subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in
Nothing worthy of repeating.

Gossman lies about posting - Sci.Environment - June 4, 2002
--------------------------
David Gossman writes - Yet I am the one who does openly and honestly
answer questions even when those questions are raised by someone who
must resort to personal attacks.

Scott Douglas - Gossman if you openly and honestly answer questions then
why is it that you never seem to answer many of mine?

Gossman Responds - "Because most of your questions are based on
 false assumptions. I simply point out your failings and move on."


author: Andrew Langer

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
In article <Xns923B2F080997DVendicar@216.221.81.119>, Scott Douglas says...

And yet, your comrade-in-lunacy didn't take a chance at what would have been an
easy win for you and your's.

You ought to ask him why.

- Andrew Langer

Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others).  Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities.  He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.


author: David Gossman

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns923A51563664FVendicar@216.221.81.119...

Nudds, you started the topic of this thread by trying to come up with some bizarre
theory about a connection between myself and Andrew.  Having demonstrated that you
were rather full of it the attention is now turned on you and you complain. I
can't be certain if you or Chive are the bigger hypocrite. Care to have a contest?


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns923C357B94050Vendicar@216.221.81.119...

Translation - Scott could not defend his accusations so he clipped the response.

Scott, you keep reposting proof of your own self delusions. Why are you doing
this?


author: Scott Douglas

subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
news:4Z%S8.25741$[email]:

Scott Douglas

Andrew Langer<[email]> wrote

Langer is correct, it was an obvious easy win, and it was evidently so.
Hence there was no reason to continue.  Langer had already lost, and now
publicly admits his easy defeat.

You aren't very bright Langer.


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in

  We have simply noted an apparent correlation between your absences here
and Langer's.

  Why so touchy on the subject Gossman?  Do you have something to hide?


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote
Nothing but lies

Gossman lies about posting - Sci.Environment - June 4, 2002
--------------------------
David Gossman writes - Yet I am the one who does openly and honestly
answer questions even when those questions are raised by someone who
must resort to personal attacks.

Scott Douglas - Gossman if you openly and honestly answer questions
then why is it that you never seem to answer many of mine?

Gossman Responds - "Because most of your questions are based on
false assumptions. I simply point out your failings and move on."


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns923B46AF768CFVendicar@216.221.81.119...

You mean one correlation that did not turn out to be a correlation after all?
Really Scott - I had thought that you could do better than that.
Asked and answered. Pay attention Scott. It will make you look less foolish in the
future.


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns92431EF0AC719Vendicar@216.221.81.119...
Translation - Scott's intellect was not up to a cogent response so he clips
and lies.
Scott, why do you keep reposting evidence of your apparent lack of
intellectual capacity? Really, Scott, you are making this to easy.

David Gossman


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
Gossman Consultin wrote:
Nothing of consequence

Gossman Lies about basic statistics.
---------------------------
Scott Douglas writes:

Gosman Consulting Lies:

  Gossman is lying of course.  Verification would require finding the bulk
characteristics of the sampled set and then comparing them to the selected
subset, thereby negating any reason to use the subset since the sampled
set's characteristics are alrady known.

"The underlying basis behind all statistical analysis is the fact that the
aggregate characteristics of a sample set is on average identical to the
set from which it is selected." - Probability and Statistics for Engineers.
Irwin Milnar, E. Freind


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns923C35677939DVendicar@216.221.81.119...

Translation - Scott could not respond to evidence of his own failure so he clipped
it.
Then he reposts evidence of his own confusion. How many times have you been told
that there is nothing dishonest about ignoring questions based on false premises
Scott?


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns92442D50B76E8Vendicar@216.221.81.119...
Translation - Scott is apparently having difficulty dealing with the reality of
his own posts.

Scott, why do you insult your own intelligence with such a lame argument?
Interesting that my Webster's defines theft as "larceny" and then defines larceny
as "the act of taking and carrying away the goods or personal property of another
without his consent and with the intention of depriving him of it"  - what? no
mention of "unlawful"? See even dictionaries don't always agree. Scott considers
this to be "lies" demonstrating the apparent lack of depth of his own intellect.
Why is that?


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns92452281587CVendicar@216.221.81.119...

Only in your imagination Scott.

Scott, why do keep reposting  quotes that demonstrate you apparent inability to
make a logical argument?


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns9245BA480DCE6Vendicar@216.221.81.119...

Nothing that he hasn't posted before and hasn't already been dealt with. Come on
Scott, post the same thing over and over again and demonstrate your high IQ some
more.


subject: Re: The Langer / Gossman connection

text:
"Scott Douglas" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns92462C1A697ADVendicar@216.221.81.119...

A demonstration of his lack of a high IQ. Thanks Scott.


author: ~TRUTH 666~

subject: Unjust War is the Only Issue: Bush the Idiot Bully

text:
Unjust War is the Only Issue

by ROBERT STEINBACK

Iraq changes everything.

Without it, we'd be having an interesting discussion about George W.
Bush's tax cuts and whether his deficit spending threatens the
nation's economic well-being.

We'd be arguing over his environmental and energy policies.

We'd be debating his court appointments, his immigration policies, the
future of Social Security, the state of public schools, health
insurance coverage and whether the federal government should influence
personal choices like abortion, marriage and the right to die.

In other words, we'd be thrashing out the important topics of a
typical presidential campaign, to discern which candidate has the best
ideas for America.

But a deafening roar is drowning out the customary din of political
conversation.

High stakes

America under Bush started a war, killed thousands of people,
sacrificed hundreds of her own valiant soldiers and conquered a
soveriegn nation, using the justification that this foreign government
participated in a heinous terrorist attack and posed an immediate and
serious danger to America.

Which wasn't true.

And now I'm having a dreadful time paying attention to any of the
other relevant issues of this campaign. What can compare to the
single-handed destruction of the legacy America spent 227 hard years
crafting -- a commitment to justice, principle and the rule of law?

Not much makes me weep. I wept on Sept. 11, 2001, crumpled in a heap
before a television. But I also wept on March 19, 2003, the day Bush
invaded Iraq, transforming America into the Roman Empire under Caesar.

Principle guides opinion

I've wondered lately why I wasn't caught up in the American bloodlust
to strike at someone, anyone, to avenge Sept. 11; why I recoil so
reflexively when I hear war defenders suggest that America is entitled
to do whatever it wants to further its own interests, principle be
damned. The explanation, I've decided, is personal.

A belief in principle sustained at least five generations of my family
as they trod a torturous path from slavery to -- well, to me. Despite
pressures to lose faith, my forebears persevered, believing that one
day, their descendants would know liberty, dignity and opportunity
regardless of race. And they believed it would happen in America.

I am a member of the generation for whom they sacrificed. For me,
''principle'' is not a word. It's life, blood, mother's milk -- it's
why I had a chance to be.

There is a time for war, but for America -- because we are America --
there must be principle behind the decision to engage in one. For
months I listened carefully to the Bush administration's arguments --
but heard no logical justification for attacking Iraq.

I hoped I was wrong, that we would discover Bush indeed had secret
knowledge that would validate this horrific action. I fretted the
possibility I'd have to write a humble pie column, in which I would
have to concede my alarm had been unwarranted.

Instead, the opposite has occurred. With each passing week, it becomes
increasingly clear no case for war ever existed.

Yet many Americans seem unfazed by this. Half of us still believe he's
doing a good job, as if lying about war is pardonable.

I'm bewildered by the ends-justify-the-means rationalizing I hear --
''At least we got rid of Saddam.'' ''At least we're giving the Iraqis
a chance at democracy.'' ``At least now we can put pressure on Iran
and Syria.''

These effects of projected force were never seriously in doubt, just
as there was no doubt Caesar would plunder the riches of Cleopatra's
Egypt once he overran it. Inventorying the spoils of victory has
nothing to do with assessing the propriety of initiating war in the
first place.

Being the bully

My America, which once strove to lead, now bullies instead. It's fun
to be the bully -- for a while. Others cower in fear and awe -- for a
while. Your domination reaps adulation and fealty -- for a while. And
your fans, drunk with the afterglow of triumph, are more than willing
to overlook your unseemly tactics.

Maybe this is why Bush's poll figures remain strong.

But bullies never prevail because force has weaknesses, and the
bullied search relentlessly to find them. Leadership based on
principle, by contrast, inspires lasting unity and strength.

America beat up Iraq for no good reason, destroying our honor in the
process.

For me, this season, all other issues pale in comparison.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/7750488.htm


author: Edward Glamkowski

subject: Re: Unjust War is the Only Issue: Bush the Idiot Bully

text:
[email] (~TRUTH 666~) wrote in message

We are having such discussions.  They're occurring all over
the place.  Or is Steinback not paying attention?

I doubt it.  These things almost never get discussed by the
public at large regardless of who is president, what their
policies are, and what the international arena looks like.

No we wouldn't - the democrats are fillibustering them regardless,
thereby effectively preventing discussion on them.

I hear this being discussed all over the place.  Is Steinback
living under a log?

Yep, all of this stuff gets regularly discussed too.

Which *IS*, in fact, happening anyways.
But that doesn't make for a good chip on one's shoulder, now does it?

Only if you are overly selective in what you pay attention to.
Or if you live in a hole in the ground.

Bush never actually said there was a direct connection between
Iraq and 9/11.

Bush never actually said Saddam was an *immediate* threat.
(Others did, but not Bush)

And many experts and leaders, including Clinton, were in agreement
that Saddam was a threat to America.

This Steinback is just another hysterical Bush-bashing lying leftist.
Whatever.

I'm not even gonna bother with the rest of his tripe.  If it is
anywhere near as "accurate" as his opening, his existance is a
waste of perfectly good oxygen.


author: Lady Liberty

text:
Anybody But George?
Anybody But Hillary?
by L. Neil Smith
[email]

Attribute to The Libertarian Enterprise

At this writing, the 2008 election is only 25 months away.
America is getting ready again to play the deadliest game of
Ping-Pong in the universe.

