text:
On Mar 8, 7:18 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:
snip

And since men haev no consequences if they FREELY CHOOSE to rape women
and to coerce them into having sex, it follows that men are totally
irresponsible and therefore should be castrated, since they are so out
of control, and since they have no negative sequela to sex--that's
right, in your view, children are PUNISHMENT TO HAVING SEX, so there
are no restraints on men, which is why your assumptions are full of
shit.

And there is no rape, and women are never ever ever forced to trade
sexual access for protection and support . ..
YEAH FUCKING RIGHT, savvy.  Absolute insanity, since most women in the
world don't get to FREELY CHOOSE SEX, but are coerced.

then I invite those who make this argument to explain what

I'm saying that men who feel that children are punishment to women for
having sex should be castrated with rusty pliers.
And then forced to care for all of the unwanted, discarded children on
the streets and in foster gulags.


author: Quadibloc

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

text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:

And, while no one calls for the murder of innocent ones whom *you*
call children, of course, as you say, legal abortion has supporters.

And human fetuses are, in fact, human children. It's just lying bigots
who try to put a different face on abortion than that. So I'm not the
one telling lies. There was no deceit in my post: I wasn't trying to
accuse people who support legal abortion of supporting *other* kinds
of killing innocent children, it was very clear it was abortion I was
talking about.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

No.

Gametes can be differentiated from children relatively simply, on a
*principled* basis.

Fetuses and infants, however, are very similar. Drawing a dividing
line between them *is* clearly and obviously arbitrary.

A sperm cell doesn't develop into a child. A fetus does grow to be a
human adult.

The fetus just takes in nourishment and oxygen and stuff like that.

The sperm cell has to conjoin with a second source of additional
controlling genetic material.

The controlling, directing genetic material identifies the organism.
This is why we say that when one organism eats another, the other
organism dies, but the one doing the eating remains itself, not
becoming partly the other organism.

John Savard


text:
elizabeth wrote:

For one thing, I do not condone rape.

For another thing, we all have to trade in order to live. Men work in
boring, exhausting, or dangerous jobs to purchase food, because they
do not own farms of their own.

Also, I am not trying to settle moral questions for the Third World.

Instead, I look at the Western democracies, in which women have very
nearly achieved equality.

I quite agree with you that it is a terrible crime for men to make
thralls of women in order to satiate their lust.

But to demote unborn children to the status of animals, which may be
killed at will, to make sex more convenient is to commit the *same*
crime with a different victim. Those who don't shrink from killing an
innocent unborn child, so that the woman pregnant with that child will
find sex, even under unnatural circumstances, an alternative easily
chosen... won't shrink from exploiting women either.

I intend that sex shall not exist except as something freely chosen by
women as well as men. As co-equal partners, sharing responsibility for
it, neither one of them will have an excuse for exploiting a third
party, and shifting the burdens of sex to that party.

Now, it happens that men are indeed of such a restive nature that men
who don't have a sexual partner are unhappy, and likely to try to
better their economic position by disruptive means so that they might
be able to find a mate.

Since our society at least claims to abominate rape, and I do in fact
abominate rape, on the one hand, and since societies do need internal
stability in order to survive and defend themselves, I see that a
terrible paradox exists. Unlike others, I do not shrink from this
fact, I do not deny the existence of this problem.

Instead, I call upon our society to face the paradox and solve it. To
fulfill both requirements: the need to satiate the hungers of men, and
the obligation to respect the rights of women. We must do both.

Instead, we seem to choose to do neither.

We allow the men at the top to exploit women. And we protect ourselves
from the men at the bottom by repression.

Actually, I don't have much objection to strict law enforcement
against common criminals, and I don't accept as an excuse that someone
was "at the bottom" because of refusal to pay attention in school.
What I instead condemn is *putting* men at the bottom in the first
place, in denying men the opportunity to use their talents to good
effect in honest work.

Where revolution is not an option, crime is to be expected.

Back in 1965, the Germans were building thorium breeder reactors. To
claim we don't have enough oil, or that we have to cut back because of
global warming is, therefore, a lie. We don't need to wait for fusion
power to make a decent life for everyone.

So we put our society to work, building thorium breeder reactors,
building factories, stimulating the economy without going into debt
because we go back to the policies of the 1960s - full employment
first, then lower tariffs if, as, and when our exports give us the
money to be able to afford to buy imports.

But that isn't enough. That could just create a world like that of
today, only more so. Today's electronic toys are *already* cheap
enough so that even black people can afford them. Electronic toys
don't make a man happy.

Certainly, it will *help* if men have useful jobs producing valuable
things, and if they're paid at union wages. Such men will have pride
in themselves and respect for themselves. Most of them might even be
lovable.

