legal because it happens
> anyway, then you've got to accept the same logic applied to other things
> which are currently illegal. If you disapprove of those other things,
> that doesn't affect the logic.
If the government decreed that Dan Goodman's metabolistic functions and
life
style were a danger to the environment, then would be in favor of such
rigid
adherence to the law? In light of current environmental laws, this is
not
too far-fetched.
Jeff
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNAug0Ry92HH5vBHJAQFsmgL9Hz0f/bGlxy1p2a+8Sk7IulR9XVPJVevs
bsofnJEGkmCqwu8ueoriGQblokLrgGUHIo+zulx4Hg+JD1GcZUVBcrj+qmwUwjT2
uq1hL/NEVCxkoJUunpgGDk++hjUy2mr4
=1dMZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeff Penrod
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5phfn2$5ve$1...@darla.visi.com>...
> Why a retractable roof stadium?
>
> How about just a plain stadium like other teams have?
What are the nightly Minneapolis during April and September?
> Yes, it's very easy to tax the poor and stupid.
It is immoral to tax anyone for the benefit of professional sports.
> I find it fascinating the perception that gambling is a "HUGE MOUNTAIN
OF
> CASH" just waiting to be exploited.
Agreed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNAuVBhy92HH5vBHJAQGRRgL+NJNVNpmS3c598Leq0GeoUxteVMsz/DM6
2mxhEphf9/voCc5ncuBtK1xV7NYovis9HZDXOMyppiA8LSGWi3kUCUybL0ipOLvo
Qj6bHOJlYAQf7113gIIbcFwHUVkOL12h
=OWx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
MichaelSchneider
In article <01bcb758$27ad38c0$d99e09ce@jpenrod>, "Jeff Penrod"
<jpe...@NOSPAM.sihope.com> wrote:
> > Yes, it's very easy to tax the poor and stupid.
>
> It is immoral to tax anyone for the benefit of professional sports.
It is immoral to tax anyone.
Chris Sonnack
Drew Lanz (drew...@skypoint.com) wrote:
> If the purpose of the newly defined morality is to have no
> influence upon the actions of our Loving Government(tm), I
> believe that every American may draw from different sources,
> and the investigation is just mental masturbation.
Good exercise in any event!
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Get the mouse, Murray, get the mouse!" ..... <BUMP>
Earl Truss
mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) wrote:
> It is immoral to tax anyone.
>
IMO, that is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen.
Chris Sonnack
Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>> But in the end, each person must define their own morality.
>
> And every person, to the very last, does not wish to be murdered, raped
> or stolen from. That is what makes the initiation of force morally wrong.
> *Absolutely*. A person who does it anyway has not "defined" his morality
> differently; he's just being hypocritical.
Never claimed otherwise.
Michael, since it's obvious you aren't tracking this conversation, let's
just drop it -- I've said what I have to say.
--
Chris Sonnack <cjso...@mmm.com> http://eishcq.mmm.com
Engineering Information Services/Information Technology/3M, St.Paul, Minn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What if there were no hypothetical situations?
Dan Goodman
In article <01bcb75f$30e632a0$d99e09ce@jpenrod>,
Jeff Penrod <jpe...@NOSPAM.sihope.com> wrote:
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote in article
><5si2mg$j7f$1...@darla.visi.com>...
>
>> If you want to say that gambling should be legal because it happens
>> anyway, then you've got to accept the same logic applied to other things
>> which are currently illegal. If you disapprove of those other things,
>> that doesn't affect the logic.
>
>If the government decreed that Dan Goodman's metabolistic functions and
>life
>style were a danger to the environment, then would be in favor of such
>rigid
>adherence to the law? In light of current environmental laws, this is
>not
>too far-fetched.
Since I haven't (to the best of my knowledge) said anything which
would _logically_ fit into that argument, that's irrelevant.
I suggest you look up "logic" in a good dictionary.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Steve Sheldon
etr...@visi.com (Earl Truss) writes:
>mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) wrote:
You have to understand Mike's world...