This horrifying process was first described to me (although I'd
noticed it myself already) by libertarian lecturer/philosopher
Robert LeFevre. Every time we elect somebody new, Bob
explainedï¿½usually because we're fed up with the Old Regime
screwing up our lives and finding ways to limit our freedomï¿½the
New Regime soon finds ways of its own (because it had them in
mind all along) to do exactly the same stuff.

At the same time, it never undoes whatever its predecessor did
to us.

Once we've had enough of them, we turn to somebody from the Old
Regime to save us, but not only do we end up stuck with what was
done to us the first two times around, we now have to spend all
our time and energy fighting off even bigger and "better"
enchroachments on our lives and freedom, because the Old Regime
thinks it has some kind of mandate.

Meet the new boss, as Pete Townshend warned us, same as the old
boss.

I've described the American political process myself as a system
of ratchets, cranking ever tighter around our necks. The
"pawl"ï¿½the little part that flips up readily enough when the
noose is tightening, but drops into place and blocks any
possible reversalï¿½is the false idea we have that one half of the
system is better or worse than the other.

There is a lingering notion among many libertarians, for
example, arising, I think, from the movement's origin and early
history, that Republicans are somehow betterï¿½have more regard
for personal and economic freedomï¿½than Democrats. Not even the
blatant excesses and insanities of the past five years seem to
be enough to convince them otherwise.

Such individuals appear to come in three categories:

The first are falsely self-proclaimed libertarians, mostly
within the Libertarian Party structure, who have convinced
themselves that George Bush's war in the middle eastï¿½and the
destruction of the Bill of Rights it's being used as an excuse
to carry outï¿½is a good idea;

Organized Objectivistsï¿½pardon me, students of Objectivismï¿½who
are so enamored of the Israeli Totalitarian State they'll gladly
suffer any violation of their own established principles to
support it;

And libertarians who think they're being clever by embedding
themselves within the Republican Party in the pathetically
foolish belief that they can somehow steer the GOP, instead of
being steered, themselves, further and further away from
everything it means to be libertarian.

These are all known entities,of course, which real libertarians
have learned to deal with or ignore. The new danger is
libertarians who, because of their utter loathing for George
Bush, are beginning to invest their hopes in Democrats and
others on the Left who happen to share that loathing with them
for the moment, and basically nothing else.

This is as big a mistake as allying ourselves with Republicans.
To demonstrate that, I have composed a list of questions
libertarians ought to be asking of the Left before they leap
into unholy political matrimony. Me, I'm addressing these
questions to the Woman with One Eyebrow herself, but you should
try them out on any Democrat that you know.

Who knowsï¿½the treachery and hypocrisy they reveal may even turn
a few of them, with genuine concerns about this war and the
police state it has spawned, toward our side of the (Zero
Initiation of) Force. But remember, any excuses they makeï¿½or
that you feel inclined to make for themï¿½put you in the same
category as the apologists for Republicans.

Okay, here we go:

   1. Senator Clinton, if you're elected President of the United
States, Will you end the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan
and withdraw our troops from the more than 160 nations where
they're currently stationed?

   2. Will you repeal, nullify, or otherwise dispose of the vile
Patriot Act and abolish the Orwellian-sounding Department of
Homeland Security?

   3. Will you put an end to the fascistic "no-fly" list, open
   it to
public scrutiny, ensure its victims are properly compensated and
those who have enforced it are punished, and generally restore
freedom to transportation?

   4. Will you take immediate and effective action to
   demilitarize the
police, remove the military presence from civilian life, enforce
the much-abused Posse Comitatus, and put an end to the
oppressive police state atmosphere that has settled over America
like blanket of killer smog?

   5. Will you shut down illegal concentration camps like
   Guantanamo,
and put a permanent and total end to the torture being practiced
there?

   6. Will you effectively prosecute George Bush, John Ashcroft,
   Dick
Cheney, and their many cronies and co-conspirators, for their
crimes against the American people, the people of the world, and
the Bill of Rights?

   7. Will you continue the suicidal policies of the last 60
   years, or
do what actually needs to be done to eliminate the threat of
terrorismï¿½principally, remove our interference in the lives and
business of others?

The first time I saw Hillary Clinton, I remarked to my wife,
"That woman has the smell of the deathcamps on her." Bitter
experience leads me to expect that the answers to all of my
questions will be "No", which brings to another question, one
that I address to the people of America:

Why has it always seemed to come down to a choice for
Americansï¿½a false choice, at thatï¿½between Democratic socialism
and Republican fascism?

Or Democratic fascism and Republican socialism?

Especially when there's so little effective difference between
the two?

Especially when a genuine choiceï¿½between unencumbered liberty
and every variety of oppression, right, left, and centerï¿½is
never offered?

Who benefits from that?

It certainly isn't America.

It certainly isn't us.
________________________________


author: ouroboros rex

subject: Re: Anybody But George? Anybody But Hillary?

text:
"Lady Liberty" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

roflmmfao

  The only people talking Hillary for president are republican fundraisers
shucking the rubes - and their rubes.


author: Daniel Packman

text:
In article <[email]>,
Lady Liberty  <[email]> wrote:

.....

This question presupposes a very simplistic answer.

This sort of arbitrary judgement is idiotic.


author: Chau-Yi Lin

subject: Re: I Spoke at an Amnesty Int'l Tibet Conference Yesterday!

text:
Yes, Li, you are brave enough in a demoracy and free society. If you
are aso brave to speak to your government the Tibetan another side of
words on Tibetan history, I would applaud your bravery more. As I know
lots of the Tibaten independence fighter do it everyday in China, not
in the Columbia University, USA.

Best regards,

Chau-Yi

[email] (Qiang Li) wrote:


author: Qiang Li

text:
[email] (Chau-Yi Lin) writes:

Thanks, Chau-Yi, for saying nice things about me. I never acknowledged
that I was "brave enough" in my story; somebody else said I was. Anyway,
it is not true that I have a duty to inform my government of an alternative
version of Tibet history if I myself find that alternative rather extremist.

I have disagreed with my government in the past and I am enclosing an
unproofread article which I posted on the net last year, not to boost my
credit but to give you a background. Since last summer, I have written
President Jiang and Premier Li of the P.R.C. my views on lots of issues.
For instance, I advocated that the P.R.C. should start publishing court
judgments and compile them into reporters, a significant step, in my
opinion, to creating an open society. I also reminded them that they should
pay more attention to China's agrarian culture in the market economy and
integrate it into their own lives with pleasure, since they want the peasants
to produce a lot and only have one child per family. They have yet to respond
to my many letters, but both Jiang Zemin and Li Peng visited China's Midwest
recently and from what I read in the newspaper, their attitudes were
genuine. I also talked about the necessity of China to have an immigration
law since most countries have it and China should be ready to absorb those
freelance foreign artists, scholars, athletes, etc who can pass a threshold.
If you are interested, I can let you know more about what I wrote. I spent
a year in Syracuse from 1989 to 1990, so we are kind of alums. If you are
interested in classical music, you may want to contact Prof. Giancarlo
Moneti of the Physics Department to join the Syracuse Friends of Chamber
Music.

By the way, you can continue to call me Li, but I usually go by Qiang.

Cheers,
Qiang Li

***************************************************************************
Ladies and Gentlemen!

I speak for myself and out of my own experiences, on China's
1989 student movement, a breathtaking event and a fascinating topic that
has both inspired and divided so many people worldwide.

I am a Chinese national, and indeed a proud citizen of the People's Republic
of China. In the year 1989, I was but a recent college graduate from Fudan
University and I was making arrangements to come to the United States for
graduate school while working full-time as an intern at a Shanghai textile
mill.

Like millions of fellow students and citizens of the People's Republic, my
beloved fatherland, I was taken aback by the sudden outbreak of the
democracy movement in April. I had already seen the authorities quell a
huge movement in December 1987 and did not expect anything to come up again
on a comparable scale. In the 1987 event, I, as a junior in college, was
a quiet and obscure participant in a student rally in front of the Shanghai
Municipal Government Building on the freezing and unforgettable night of
December 19. We stayed overnight at Waitan (the Bund) and demanded "fair"
media representation of the student parade and a direct dialogue with Mayor
Jiang Zemin. Both demands were ignored and the student crowd was dispersed
with force (but for heaven's sake, the police force did not use any
equipment and only shovelling was employed). I still remember the vivid
sense of excitement when I walked down Fuzhou Road to catch a trolley home
after I had left the scene at dawn. It was a mixture of disappointment
(after all, how dare those bastards turned down our innocent requests!),
defiance (I would take great pleasure in standing up to brute force again!)
and pride (we were communitarians and had done something good for the
society, much of which may not even know what we were talking about!). On
the other hand, I had had a good time and in particular, I had found, in
the crowd, a long-lost girl friend whom I ended up dating for two years.
I thought it was terrific for the movement to last another while (maybe
forever!).

It lasted a short while and by early January I was disheartened by the
resolute means of the authorities to silence us young "intellectuals". I
longed for another movement but somehow accepted fatalistically that a
new wave was nowhere near to be expected. Of course I was proven wrong
and before I realized what was going on in 1989, I was part of the whole
thing again! Like my 1987 experience, my role in 1989 was by all means
negligible. The most I did were walking in parades with borrowed school
badges (as I had already graduated and was in the work force, I carried
some minor risk of being identified as an unpardonable non-student
demonstrator), and leading a few times in chanting slogans. I can boast
that I blocked traffic at Wujiaochang on the morning of June 4th, but
so many others were present, so I have thoroughly no basis to advance
my heroism even if I want to. However, one thing was certain: my
indignation at the killings on the morning of June 4th was beyond
words.