But that might not be enough. And then our society will finally have
to face the terrible paradox that menaces it. Because by that time,
Russia will have settled down, and so we won't be able to solve things
just by making immigration easier for single women, exporting the
problem to the rest of the world.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Outright lies?

No, fetuses and infants really are similar.

Self-serving hypocrisy?

Now, that is perhaps a charge to be examined more seriously. After
all, the fetus has a woman connected to it.

I agree with you that the fetus doesn't have the right to exploit the
woman to survive. But I also agree with you the woman doesn't have the
right to kill.

Yet I come to the opposite conclusion about abortion than you do.
Hypocrisy is to be suspected under such a circumstance.

My reasoning on this point is:

- a man and a woman have chosen to have sex;

- pregnancy and gestation have arisen from this as a natural
consequence; thus

- the natural and pre-existing situation is that the embryo or fetus
is connected to the woman, and derives sustenance from that
connection.

Breaking that connection, even *if* medical technology didn't require
one to do it by killing the fetus bloodily first, is normally murder,
just like unplugging someone's respirator is normally murder. Try
finding the fetus' signature on a living will.

It's not hypocrisy to point out that pregnancy really does differ
from, say, having arranged to have money withdrawn from one's bank
account every month for Oxfam. Reproductive biology is just a pre-
existing natural fact, and to acknowledge it as it is does not
constitute unfairness to women.

That isn't to say that natural circumstances cannot be unfair to
women, just as the political acts of men are often unfair to women. I
just claim that unsound thinking can result in attempts to remedy the
problems of women that just shift the burden to another group even
more voiceless and defenseless. Sound thinking, on the other hand, can
lead us to just and righteous action.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

You want bigotry?

Treating a young child as though he or she were just a puppy or
kitten, who we may drown or otherwise humanely kill if we don't choose
to accept the burden of feeding it, simply because that young child
hasn't transitioned from placental oxygen exchange to respiratory
breathing. That's bigotry.

You want life-altering decisions?

Abortion alters life to death.

You want to fool around, and you don't want to take care of a kid
afterwards? They have pills for that now. Why whine that you need the
right to kill children too before you can be content?

John Savard


author: elizabeth

text:
On Mar 10, 2:40 am, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Sure you do.  And it's very, very common, whether you condone it or
not.  So the fact remains, most women in the world can"t "just say no"
and if children are punishment for sex, you are in favor of punishing
only women, which gives men no incentive to quit raping and abusing
women.

So you condone rape and sexual servitude after all.  I knew that
already.

Happens right here in the usa too, fuckwad.

but are still raped, abused, and forced into sexual servitude.  Not
all women are safe, just the wealthiest.
IOW, you condone rape.

So then castrate the men and shut the fuck up about what women do.
Castration is very safe, unlike pregnancy and childbirth.

Nope.  No such comparison was made, in the first place.  And you can't
kill animals at will anymore.

snip> I intend that sex shall not exist except as something freely
chosen by

fine, when you achieve that, then come back and tell us how you did
it.

snip invalid irrelavent story about nothing


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

I am not sure how you infer hatred from my post.

I don't want innocent children to be killed. I believe that it isn't
reasonable to think that fetuses aren't children. I think adults are
the ones responsible for their own freely chosen sexual activities.

On what basis do you justify using an emotionally-loaded term like
"hate" about a position that starts from such premises?

John Savard


text:
On Mar 7, 9:31 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

forcing women to gestate against their will is a clear indication of
hate, at best.

A fetus is not a child, and can be neither innocent nor guilty.
And we kill children, and adults, by omission and comission all the
time--few of them are "guilty" in any sense.
Unlike fetuses, they can and do suffer.

You can believe what you wish, but no society nor legal code has ever
considered your opinion to have any validity.
and since only women gestate, you wish to punish only women for sex,
and not men, yet men are known to force sex, and coerce sex, from
almost all of the women in the world.

Because it is all about hating women, wavysavy.


text:
On Mar 2, 9:40 pm, [email] (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Wrong.  I merely point out to the womenhaters that banning abortion
won't end it, you have to ban unwanted pregnancy, and castration is
the only 100% effective, 100% safe, and inexpensive way to completely
end unwanted pregnancy.

Which would end abortion.  I don't mind the existance of abortion,
dearie.

And that is pure projection on your part.
Want some cheez with that whinge?


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

But they do choose to participate in sex.

It's a choice. Why should other people pay for a woman's activities?

Sex is, after all, optional.

Now, this argument would be severely weakened if sex were not merely
*as natural* as breathing, but *as essential* as breathing to life.
While it's true that we need to engage in sex to reproduce, and we are
mortal, since that doesn't excuse rape, it doesn't excuse abortion as
a means to greater sexual activity either.