It's very different from reality.
MichaelSchneider
In article <5ui22b$g5j$1...@darla.visi.com>, she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon)
wrote:
> etr...@visi.com (Earl Truss) writes:
>
> >mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) wrote:
>
> >> It is immoral to tax anyone.
> >>
> >IMO, that is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen.
Was that an *argument*, Earl? I'm lookin' hard.....
> You have to understand Mike's world...
> It's very different from reality.
Ah yes, the "reality" of Sheldon's world, where corrupt slimebags
dangle two weasels in front of him every four years, both offering
essentially the same policies of "we'll steal the other guy's money and
spend it on *you*!", and he laps it up like, well, like a lapdog.
And calls it "freedom".
Boob.
MichaelSchneider
> Michael--Schneider (mi...@nospam.visi.com) wrote:
>
> >> But in the end, each person must define their own morality.
> >
> > And every person, to the very last, does not wish to be murdered, raped
> > or stolen from. That is what makes the initiation of force morally wrong.
> > *Absolutely*. A person who does it anyway has not "defined" his morality
> > differently; he's just being hypocritical.
>
> Never claimed otherwise.
Then why argue as if you disagreed?
Clearly, if the *concept* is not in dispute, then it is *silly* to
write "each person must DEFINE their own morality".
Hypocrites, of course, can *say* morality means anything for reasons of
envy, but they clearly know what it is and what it ain't when it comes to
their own bacon (as I detail above).
> Michael, since it's obvious you aren't tracking this conversation, let's
> just drop it -- I've said what I have to say.
I "track" it. Halfheartedly though, for reasons obvious to some, not
to others.
Billy Beck
she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) wrote:
>mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
>
>> Ah yes, the "reality" of Sheldon's world, where corrupt slimebags
>>dangle two weasels in front of him every four years, both offering
>>essentially the same policies of "we'll steal the other guy's money and
>>spend it on *you*!", and he laps it up like, well, like a lapdog.
>
>> And calls it "freedom".
>
> Wasn't it Socrates who said something like "Democracy will never truly
>work, for the citizens will end up voting for the candidate who promises to
>give them the most money out of the treasury, until the treasury goes
>bankrupt."
>
> So I guess I call it Democracy. :)
Well, you can have it. Keep it out of my face.
Before you come back with some pithy reference to "roads" and
all the rest of it, get rid of your fucking cowboy LEO's.
Then, perhaps, we can talk. Not before.
Billy
Gwailo
How long, O Riverius, will you abuse our patience with these foolish
misstatements of history? Voting gave way to the Empire about 30 BC, yet the
greatest days were still ahead (5 good emperors, 96 AD to 180 AD). Wasn't
democracy that wrecked Rome -- was plague, the army, the Goths, Christianity,
etc.
'Claudius Gwailus
Michael Rivero wrote:
> In article <5uk3d4$5ev$1...@darla.visi.com>,
> Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> >mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
> >
> >> Ah yes, the "reality" of Sheldon's world, where corrupt slimebags
> >>dangle two weasels in front of him every four years, both offering
> >>essentially the same policies of "we'll steal the other guy's money and
> >>spend it on *you*!", and he laps it up like, well, like a lapdog.
> >
> >> And calls it "freedom".
> >
> > Wasn't it Socrates who said something like "Democracy will never truly
> >work, for the citizens will end up voting for the candidate who promises to
> >give them the most money out of the treasury, until the treasury goes
> >bankrupt."
> >
> > So I guess I call it Democracy. :)
>
> That's what brought down Rome. The citizens voted themselves bread
> and circuses until the system collapsed.
>
>
> --
> RANCHO RUNNAMUKKA | Special Effects / Documentary Films
> Mike & Claire - The Rancho Runnamukka http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/
> RYDER TRUCK AT ARMY BASE 4/95 http://members.aol.com/bardsquill/truck.htm
Timothy I. McCrory
Gwailo wrote:
>
> How long, O Riverius, will you abuse our patience with these foolish
> misstatements of history? Voting gave way to the Empire about 30 BC, yet the
> greatest days were still ahead (5 good emperors, 96 AD to 180 AD). Wasn't
> democracy that wrecked Rome -- was plague, the army, the Goths, Christianity,
> etc.