Time goes fast. It has been six years now. What is the status of my
current view on the 1989 Movement?

By the way, shortly after I came to the United States, I went on another
rallying expedition from Syracuse, NY to Washington, DC on China's
National Day in 1989. On that trip, however, I started to become disturbed
by an attitude. It was, for sure, a fashionable attitude. While condemning
the brutality of the military crackdown in Beijing, many Chinese and
non-Chinese demonstrators were talking about overthrowing the Beijing
regime. As someone fresh out of China, and someone who had almost just
gone through the nightmare itself, I nonetheless felt a little uneasy. It was
less the substance of such advocation than the typical professed hatred of
the advocators that I found offensive. No doubt the people who ordered
the shootings in Beijing were hateful, but does that justify a conclusion
that the whole system has to be immediately torn down? Does that justify
that China start from Sun yatsen and Mao Zedong all over again? I started
to be puzzled, but when I raised the issues everybody I spoke with stoutly
insisted on the total destruction of the "reactionary, dictatorial system".

Throughout the years, the line is growing less clear. The Honorable Director
of Chinese Legal Studies of Columbia Law School, Professor Randel Edwards,
has related to me an experience his children, Lee and Jon, had on the night
of the killings in Beijing. Lee and Jon both have distinct Asian features,
thanks perhaps to Mrs. Edwards, who is a relation of the renowned Chinese
writer, Zhu Ziqing (remember "Hetang Yuese"!). Lee was on Tiananmen
Square and witnessed the arrival of the PLA's second tank that entered the
Square. A mob of protestors, which, according to
Prof. Edwards, consisted of uneducated private owners (getihu), provincial
people (waidiren), and the unemployed, poured gasoleum on the tank and set it
on fire! Down escaped the PLA tank driver. Alas! The mob captured him!
They beat the crap out of him! Lee and some students who were a few feet
away from the scene tried to save the poor, beaten soldier from death
and shouted at the crowd to stop such an inhumane atrocity. The mob
took them as undercover police and beat them up as well. Before long,
the soldier was killed! Worse still, they peeled the skin off his head
and crushed his head completely! When the second soldier showed up, the
mob again seized him and instantly finished him off as well! In the mean
time, Lee was almost beaten unconscious. To this day, he has retained
two rather symmetric scars on his forehead. A Canadian reporter shot the
whole scene and the Edwards keep a copy of the videotape he made. Lee
was barely able to wander away with blood dripping all over down
his face. This scene was shown live on TV in Taipei, where Lee's
sister watched and fell heartbroken. Jon, who came from the hotel to
Lee's rescue, later took him to the hospital on bicycle. When Lee retained
consciousness, he could hardly reconstruct what had happened that night but
for the videotape the Canadian reporter had made on the scene. Both Edwards
were only able to get into touch with their parents in New York five
days later. Lee was later to decline an award from the Chinese government
for his failed attempt to save the lives of the PLA soldiers, whose
names I do not know.

I remember the evening of the day on which Prof. Edwards recounted to
me the experiences of Lee and Jon. It was depressing. I had dinner with
a few friends from Taiwan Province. I had been trying to engage with
my Taiwanese friends on the issue of unification for a while, and it
had been customary that debates occur during meals. I was to hear again
arguments based on totally unqualified, absolute rights to self-
determination. I was not in the mood to go into the substantive details
of the debates and merely pointed out the issue of qualification of
rights.

I also remember the time I visited Prof. Edwards for advice on looking
for a job. He talked in abstract terms about that we all get bounced around,
that we do not control as we sometimes feel confident we do, and that
we ought to be ourselves to bet on eventual success. Looking back, I wonder
if Randy was having his kids' experiences in mind.

Everybody has had humbling experiences. In particular, every Chinese
has had humbling experiences, the extent of which is likely to be more
serious than the world average. One experience I had while I was growing
up was that I had to live with the fact that my father had been a rebel
(zaofanpai) during the Cultural Revolution. Leaving aside my father's
activities at the height of his career in the Cultural Revolution,
living with a rebel father after the Cultural Revolution in China was
like a no-mercy tennis shot from Michael Chang. Our family lived in
poverty because my parents, who had to support three children, never
got salary increases for many years, and it was genuinely hard for me
to identify myself with the ongoing reform in my country because I felt I was
unfairly excluded from its benefits. The family of five lived in
a room of 14.3 square meters and my brother and sister both encountered
discrimination when they looked for employment after high school. I was
luckier because my grades were among the best in my class and even though
my father's factory authorities sent someone down to ask my school
to expel me, the school did not take action. But a teacher conveniently
leaked the story of my father to some good friends of mine, who instantly
turned into my bitter enemies and made my life miserable.

Out of this experience grew my aversion to hatred. I have allowed this
aversion to grow to the extent that I would frown on even hatred on
an enemy. Humans need not to live in adversarial environments, but they
should learn to create cooperative, social environments. I have come to
disagree with the view that Li Peng or some other government personnel
should be held responsible for the 1989 crackdown.

We should not hold anybody personally responsible for an event as
controversial as this one. Killing should be condemned, but we should
also understand the stake of national social stability at issue. Let's look
at Russia, a neighbor with vast per capita resources which has taken a
somewhat different path from our own. It took them six years to just let
things settle down a bit. And look at how many people have perished during
the whole process, which was meant to be peaceful. I wish the Russian
people well, but I feel China is a less manageable country with inadequate
resources for everybody. It is worth noting that at one point the Russian
Parliament was shelled in a constitutional crisis.

The 1989 Movement is nevertheless a tremendous tragedy, but it is not
so much of a unique category. The 1919 May 4th Movement started a Chinese
tradition of students initiating political processes. Chinese students
are particularly unsuited to carry out such missions. I identify myself
with the democracy course in China, but I must confess that when I was
chanting slogans in both 1987 and 1989 in Shanghai, I did not know a damn
thing about either China or the world. Unlike their American counterparts
who work in summer camps, amusement parks, or fast-food restaurants, Chinese
students typically have few social experiences and thus tend to be
less mindful of the sensibilities of other segments of the society. Many
of my "intellectual" friends have openly displayed their disgust for
Chinese peasants, the backbone of China's modernization program. On the
other hand, some people think bare concepts like democracy can and should
be implemented before they are even debated fully in academia. It is based
on my these observations that I feel a major contribution of the 1989
movement could be that it puts an end to the May-4th tradition of
students innitiating China's political processes.

Of course I hope the government of my country realizes that a situation
without political processes innitiated by students should not be taken
for granted. It has to take a fool to deny that China's political system
was at fault when the movement erupted. Students can innitiate
large-scale movements where the normal channels and forums
of discussion and dispute settlement have broken down. America in the 60's
is an example. Thus, the fundamental solution to avoid a repetition of
another emotional outcry of complaint against the government is to
establish reliable forums. Discussion can reduce hostility, increase
understanding and maintain moral standards of the society. On the other
hand, the intellegentsia should also reach the understanding that policies
have to be duly debated before implementation can be pursued, and that
principles that have no touch with reality yet should be treated more
carefully with extra caution. One reason that our government is defensive
about setting up open forums is that they think opinions circulated are
invariably against them and against stability. This is ludicrous. There
exist people like me, who make independent judgments to take sides. When
our government is leading an expanding economy, I often find myself
defending our government's policies.

I remain a proud participant of the 1989 movement, despite my realization
that I was not being particularly rational. I think it was such a great
movement that every participant should feel proud to have take even
a small part. We, as a growing generation, proved that we carried the
energy of a reviving nation; we, as communitarians, truly believed in and
strived for the production of society's common good; we, as the youth,
created enough excitement to trigger our maturity. Our dear fatherland
may well have decided to take a different route than the one we hoped
for; yet, the dead of both sides should be commemorated for dying at
the constitutional limit of a huge effort of a struggling nation. I think
it is reasonable to guess that the dead would have hoped that China should be
able to gain growth without subjecting herself to turmoil.

My dear friends, I, as an optimist, want to share with you my humble
vision of my beloved fatherland, China. When I visited the Washington
Monument, I was struck by its history displayed around the Monument. As much
as we admire the magnificance of the Monument, the complexity of its architec-
tural structure is probably limited. And it took thirty-eight years to
complete with a disruption by the Civil War and another by the domination of
the reactionary Know-nothing party of the Monument Society. Mark Twain used
to remark that it had the aspects of a "factory chimney" when the unfinished
Monument stood alone on the grassland. As much as we
respect the greatest founding father of the United States of America,
George Washington, when the Monument was accepted by the American people
as a symbol of Washington's unchallengeable status in history,
his presidential term had terminated about a century before. In this
sense, the People's Republic of China is young, at the age of forty-six,
and of course she is still growing. If you dislike her mischief, complain
but do not demonise her. After all, a lot of governments have committed
inexcusable mistakes before; in particularly, the mechanism of the United
States Supreme Court makes past mistakes not remediable.

Peace on Earth.

Cheers,
Qiang Li

P.S. My views as of today may be slightly different than the above.


author: BURMAJAPAN

subject: Re: I Spoke at an Amnesty Int'l Tibet Confere

text:
Ni hao Qiang Li,
  I am not as able to clearly express myself or explain what I understand.
 But having Chinese friends from parts of China and Taiwan, having
attended a visitation of the Dalai Lama, information on the internet, and
a Burmese girlfriend.  I do have a good insight and understanding....
  China's historical experience with foreign countries invading or pushing
heroin for their own purpose, helped to create the current mind-set of the
government.  I don't know how to change such people by conversation.  IF
you ever receive a reply to your letters, I would be interested in the
responses.  Does anyone ever receive a reply?

Respectfully,

Philip F. McCracken, III
[email]


author: Xiaohan Qin

text:
In article <qiang.825353422@happy> you write:
 ...

This is *the most* marvelous observation and
talented prediction I have ever seen.
Thanks very much.

...

Finally came the author's vision of China:
PROC at the age of 46 is young and growing.

Stand up and applaud!


author: Vickie

subject: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
What does this statement mean?  On research of Thich Nhat Hanh's
assertation that "All Buddism is engaging", I found no direct
interpretation of that statement.  I read many excerpts regarding being at
peace where one is and cultivating peace no matter what the circumstance
of which I relate to "Be Here Now".  Am I close?  I am in a class and this
is the discussion topic.  Before I begin my discussion on the phrase "All
Buddism is engaging" is there one of you who knows if I am hot or cold on
that subject?

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com


author: Jerry

subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
"Vickie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:64332a76ba453a154e81a7b8501642b6$[email]...

while engaging in mindfull activity, completely focused on the task, the
mind and the task are one. if an idea of the activity arises a fracture in
the one occurs. u now have the idea and the activity. this ceates
phychological conflict, since the idea is an illusion. bringing the focus of
the mind back to the task, the mind and the task are one. this is buddhist
practice. this is the practice of wholeness.


subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
Vickie wrote:

Hot. Buddhism is all about personal understanding, not intellectual
conclusion. It's about daily practice, not repeated dogma. Buddhism is
mystical, meaning engaged on a personal level, not handed down through
authority, or written word. All Buddhist writings are directions on a
map, the journey is yours to walk. Learning to be at peace where one
is, etc. are the steps in the journey, but even when spoken by Thich,
your responsiblity for engaging that effort cannot be put aside. All
Buddhism is engaging.


author: George Cherry

subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
"Jerry" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Amaef.574578$xm3.93218@attbi_s21...

Yes, that's what the mind is for: focused activity
in a situation. If a situation arises that calls for
an action, the mind assesses the situation, picks
an action appropriate to the situation (an action
likely to bring satisfactory consequences) and
executes the action. The process from situation
to action to consequences should be mindful.

George


subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
"George Cherry" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

an idea or thought is the only thing that can slow down a reflex action


subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
"Jerry" <[email]> wrote in message
news:vHaef.574598$xm3.559599@attbi_s21...

Reflex actions show how effective non-ratiocinative
action can be. Some people call reflex actions "the
wisdom of the body". Most reflex actions proceed
directly from stimuli to responses without any input
from thought. If we took time to blink and duck, we
might be blinded. Are you an act utilitarian or a rule
utilitarian?

George


subject: Re: "All Buddism is engaging"

text:
"George Cherry" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

i am an idea


author: Donald L Ferrt

subject: Plant patents sow seeds of destruction

text:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,73%257E495259,00.html

Plant patents sow seeds of destruction

By Stan Cox

Sunday, March 31, 2002 - Somebody's trying to patent fish and chips -
the chips part, anyway. The nonprofit organization ActionAid has filed
an application with the British Patent Office, claiming that Professor
Leo Pyle of Reading University has "invented" a thickly sliced,
salted, deep-fried potato.
It's a joke, of course, but a serious one. ActionAid is hoping to
demonstrate the silliness of patents filed by biotechnology and seed
companies who claim to have "invented" everything from salmonella to
soybeans, along with all of the DNA in their cells.

Biotechnology is billed as a panacea for agriculture, but it has
proven much more useful for enforcing corporate property rights than
for saving the family farm. From the moment when biotechnologists
insert a single gene from, say, a bacterium into the genetic code of a
crop plant to produce a "transgenic" variety, they stake their claim
on the plant and all of its descendants.

Farmers are contractually barred from saving any seed they produce
from such a variety, and plant breeders can't use its pollen - unless
they pay the corporation that owns it. It is as if an author compiled
a thick novel entirely from the writings of other authors, added one
original word, copyrighted the book, and then claimed ownership of
each sentence individually.

To make matters worse, a growing body of research is showing that
transgenic pollen and seeds, like all pollen and seeds, can easily
escape the fields in which they are produced. And when they travel,
according to a Canadian court, they carry their property rights with
them.

The Monsanto Co. won a now-notorious lawsuit against a Saskatchewan
farmer, and filed suits against farmers in Indiana and North Dakota,
after its wandering herbicide-resistant genes turned up in the
farmers' non-transgenic fields.

These legal actions send a clear message to farmers across the
continent: It's a lot easier (and cheaper) to buy Monsanto's seed than
it is to prove that you didn't pilfer it and don't even want it.

To address the problem of genetic piracy, organizations from more than
50 nations have announced a Treaty Initiative to Share the Genetic
Commons. The document, unveiled at the World Social Forum in February,
states that the Earth's gene pool, in all of its biological forms and
manifestations, [is] a global commons and that genes will not be
allowed to be claimed as commercially negotiable intellectual
property.

Had it been introduced before the age of biotechnology, the treaty
would have stirred little debate. But in 1980, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office began awarding patents for transgenic organisms. In
recent years, even farmer-bred crop varieties have been swept up in
the patenting net: yellow beans from Mexico, blue-fiber cotton from
Central America, basmati rice from India, quinoa from the Andes and
many others.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on the DNA of
all crops, regardless of origin. It upheld a patent on 17 of Pioneer
Hi-Bred International's non-transgenic corn hybrids - in effect,
declaring them inventions. Justice Clarence Thomas, brushing aside
existing laws and genetic logic, wrote the majority opinion.

All crop varieties - transgenic or not - owe their existence to plant
breeders and farmers who gleaned genes from a global pool of crop
varieties. In the pre-biotech era, companies could claim ownership
only of a specific variety - not of its genes. Plant breeders who did
the best job of utilizing the genetic commons were the most
successful; they saw more farmers grow their varieties.

But by using patents, Monsanto and other multinationals are attempting
to dominate the market, not by breeding a better product but by
shutting other plant breeders out of the genetic commons.

The Treaty Initiative to Share the Genetic Commons should become
international law. And any claim to have invented fish, or French
fries, or potato plants, or the genes in their cells - genes that
predate the first farmer or fisher by billions of years - should be
seen for just what ActionAid says it is: a joke.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Cox is a member of The Prairie Writers Circle and senior research
scientist at The Land Institute in Salina, Kan. He holds a Ph.D. in
plant breeding from Iowa State University. Details about the Treaty
Initiative to Share the Genetic Commons are available at
www.tradeobservatory.org


author: paul olive

subject: Re: Plant patents sow seeds of destruction

text:
it is completely necessary to patent them(but monsantos terminator gene is
evil, however un fortunately legal) but if they have declared open season
all plants i call the patents on cotton, maize, wheat, t
omato,s and potatos as well as beans


text:
"Donald L Ferrt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The author's confusion over the difference between a copyright and pantent
says a great deal about the logic of the rest of the post.

A socialist initiative that has at its roots the destruction of private
property rights.

Patents on varieties of roses have been in existance for years and roses are
not GM crops. This body of law has been around for years.
Without patents on GM crops and other genetic breeding programs there is no
incentive to create more productive and healthier varieties of food. If
those who think that these varieties should not be patented were anything
but hypocrites they would be developing new varieties themselves and
declaring them public property. Instead they want to use the force of the
state to steal from others.

David Gossman


text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in message news:<a87g6m$ca4$[email]>...

Or shows you lack of perception of reality!  The author was using an
analogy!

To the contrary!  It delineates among concepts of privacy!  Since the
Libertarians want to privatize the ocean, the air we breath or even
the sun we get = as if they could improve the sun.  This is a start to
delineate and limit the fanaticism that Libertarians would go to!

I don't eat roses!  Nor are they vital like food is!

More productive and healthier healthier varieties of food = Than you
admit that the golden rice, so-called give away was just a publicity
stunt!

HMMM, I see you eating and growing corn without making large payments
to Native Americans!  Have not seen corn disapper yet = Made of
questionable value now by those who wish to control it by Genetic
engineering = Yes!


author: Rufio

text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a87g6m$ca4$[email]...

Can't patent a book - unless it's a new design. All other books should be
PD. But it may be possible to copyright the contents

You use the term 'socialist' like it's a bad thing! And before discussing
property rights, you might want to read Alan Dershowitz'sd book "Shouting
Fire" - I don't agree with it all, but it does discuss the concept of
"rights" quite well.

are
no

I have no problem patenting a production technique - such as for the
production of rubies in a laboratory. But patenting the end product is
absurd. It's almost like saying that the person who invents a car that can
go 200MPG on regular gasoline has the right's to any car that can go
200MPG - regardless of how that's achieved. furthermore, some production
techniques are merely the basic application of PD scientific techinques and
have no inherent distinguishing originality.


author: David Gossman

text:
"Donald L Ferrt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<a87g6m$ca4$[email]>...
pantent
And if you understood what I was saying you would understand that the
analogy does not hold because of the differences between a patent and a
copyright. It is rather clear, between your not understanding this and your
inability to use English a significant portion of the time just who has a
problem perceiving reality.
Donald, you know you can't back up such wild accusations. Why make them and
destroy your credibility in the process. I guess you simply can't deal with
the concept of individual rights.
are
Donald, that is not the point. If the biotech firms could not patent new
strains of seeds why would they bother to create them? What you want is for
them to make them and then for you to be allowed to steal them. Sorry, that
just isn't going to happen. If it does technological development in the
field grinds to a halt.
no
anything
the

Donald, try English and explain what you were trying to say, then I will
respond.

Really, just how would you know how much corn I eat? Or grow? But really, if
they had a patent they would be getting paid. You do understand that
eventually a patent runs out don't you?

Again, Donald, try some English. I know it is a stretch for you but if you
want to communicate with others you have to use the common language, not
something you make up.

David Gossman


text:
"Rufio" <[email]> wrote in message
news:9PJp8.10406$[email]...