>
> 'Claudius Gwailus
>
Is this misc.taxes or History 101?
I believe if I remember my Tacitus, Suetonius, Cicero, and Gibbon
correctly that "democracy" destroyed the republic. The "new man", i.e.,
liberal Democrat, Marius rose to power and prominence by promising the
people favors. Sulla, the "old republican" decided to get rid of the
liberals with his proscriptions, around 3000???, which led to civil
strife, civil wars, etc., etc. Caesar, spent his fortune and borrowed
more to favor the lower class who then clamored for his appointment to
various offices and finally to Consul which he chose not to give up
until he became dictator for life. He wanted to become king which caused
the nobles to assassinate him. Another civil war ensued with Octavian
finally emerging as Caesar after the other two of the triumvirate were
properly disposed of.
The people were so tired of the confusion, strife and civil wars of
their democracy at this point that they welcomed the Peace brought by
the rule of one man who was given the name Augustus. He then subverted
Rome's constitution (Twelve Tables) and the independence of the Senate.
Gibbon states, concerning the 5 good rulers and the favorable conditions
which accompanied them, that they served to condition the people to the
rule of one man. When the rulers which followed became corrupt and
tyrannical Rome ceased to prosper and its collapse and fall became
inevitable. The Roman's peace and comfort didn't last long after the
last of the five good rulers.
The army did not become a real problem until 1st century A.D. with the
Goths, Christianity, and the plague following at a much later date. The
republic's collapse was ultimately because of the strife brought on by
the socialistic principles introduced by the Democrats. The empire
lasted as long as it did because of the tremendous wealth which had been
acquired under the republic and when socialism finally devoured that
Rome collapsed.
The chickpea a/k/a Cicero II a/k/a Tim
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
Web Site - Kay County Patriots
http://idt.net/~tmccrory/
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Steve Sheldon
Ba...@cha.man.com (Dirk Waters) writes:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:35:11 GMT, etr...@visi.com (Earl Truss) wrote:
>>mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) wrote:
>>
>>> It is immoral to tax anyone.
>>>
>>IMO, that is probably the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen.
>Noooo..This ONE is!!!
You're correct. You win.
Andy Yee
In article <5uk9ub$jpi$1...@blaze.accessone.com>, riv...@accessone.com (Michael Rivero) wrote:
> In article <5uk3d4$5ev$1...@darla.visi.com>,
> Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> >mi...@nospam.visi.com (MichaelSchneider) writes:
> >
> >> Ah yes, the "reality" of Sheldon's world, where corrupt slimebags
> >>dangle two weasels in front of him every four years, both offering
> >>essentially the same policies of "we'll steal the other guy's money and
> >>spend it on *you*!", and he laps it up like, well, like a lapdog.
> >
> >> And calls it "freedom".
> >
> > Wasn't it Socrates who said something like "Democracy will never truly
> >work, for the citizens will end up voting for the candidate who promises to
> >give them the most money out of the treasury, until the treasury goes
> >bankrupt."
> >
> > So I guess I call it Democracy. :)
>
> That's what brought down Rome. The citizens voted themselves bread
>and circuses until the system collapsed.
>
Hmmmm I always thought it was the lead in their drinking water from the
lead pipes..heh :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Yee, President E-Mail: n...@yuck.net
New Directions Engineering, Inc. Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
"Question Authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!"
ta...@worldnet.att.net
Andy Yee wrote:
>
> >
> > That's what brought down Rome. The citizens voted themselves bread
> >and circuses until the system collapsed.
> >
>
> Hmmmm I always thought it was the lead in their drinking water from the
> lead pipes..heh :)
>
I thought it was the lead from the jars they stored their wine in?
I thought that was what pushed Caligula into insanity.