Socialism is the based on the philosophy that the state is more important
than the individual and by its very nature socialism stands opposed to the
rights of the individual. Of course it is a bad thing - unless you are a
totalitarian dictator - then it works real well.

anything
the
and
So you would ban patents on new inventions so long as someone could build
them in a different way - want to try that again? No doubt the a process for
manufacturing a substance is what should be patented, so long as that
substance already exists. If one invents a new substance, say Teflon, as an
example, the patent should not be on the steps used to manufacture it but on
the material that was invented itself. It all depends on where the
creativity and "newness" lies. If one manufactures a new plant, where is the
difference between that and a new chemical compound?

David Gossman


text:
"David Gossman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:a87trs$2r4$[email]...
private
discussing
"Shouting

Didn't go as far as unreservedly promoting socialism. But it can also be
seen as recognising the needs of society, rahter than those of the
individual. I've been unemployed, andreceived unemployment payments - but
now I'm working again, and paying lots of taxes again. Socialism comes in
many different degrees. I also respect the idea of a police force being
established to "protect & serve". Within a compressed society (a city), I
think it's lunacy to pass on the responsibility of protection to the
individual, when Thomas Peel's idea was 180 degrees opposed to that. It
means every whacko has a right to walk round with a .50 Desert Eagle magnum,
regardless of whether he is competent to use it.

When humans live in a collective society, there are some things which become
social issues, that can't be decided by the individual, they have to be
decided - and controlled jointly. That's what governments have a
responsibilty for (even though they sometimes fail).  The alternative is for
everyone to go head to head with there neighbour, and the one with the
biggest gun, the most ammo, or the fastest
reactions..................."wins".

is
If
can
for
an
on
the

I think we actually are agreeing on this - I would agree with patents on a
new, unique, novel process - not on the end result. If there are 2 ways of
making Teflon - only the processes should be patentable. The patent is the
"reward" for the idea of HOW to create it, not WHAT to make. The WHAT might
deserve credit too, if it is completely new product. But I might imagine a
200MPG gasoline powered car, without having any idea how to create it - do I
deserve credit for that?


text:
"Rufio" <[email]> wrote in message
news:rgLp8.10666$[email]...
important
the

When the "needs" of society take over the rights of the individual you can
bet that a politician in power is the winner. "Needs of society" are made up
to keep someone in power. The logic and the history is quite evident.

And there is no need for unemployment insurance to be either state mandated
or state supported. If you want it, buy it but why should you have the right
to force someone else to support you?

magnum,

Yet we both know that there is no police force in any city on Earth big
enough to provide absolute protections against criminal intent and bodily
harm. Thus the right to self defense is a necessary factor in a society that
respects individual rights. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does
nothing but provide a clear level of protection to the criminal element and
thereby encourage said activity. This in turn requires more and more
government to deal with the "crime problem" thus making the politician even
more powerful. Again, this act of socialism, giving up ones right to self
defense, does nothing for society. It does a great deal for those in power,
quite frequently at the cost of innocent lives. That said there is of course
a need for a police force, but expecting them to provide the sort of
protection you seem to invision is the "lunacy".
become
for
Indeed, I agree, but without the underlying recognition and protection of
individual rights you either end up with totalitarianism or mob rule, and
I'm not sure there is much real difference. Only a government that acts to
protect individual rights provides the type of environment where voluntary
cooperation deals with the societal issues you refer to. There is no need
for the government to step in and take over what it thinks is the best thing
for society and in the process trample individual rights. When the
government does anything other than protect individual rights it ends up
with a conflict of interest that politicians just love to take advantage
of - for themselves.
there
of
production
techinques
build
but

We disagree.

That was the example I provided and that is true for most GM products.

I
No, nor would you be granted one, but the example of Teflon was a completely
new product and so are many developments in GM as well as breeding. In the
Teflon example it was both a new product and process. Should the patent be
essentially void when someone else develops a slightly different synthesis
pathway - with a background in chemistry I can assure you that is a lot
easier than inventing the stuff in the first place. I have to think the same
is true in GM work under many circumstances.

PS I also have a farm and do not mind in the least buying GM soybean seeds
each year. The payback in reduced tillage and the reduction in the use of
more toxic pesticides is enormous.

David Gossman


author: james g. keegan jr.

subject: Re: Women Want to Know of Abortion Risks Beforehand, New Survey Shows

text:
In article <[email]>,
 "osprey" <[email]> wrote:

can you cite any relevant statutes which prevent a man from having an
abortion?

or were you referring to men who had been raped?


author: David W. Barnes

text:
In article <[email]>, james g.
keegan jr. <[email]> wrote:

Its amazing, isn't it.  That is the same argument he uses to support
discriminating against gays.  "They can marry those of the opposite sex
like everyone else."  Osprey is an unbelievable hypocrite.


text:
In article <[email]>,
 "David W. Barnes" <[email]> wrote:

coward bobby will run away from my question, and its implications.


author: John C.

subject: Re: Twenty Questions for Evolutionists Answered

text:
On Sep 7, 8:00 pm, Matt Silberstein <[email]>
wrote:

Let me provide a few in no particular order:

Biblical Creation predicts that there is something to observe and make
predictions about.  Observed evidence:  there is a wide variety of
phenomena about which observations and predictions are made.

While this may seem absurd at first glance, evolutionary theory cannot
make the same prediction.  As a matter of fact, based on today's
observation of nuclear reaction results, it is much more likely that
that nothing observable came from the first event than to predict
something organic rose from inorganic.  Further, it is quite
improbable that a prediction can be made about something that is
inherently unguided or random.  If it truly wasn't guided (by the will
of a Creator, for instance), then the genome could have as likely been
100% different as 4% or 0.1% different when it purportedly parted.

So here's where your accusation that Creationists only accept facts
post-haste comes around to bite you.  Would an evolutionary observer
60 million years ago have "predicted" that this one species would be
splitting into 5 or 6 different species?

Biblical Creation predicts that a Creator's will necessitates laws and
properties by which the creation is governed.  Observed evidence: Many
universal, natural laws have been discovered.

If the process by which the organic rose from inorganic is unfettered
by natural law, why would any subsequent process be bound to follow
natural law?

Biblical Creation predicts that the creation itself is a revelation of
the Creator's will.

Biblical Creation predicts that this is the point of the universe that
the Creator has made suitable for life.  Observed evidence: small
variations in position from nearest stellar body would make life
unsuitable.

Biblical Creation predicts that a day consists of periods of light and
darkness.  Observed evidence: planetary rotation produces exactly
that.

Biblical Creation predicts that a human is the highest form of
observable creatures.  Observed evidence: no other creature has the
range of abilities that humans have.

Biblical Creation predicts that death is universal as a result of
sin.  Observed evidence: the law of entropy is universal.

Biblical Catastrophism (a sister concept) predicts the existence of
fossils.  Observed evidence: there are fossils found in various strata
around the globe.  This would not be possible with long, slow
evolutionary processes depositing material over millions of years.
Any organic material would have decayed long before fossilization.

Biblical Creation predicts a young earth.  Observed evidence:  intact
bacterial DNA is discovered in "pre-historic" fossils.  DNA has a
*maximum* shelf life of about 10,000 years.

Biblical Creation predicts that species descend.  Observed evidence:
humans have human babies (short, tall, fat, premature, and sadly even
deformed babies but still human), cows have calves, etc.

Biblical Creation predicts that life has a single origin.  Observed
evidence: all organic material contains carbon.

This pattern screams common descent...TO YOU.
What evidence does anyone have that these patterns were ever
MERGED???  How do you know that the actual pattern might not be that
each of those groups has run predictably similar, but PARALLEL from
their inception?

I realize I'm not the most articulate person around, but this again
points to the fact that none of you have answered my question yet,
despite all the attempts to blame it on *my* ignorance.

All that's been provided so far is non-falsifiable evidence that at
some point in the oblivious past, these patterns were once connected!

If you were truly making predictions based on observable evidence of
similar yet distinct and the principle that species descend, your
prediction would not arrive at common descent.

I guess I don't understand your use of time-differentiation here.
Steel was used long before there were cars or computers (17th century
according to Wikipedia).  Cars had steel in them before there were
ever any computers.  Based on your pattern, wouldn't we predict that
computers arose from cars which arose from the discovery of steel?

This was somewhat addressed above already.  The idea that God could do
anything He wants will be addressed shortly.  The statements above
sound like retroactive finger-pointing (those three coming right back
at you, hon!).  If new species actually arose out of random mutating
processes, how is a 4% or 20% difference "predictable"?

You are right in suggesting that God CAN do anything He wants, but it
is also true that as God, He does the things He wants in the BEST way
He sees fit.  (This includes sin and death.)  Since God is not limited
in His reasons or capabilities as creaturely designers are, He may
well decide to use mammal wings on mammals and avian wings on birds.
There is no limit that forces Him to put avian wings on mammals or
vice versa.  Even GM engineers speak about the room-full of more
efficient carburetors than what's currently on the market which shows
that the most efficient design is not always the one used.

But the same problem applies to your random changes.  If it were truly
random changes without design or purpose, such a random change could
have as likely started from scratch as the "first" DNA as modifying
existing DNA to be (x)% similar.  It is not by virtue of any
prediction which evolution makes that points to similarity or
branching.

I have perused them in previous times, though not exhaustively.  I
didn't find the answers to the questions I'm asking addressed there.
Common descent and other non-falsifiable evidence is just assumed in
many of the "answers."

(As an aside: I'm not impugning your motives at all in directing me
there, but I wonder how other "evolutionists" would respond if, to
their questions about Creationism, creationists directed them to the
Scriptures, divinely inspired by the Creator for answers!)

So when biology tells us that DNA can't survive more than 10,000 years
and we find bacterial DNA in a fossil which geology dates at millions
of years, we should stick with geology and ignore biology?

John C.


author: David V.

text:
John C. wrote:

No. All creationism says is "goddidit." There are no predictions,
nothing to observe, no discoveries possible, no arguments
possible, just sacrosanct religious dogma.

Nor would it want to.

No reason to create a creator. Your strawman arguments are not
working.

What facts? They accept only religious dogma.

That's a claim, not a prediction.

Again, that's a claim, not prediction.

More claims.

Gee.... predicting AFTER THE FACT. Anyone can get that right.

More baseless claims snipped.


author: Matt Silberstein

text:
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:14:15 -0700, "John C."
<[email]> wrote:

To be a scientific prediction it has to predict something other than
the observations used to create the model. Predicting that there is
something to observe is week on the face of it and useless and a real
prediction.

That is just silly. It is creationists who make the silly "life is
unlikely" prediction and they make it based on an ignorance of how
chemistry works. Biologists make predictions based on observations of
life, not on calculations regarding nuclear reactions.

Try for something specific. How about this: suppose there is an island
close to a larger body of land. What would you, as a creationist,
predict regarding the characteristics of the life on that island? I
know what I would predict based on evolution.

First off, that is not true. I can make predictions about the rolls of
two dice, good enough predictions to make lots of money playing people
who think that the dice work differently. Second, evolution is not
based on some "inherent randomness", chemistry and physics are quite
determinable. What is random in evolution, and this is determined by
*observation*, is the relationship between what mutations occur and
the environmental pressure on an organism. Again, we *observe* this,
we do not simply assume it.

How do you know this? (And did you mean "started", "parted" makes no
sense"?) You seem to be claiming that creationists predict "the
genome" (what genome do you mean, each organism has a different one).
If so I would like to see that prediction and the model that produced
it.

Of course since 60 million years ago there was a long history
(billions of years) of branching evolution. I think you mean to ask
would someone 60 million years ago have predicted what we see today,
and that answer is no. But the failure of biologists to make 100%
accurate predictions over 60 million years is not a valid criticism:
you have yet to make one real creationism based prediction. ("We will
see something" is pretty vague, isn't it?)

Again that is silly. First off, this was not actually a prediction
based on the Bible. For quite some time the Bible based answer was
(and still is to some large extent) that God could do what God wanted
to do. The idea of regularities, and so laws, comes into Western
though from the Greek tradition (though it has a long history as
well). God as the Supreme Lawgiver is a Deist idea and stems from the
17th century. There is nothing in the Bible that proposes that God
sets up rules to the Universe. You are simply wrong here as a matter
of both history and logic.

Since biologists do not propose that life arose "unfettered" by
natural law I suggest you ask this of someone else. A creationist, for
example, someone who proposes that life began because of God's Will,
not because of law.

And how do you propose to test this creation? How do you
*independently* determine God's will to see if "creation itself"
reveals it? To be specific: what prediction do you make of future
observations?

Falsification: the vast majority of the Earth is uninhabitable, the
vaster majority of the solar system is uninhabitable, the even vaster
majority of the Universe is uninhabitable.

OMFG! Do you really claim that as a prediction? I think you have no
idea how a prediction is supposed to work. You are supposed to come up
with something not already seen. People have been living in a world
with day and night for as long as there have been people: it does not
take particular insight to "predict" that there will be day and night.

And how are you defining "highest"?

Geese can,without any equimpment, swim under the water, swim on top of
the water, walk, and fly (thousands of miles). That is a pretty
impressive range of abilities that humans don't have. Arrogance is
neither a Christian virtue nor a basis for prediction.

And how can you show this is due to sin? All evidence says that death
came before humans and entropy before the Earth. Not much of a
prediction there.

Which were observed before the Bible existed.

Huh? "Is not" does not constitute an argument. I have seen fossil bed
at a 45 degree angle. Please explain to me how these layers formed
quickly.

Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. Read this and
let me know your response:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html

If you are going to claim a recent world-wide flood be prepared to
discuss the following list of FAQs:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

Really? On what basis? Predictions have to come from some underlying
model, not simply assertions. So what is the model in creationism that
predicts "descent"? I ask because the long history of creationist
thought, predating Darwin, was that there was no change at all and no
extinction.

Actually the Bible predicts different origins for different kinds. You
seem to have read a different Bible than I have.

And to thousands of scientists. Can you come up with a different cause
given known processes?

You seem to have not understood what I showed you. That diagram shows
similarity of existant organisms. Look at the diagram I gave below.

I know of processes observed in the world that produce branching
descent. I know of nothing that would produce such parallel claims.
But I can do more, I can make predictions based on the claim of
descent. I can predict what fossils I will find, what features unknown
organisms will have, I can predict the genome based on morphological
similarity. And those predictions turn out to be true when I *got and
get more evidence*. (You don't seem to grasp that last part about
predictions: you have to go and get new evidence to see if it fits.)

In this case it is because you seem to fail to understand the chart I
gave and how predictions work.

That sentence makes no sense. I don't know what is wrong with
producing "non-falsifiable evidence", that is the only kind of
*evidence*. (We falsify models, not observations.) And I have no idea
what you mean by "oblivious" past.

Why should I accept your view and not that of people who have worked
in the field for years? But here is a simple test for you. Cows
produce their own vitamin C. Mice produce their own vitamin C. Orcs
produce their own vitamin C. Gibbons do not produce their own vitamin
C, Humans do not produce their own vitamin C. Based on creationism and
parallel development, what do you predict about Chimps and Gorillas?
Now I tell you that lemurs don't produce their own vitamin C. What do
you predict about Cats, Dogs, and Capuchins? A simple question, one I
can answer based on an evolutionary, common descent, model. What isy
our prediction and why?

I gave several examples, you seem to have pushed them all together.
Let me try again. The pattern of similarity we find in biota, living
organisms, is not what we find in the produce of human design. Human
design things do not show a tree, they show a network.

Example 1: cars today have computers, but those computers did not
develop in the car line. The cars and computers merged because human
designers learned from other human designers.

Example 2: steel did not develop separately in the ship line, it
developed elsewhere and the lines merged. In biology we see separate
development of the bat wing and bird wing, in ships we see the
develoment of steel and the a merging with ships.

[snip]

And you know what about what God considers best?

And he may well not. So you can't predict a thing based on what God
wants because you don't know.

[snip]

You don't seem to have a clue about what "random change" means. The
"random" means that *by observation* the mutations that occur are not
affected by the current evironmental stress. If a mutation for drought
tolerance occurs X% of the time, it will occur X% of the time in wet
times and in dry times. The *change* part means that mutations are
small modifications to the existing genome. We know by *observation*
that they are not complete re-writes. You seem to think that "random
change" means anything at all can happen.

Read this then:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Most of biology does take common descent for granted because such an
astoundingly good case has been made for it. There is no need to
continually make the point any more than a physics article has to
discuss the case for momentum or orbits.

We would think that your support is not from observations of the world
but from your need to support a text. In that my references differ
from yours. The links I gave do not refer to some authoritative text,
they refer to evidence based arguments. And you are free to go to the
original peer reviewed science referenced in those FAQs. At the point
that you assert your source is a text that is "divinely inspiried" is
the point at which you admit your don't have a scientific case for
your claims.

Since we don't find bacterial DNA that is millions of years old that
is not a problem. *If* we did find such then it would be a fascinating
scientific problem.


author: Jahnu

subject: Re: Abiogenesis? hahaha :)

text:
On Mar 1, 9:13 am, Free Lunch <[email]> wrote:

When it comes to knowledge of science, intelligence, and even ordinary
common sense, I am quantum leaps ahead of you.

I repeat, there is aboslutely no scientific evidence in support of
neither abiogenesis nor ET. It is pure fanciful speculation and
wishful thinking. If you don't agree, then present some evidence. I
know you can't, because there is none. All you can do is cite some
idiotic URLs. Lets see you prove me wrong. Go on. Show us some
evidence...


author: Olrik

subject: Re: Abiogenesis? hahaha :)

text:
Le 2010-03-01 00:30, Jahnu a ï¿½crit :

Do you look exactly like you mother or your father? If not, then
evolution happened.

And in time, say a few thousands years, a mutation might occur where
you'll grow a neuron.


author: Tim Miller

subject: Re: Abiogenesis? hahaha :)

text:
Jahnu wrote:

You do realize that "quantum leaps" are almost invisibly SMALL,
don't you?

More evidence of your ignorance of science?


author: Free Lunch

subject: Re: Abiogenesis? hahaha :)

text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:30:27 -0800 (PST), Jahnu <[email]>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

You are free to say what you want, but it's not true just because you
said so. You have demonstrated your ignorance. That's not too bad. What
is bad is that you are proud of your ignorance, as all of the
evolution-deniers around here are. Even worse, you are boring.

Time for me to ignore your silly nonsense for a while.


author: [redacted]

text:
John McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2d0CKXy8HQ&list=PL32A3140D59BF5772&feature=plpp_play_all

http://tinyurl.com/mccainconfronted

Additional via http://tinyurl.com/mccainussliberty


subject: Re: John McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices

text: Phil, I suggest you follow the Lord's advice when dealing with this fellow and... "go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." - Proverbs 14:7


text:
Another apparent Israel first fifth columnist who more than like would
go on and on about the 'Holocaust' but couldn't care less about Israel
murdering/maiming Americans on the USS Liberty (especially when there
is no statute of limitations for murder as I mentioned in the
following email to John McCain which he still hasn't responded to):

USS Liberty Survivor (Phillip Tourney) Email to Aide about Sen McCain
‘Jerk’ Remark

http://gidusko.webs.com/temp/tourney16.htm

Additional via http://tinyurl.com/mccainussliberty

On Jun 21, 8:29 pm, Gray Guest <[email]> wrote:


author: Gray Guest

text:
[email] wrote in
news:[email]:

Hey idiot, that was 45 years ago. Got anything more current or relevant?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/


text:
[email] wrote in
news:[email]:

I suggest you piss off, ya loon.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/


text:
[email] wrote in news:0288d0bc-93a8-4095-
[email]:

4327-

Oh dear God! Kill yourself ya loon.

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/


author: Bloody Viking

subject: Perverse Effects of Single-Payer. (WAS: uninsured crisis brewing?)

text:
CAUTION: Content is distasteful. Do not read while eating.

Herman Rubin ([email]) wrote:

: Those who would restrict care, and this will be almost an
: immediate result of the costs of centralized insurance, will
: guarantee that good healthcare is not available, just as
: governments have made good education unavailable.

This is the exact problem of single-payer. England is a good example of
healthcare rationing resulting from single-payer. Pick an illness, any
illness. Single-payer would result in healthcare similar to a giant HMO, and
we all know about HMOs.

The only theoretical advantage of single-payer is that the insurer can't try
to shrug costs onto another insurer by hoping the patient loses the job. I'll
use social phobia as an example illness, as I'm all too familiar with it.

In the current system, an insurer would want to undertreat the illness hoping
I lose the current job and the next insurer picks up the tab later when it's
more costly. In this case the patient might develop a complication in the form
of alcohol abuse. Now, if still left untreated by the first insurer, the next
one gets to pay for the eventual liver swap job!

In a single-payer, there is no advantage to undertreatment of social phobia.
It would be way more cost-effective to shell out 10 grand for a thoracic
sympathectomy than wait years later to pay for a 100 grand liver swap-out job.
Since psychotherapy does not work on this disorder even after years of it, 10
grand for a sympathectomy is the most cost-effective treatment. That's becuse
you waste 10 grand or more for ineffective therapy plus 100 grand for the
liver swap-out.

But in reality, the single-payer insurer would simply deny the patient of the
liver swap-out becuse it was caused by "self-abuse" as a result of alcohol
abuse to self-medicate on weekends. So, for this illness, undertreatment will
inevitably occur in a single-payer regime.

Single-payer in this case causes the perverse result of causing patients with
this illness to attempt self-treatment, whether by alcohol abuse,
self-medication with beta blockers or sympathetic nervous system blockers, or
DIY sympathectomy. Self-surgery is not as far-fetched as it first sounds. In
the medical literature, there was at least one attempt made by a DIY surgeon
to denervate his adrenals. Such an attempt at self-surgery by a desperate
patient has the perverse effect of jacking up costs for treatment as it's yet
another possible complication of mental illness, which social phobia is.

In the 1979 self-surgery case, the self-surgeon went into an ER for post-op
care, and of course that's costly. Of course, he was hospitalised afterward
for psych observation. Anyone attempting self-surgery for any reason would
have to inevitably check into an ER for post-op care. A modern-day
self-surgeon would likely use a homebrew laparoscope/endoscope tool, but would
still need the ER post-op care.

For the purposes of causing cost increases, the self-surgery attempt needn't
succeed nor fix the problem if it does. Granted, self-surgery cases are rare,
but could be more common due to healthcare denial in a single-payer system. In
that case, the patient has nobody to turn to for help.

I can use myself and the sympathectomy as an example. The job costs $10,000
out of pocket. In a single-payer system that denies this job, I would plain
not be able to afford to get this job done. I have several choices:

Living with the social phobia and hyperhidrosis.
Self-medicate by going to Mexico to get beta blockers or sympathetic blockers.
Self-medicate with alcohol.
Do the sympathectomy myself.

Obviously, none of these choices are any good. All 4 are dangerous and can
result in complications, adding further to costs. It would be vastly better to
have the proper treatment in the first place. A single-payer plan, like an HMO
results in undertreatment and imposes the above non-options as "choices".

As you can see with my social phobia example, undertreatment has consequences
that are dangerous complications of the original disorder. But other illnesses
are the same way. High blood pressure is a classic. (which I also have) In
this case, the typical HMO engages in undertreatment hoping for instant and
cheap death by heart attack. The HMOs will invariably prescribe diet/exercise,
a regimen that fails in 90 percent of cases due to non-compliance. They are
too cheap to prescribe generic propranolol!

A single-payer system would likely follow the lead of the HMOs with this
illness, again hoping for instant death on a jogging path. Again, the patient
would have to go to Mexico to self-medicate, at least at first and seeing
doctors only after getting "hooked" onto the blood pressure drugs checking his
own blood pressure with a checker bought at an Osco.

To make matters worse, if one does self-medicate, they will choose drugs not
based on cardiac compatibility but for side effect benefits. This results in
improper care! An example is if I had to self-medicate my high blood pressure
and social phobia. There are two drugs I would consider for this: Labetalol
and guanethidine. One is a beta blocker/alpha blocker and the other a
sympathetic nervous system blocker.

As it stands, I'm on metoprolol for high blood pressure, and when I first
started on it, I enjoyed a month of not having social phobia. But metoprolol
is too selective a beta blocker for me to get the social benefit anymore. I
would have to switch to a different blood pressure drug to self-medicate for
the social phobia. But it may not be quite cardiac-compatible. But if I can't
get treatment for the social phobia, I'm left with no choice but to drive to
Mexico to change meds myself before seeking out a new doctor.


author: jenwolf

subject: Re: Perverse Effects of Single-Payer. (WAS: uninsured crisis brewing?)

text:
Bloody Viking wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. From what I saw of Finland's system, the
people didn't seem to be lacking in the treatments they needed, but
truthfully I wasn't there long enough to really get an idea what it's
all about.

So we make it so it's not like an HMO.


text:
Bloody Viking wrote:

Or Kill yourself.

Boy, wouldn't the HMOs squeal with delight if suicide/assisted suicide
were legal!


author: Jerome Bigge

text:
On 21 Dec 1999 01:40:36 GMT, [email] (Bloody Viking) wrote:

You make a very good case for elimination of prescription laws.

However, those without insurance here in the US would be far
better off with "single payer" than they are now.  And people
would not have to worry about losing their jobs, not being able
to get medical coverage again, which happens more often than
we like to admit.  My wife is in this position.  Enough "pre-existing"
conditions that no insurer would ever touch her.  High blood pressure,
diabetic (insulin dependent), two heart attacks, about 100 pounds over-
weight (partially due to the diabetes).  A bad back, severe arthritis. carpal
tunnel problems due to her work.  So we'd be better off with single payer.
Whatever "flaws" single payer has, (and I'm aware of them), it is still a
lot better than what we have now.  We do have coverage through her
employer, but this depends upon things we have no control over.

I am 100% in favor of single payer.  I do however feel that some
plans are better than others.  This I'm willing to discuss, but so
far as I'm concerned, there is really no practical alternative...

Jerome Bigge

CompTIA A+ Certified Computer Technician
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"


author: George Conklin

text:
In article <83mlqk$dv9$[email]>,
Bloody Viking <[email]> wrote:

   Funny.  They have universal access, with everyone getting
health care, only a dream in the USA.  They have better
results. We ration health care all over the place only we
lie about it by saying that the uninsured are not severly
rationed all the time.   Herman teaches at a state-supported
university and thus proves that quality education is not
possible at such a place by personal example.


text:
Jerome Bigge ([email]) wrote:

: You make a very good case for elimination of prescription laws.

Indeed, I do. However, I'm a special case. While eliminating Prescription
would work for me it would have adverse side effects like addiction with most
people. The original purpose for Prescription was for cuttind down on misuse
of drugs by lay people.

A fact is that there are not too many lay people out there who could in fact
handle the availability of all drugs. A good excample is antibiotics. I
needn't point out the hazards of drugs like codeine for pain.

: However, those without insurance here in the US would be far
: better off with "single payer" than they are now.  And people

This is also true. Again, I'm the special case person. A single-payer system
would work out for MOST people, but for me it would plain not. I would end up
resorting to the DIY sympathectomy. Others in my position would likely resort
to suicide, since most people have no idea that self-surgery is possible,
albeit quite dangerous.

A large problem with my exact position is the fact that most people are not in
a position to practise DIY Medicine. When you practise DIY Medicine, you have
to be good and careful. To a large extent, I do DIY Medicine, so I know this
fact with wanting to be careful.


subject: OT: The confusing case of Alice Crimmins: promiscuity and killed kids

text:
The confusing case of Alice Crimmins: promiscuity and killed kids
By Denise Noe

The Alice Crimmins case broke in 1965 when the two young children of
the attractive, red-haired woman, who was separated from her husband,
were found dead in different vacant lots.  My first encounter with the
sensational case was through a lightly fictionalized 1978 made-for-TV
movie starring Tuesday Weld as Crimmins stand-in Doris Winters.

After seeing this movie, I was puzzled by something. The bad-guy
detective character roughly asks the Crimmins figure, "How come your
men friends outnumber your girlfriends four to one?"

The reason this seemed strange is that I was well aware of the women's
liberation movement whose members were frequently criticized as man-
haters and lesbians.  Wouldn't a woman with mostly male friends be the
opposite and therefore someone admired by those with traditional
values?  I asked a high school friend of my own if it was in fact
bizarre for a woman's male friends to outnumber her female friends
four-to-one.  He replied, "Oh, that would be very unusual."  I said,
"But I've always heard that women don't like or trust each other."  He
said, "They don't but they're usually kind of stuck with each other.
About the only way it could happen that most of a woman's friends
would be men would be if she worked in a field that was mostly male or
if she was very promiscuous."

Alice Crimmins had attracted so many men friends because she had in
fact been promiscuous.

My next encounter with the case was through a book called The Alice
Crimmins Case by Ken Gross.  The book is extremely readable and
dramatic.  It brings the reader close to Alice Crimmins and strongly
suggests that her convictions - she was tried twice and convicted both
times - were miscarriages of justice.

Unfortunately, Gross attempts to impose a feminist interpretation on
her life. He writes, "The Alice Crimmins case, I came to believe, was
perceived as frightening because the women's movement was just coming
into existence when the case broke, and the implications - a housewife
grown rebellious and out of control - terrified those who felt a stake
in maintaining the status quo."  He describes her as having "broken
the social taboos of her class, of her religion, and of her sex."
Gross also terms her (completely: she told a woman she could not
handle a lesbian relationship) heterosexual promiscuity an example of
"female emancipation."

A feminist interpretation of Alice Crimmins' life simply does not fit.
In fact, Gross' own evidence shows her as a woman with profoundly
traditional ideals about the relations between the sexes. Gross writes
that one reason for her alienation from her husband was that "he
tended to fall apart in a crisis. She wanted someone strong, someone
she could lean on." At another point, Alice confided that she lost
respect for him because "he was an airline mechanic but he couldn't
even fix his own car!"

Crimmins was the polar opposite of the era's "women's libbers" in
other respects. While they were known for rejecting the idea that
women should be judged by their appearance, Crimmins put a premium on
hers.  Even when her daughter had been found dead and her son was
still missing, she insisted on applying her make-up before being
interviewed by police officers.

Asked what she thought of the feminist movement, she replied, "Oh, I'm
for equal pay for equal work but not for all the far-out things. I
don't hate men. I believe women are put on this earth to serve men. A
man should be dominant. I believe in women's liberation, but not at
the price of my femininity."

Many years after reading about the Crimmins case in Gross' book, I
researched the case for an article that would eventually be published
in Court TV's Crime Library. I got hold of another book about it,
"Ordeal By Trial" by George Carpozi, Jr. Carpozi is not Crimmins'
champion. His more objective reporting shows that the evidence against
her was stronger than Gross indicated it was.  However, he ends his
book writing, "I'm not convinced that Alice Crimmins killed her
children. Nor am I convinced that she didn't."

Like Carpozi, I ultimately found the heavily disputed evidence
inadequate to sustain a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, two juries convicted her.

Her promiscuity may have been a factor. At her first trial, one juror
commented, "A tramp like that is capable of anything." A female
spectator at one of her trials said she found it hard to believe any
mother would kill her children "but a woman like that . . . it makes
it easier to understand."

I believe that an element of prejudice did indeed tip the scales
against Alice Crimmins.  However, that prejudice was not because she
in any way personified feminism. This promiscuous woman was quite
happily dependent on men for both financial and emotional support as
well as sexual gratification.  Rather, with her thick make-up, seeming
vanity, and packed social calendar, she represented the stereotype of
an old-fashioned femme fatale.

At least, that is my take on the case. I would be most interested in
learning what others think of it.  My story on this most baffling
murder case is featured in a Crime Library series called Unhappy
Moments in American Justice. The Crimmins section is at
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/crimmins/1.html.

Readers?


author: Quadibloc

subject: Re: OT: The confusing case of Alice Crimmins: promiscuity and killed kids

text:
Ray Fischer wrote:
.

Ah, but you *should* be able to see my point.

Restricting abortion does not enslave the woman for the needs of the
fetus. It prevents her from exploiting the fetus for her own sake.

The fact that the sex act gained comes *before* the crime of murder
that facilitates it matters not one whit. Fetuses aren't injured by
sex, but they're certainly injured by abortion.

John Savard


author: elizabeth

text:
On Mar 13, 5:34 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

the fetus is exploiting and harming her considerably.

And the fact is, most zygotes die long before birth.
There is a much higher spontaneous abortion and stillbirth rate than
is commonly known, which is a factor in why women who have failed
pregnancies have so many problems coping.
And the fact is that abortion is not, nor has it ever been, murder,
even when it was unlawful.
And the fact is we can't and won't take care of the children here now,
so forcing women to gestate is pure evil, and proves you hate children
even more than you hate women.


text:
elizabeth wrote:

Taking care of the children here now is a separate question.

Making it legal to shoot six-month-olds to solve the problem of
starving three-year-olds is not the right direction to move in to
create a society founded on humane principles.

John Savard


text:
On Mar 14, 5:34 am, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Actually, most young children are killed by their parents or
caretakers .. . esp those who didn't want a child in the first
place .. . so you are in favor of killing children, since that is a
forseeable outcome of mandating gestation.  Even people who want a kid
are most likely to abuse/kill it.

You just love to see women and children suffer, savvy.

That's why your mother should have taken it up the ass.
The world would be a better place if she'd flushed you down the
sewer.  Instead you live there.


text:
On Mar 10, 7:08 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:
snip

So is life these days.  We haven't been "natural" for generations.
Dying of communicable diseases is "natural" and vaccinations is not
natural.

I'll stick with all the unnaturalness of modern life and modern
medicine.

When there is no more rape, then maybe you might begin to have some
kind of a point, but fact is, men using women for sex is so
normalized, it will take a long time and a lot of work to change that
situation.

Killing them is so slow!


text:
Robert wrote:

The darky's importance is based solely on his master's choice, and is
none of your damyankee business.

John Savard


text:
elizabeth wrote:

Indeed.

The idea that men have such a "need" for sex that it licenses them to
enslave women is apparently assumed by many.

But because women can fight back, this kind of thinking has found a
new outlet.

Why not just tell women that their children aren't really children
until they're born, so they will cooperate in having them killed? That
will make sex less bother for them, and they'll be more likely to put
up with it.

Just as the "need" for sex is used to excuse rape, to excuse the
economic exclusion of women, it's also behind abortion. It blinds
people against even considering that human life doesn't magically
begin when some high priest issues a birth certificate.

Only if people recognize that sex is a choice - something people do on
their own, for their own benefit - and that those who choose it are
responsible for their choice will we stop treating it as a license to
harm others.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

That's simply silly, because you could justify infanticide in
precisely the same way.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Ah, so it's *already* safe, legal, *and* rare. Bill Clinton should be
pleased.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

It is natural and common that people choose to engage in sex, but that
is still a chosen action on their part. Rape is violent, wicked, and
hence unnatural.

It isn't a natural consequence of a date the way that going "splat" is
a natural consequence of jumping out of a fifteenth-story window.

But pregnancy *is* a natural consequence of sex *in just that way*.
It's not certain, it's just likely if you have sex often enough. It
doesn't involve human choice, thought, or action, it happens in
nature, and is a physical causal process for which there is no human
responsible act after sex took place.

Once a woman is pregnant, the only way she has to get out of being
pregnant early is to have someone kill the child with whom she is
pregnant. That's a fact. It's not a question of "punishing" the woman
for having sex, it's a question of *not* punishing the innocent child
for what the woman was one of the people who chose.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:
.

Abortion does, in fact, kill.

That the goal is escaping from pregnancy does not change things. The
goal of an armed bank robber is unearned wealth, not the death of
security guards, tellers, or police. But that is no excuse.

Neither is escaping from pregnancy, at the cost of an innocent child's
death, a legitimate option.

John Savard


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

The patient who benefits may take a risk.

And cancer cells and microbes are not worth worrying about.

But killing innocent unborn children to facilitate sexual freedom is
another matter. That is exploitative. Your argument makes no sense -
except, of course, by assuming the most important link - that the
fetus is somehow unimportant.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

Would it be desirable not to hate serial killers?

I do not claim sainthood, but I think my reasoning does not leave me
open to all these charges of being vicious and evil. Unless, of
course, some fact not yet mentioned in this discussion needs to be
brought forwards.

Obviously, the power to make up any rules I feel like, and impose them
on others, would be the power of tyranny. I don't seek that. I simply
want the rules we live under to be just ones.

We live under rules that forbid Negro slavery. At one time, this was
not true. Those who sought to change the rules were not evil: they
sought greater justice.

To say that a fetus is not a child because children are born - by
definition - allows an *arbitrary* definition to rule us. Unless it is
explained *why* being born matters, I have no reason to have any
confidence that "white" might not be piled upon "born" as a
qualification people need to have rights.

The argument most often advanced is that the woman who is pregnant has
rights. That certainly is reasonable. Nor do we just go ahead and
allow the taking of anything from anyone even to save a life.

But the "choice" argument falls on its face. Using the same criteria
that we *normally* use in evaluating dealings between people, it is
clear that instead of hindering abortion being stealing from women so
that fetuses might live, allowing abortion is stealing from fetuses so
that women might have sexual freedom.

Of course, if one doesn't take seriously the claim that a fetus is
just as much a human being, like it or not, as a born person, one
might not see the flaw in the choice argument.

If, of course, a fetus is not in fact a human being, then we can kill
it when we like to serve our purposes, just as we kill cattle to put
meat on our tables. But no serious argument is advanced to demonstrate
this. Is a fetus devoid of metabolic processes? Does it have no brain?
Is there no electrical activity in its brain?

It seems that the whole argument for legalized abortion is based on
fuzzy logic.

A fetus is almost not a person, and restricting abortion is almost
forcing a woman to make sacrifices so as to keep a child alive. If
either a fetus were definitely not a person, or restricting abortion
really were forcing a woman to make sacrifices so as to keep a child
alive, abortion would be all right. Since both of them are nearly
true, surely they add up to a case for abortion?

Deductive logic doesn't work like this!

John Savard


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

Many people support the continued existence of legalized abortion.

Human fetuses are human organisms in an immature state of development.

Abortion is performed on private initiative, and it is premeditated.

If a belief is unreasonable, the right to act based on that belief is
more limited.

People seem to think that, even IF a fetus were a human child, the
fact that a woman freely chose the sexual act that made her pregnant
with that child DOES NOT mean that laws that say she can't have an
abortion in that circumstance - placing the consequences of the sexual
act on her - are more fair than laws that say she can have an abortion
- leading to the fetus, instead, paying with its life.

If that *isn't* saying that women aren't responsible for choosing to
have sex, then I invite those who make this argument to explain what
they *are* saying.

John Savard