On the other hand, if Ms. Frantes was right...

ordinary women, as opposed to a few exceptionally wealthy or talented
college graduates, if they try to make a living on their own, are
condemned to lives of grinding poverty...

so they have to get married instead...

and to get married, they have to date men, and often when dating men,
it's a choice between yielding to the sexual importunings of these
muscular beasts or risking a violent rape (and likely murder
afterwards)...

so that sex isn't a choice for women, it's just something they *have*
to put up with, before marriage (where having a child won't make you
permanently unmarriageable, and the alternative, placing the child up
for adoption, would haunt any human being with real feelings for the
rest of her life, and so is not an option) as well as after...

then one could say that a law against abortion only trades an
injustice against the embryo for an injustice against the woman, and
does not make the situation more just.

While I don't think the abjectness of this scenario is universal,
perhaps it's common enough that we do need laws to restrict
exploitative male sexual activity. I thought we already had such laws,
but perhaps they're not very effective.

Maybe we put up with this because our glorious democratic system
(designed by men, admittedly) depends on placing tight limits on the
intrusion of government into private spheres of activity. That has
been an argument for legal abortion too, although I think it's
inapplicable here, since neither Negro slavery, nor beating up East
Indians is "private"; it affects someone else, a victim. If an embryo
can be a victim, though, certainly children can be victims of child
abuse - and women can be victims of spousal abuse - and our society
has overcome some initial reluctance to intrude into the family to
take action against these scourges.

Sometimes I despair at how this problem can be resolved. How can we
achieve a world where every man gets laid, and no woman is ever
pressured into sex against her preference (not merely "her will", to
make it clear I'm talking about much more than what is currently
recognized as rape)? Plastic robot women, maybe?

Who said I was against abortion on legitimate medical grounds?

But to use the normal risks of a *healthy* pregnancy as the excuse for
abortions really sought for other reasons is dishonest.

John Savard


text:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
.
.
.
.
The embryo or fetus with whom she is pregnant. Of course, if you can
show that it is reasonable to deny that it is the same as a born baby
as far as its right not to be unjustly killed is concerned, then there
would be no problem.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Embryos don't really choose to implant, but adults do really choose to
have sex.

When people make choices, and they know these choices have a certain
natural probability of a natural result, why wouldn't *they* be the
ones responsible, instead of someone else with no choice in the matter
who is just carried along for the ride?

You can call this a lie if you want. You can say that abortion is like
a woman defending herself from a legally incompetent knife-wielding
maniac.

But that doesn't appear to be the case.

A woman being attacked by a legally incompetent knife-wielding maniac
is an event set in motion by the events in the twisted mind of said
legally incompetent knife-wielding maniac.

A woman having an early-stage embryo implanting in her endometrium is
an event set in motion *by her having had sex*.

For her to say, no, I won't stay pregnant, instead I'll pass off this
cost as an externality to my unborn child by killing him or her is for
her to obtain gain for herself, sexual freedom, at the expense of
other people, the unborn children with whom she might become pregnant.

She decides to have sex. She decides to have abortion.

Her embryo didn't decide to exploit her like a vampire. Her embryo
didn't invent the way humans reproduce, or design the gestational
process.

Either allowing abortion enables the woman to exploit her unborn
child, or prohibiting abortion allows the unborn child to exploit the
woman. To determine which is the case, I examine who has performed the
volitional choices which led to the situation. And I find the woman,
not the embryo, made those choices. So shifting the costs of the
situation from the woman to the embryo is not justice.

If I'm wrong, you'll have to supply more of an explanation than just
calling me a liar.

John Savard


text:
elizabeth wrote:

(snip)

In order to make sense out of a complicated world, we do have to
generalize and simplify.

When I look out the window at the world around me, I don't see a
perfect world.

But rape is still the exception and not the rule. The world I believe
I live in bears no resemblance to, say, Gor, the world in the novels
of John Norman which present a fantasy of a world in which sexual
thralldom is the universal lot of Woman.

Since most of the time, women choose to engage in sex or not - women
can take jobs, and there's no law against being single - the
conclusion that a woman is generally a responsible party to the sex
act seems a reasonable one for constructing law and public policy.

John Savard


text:
On Mar 1, 7:53 pm, [email] (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Wrong.

Too many women are victims, and far too many men are perpetrators.
When that balances, you might have a point.

I'd prefer that it be balanced by men being less violent than women
getting more violent . ..  but being nice hasn't worked to stop men
from not hurting women, so why not play by the same rules?   If women
stopped taking so much shit from men and fought back, men would find
reasons to cut that shit out.  Because women basically let men get
away with it, it continues.


text:
elizabeth wrote:

I'm sure Pierre Trudeau would have gotten around to it eventually.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

If someone were to kidnap a woman, and drain her blood to keep a baby
alive, of course that would be evil.

Because there's the woman, minding her own business - and the needs of
the baby don't create a right to steal from her or do violence to her.

In abortion, though, the _status quo ante_ is that the fetus is
minding its own business. Gestation is a natural process - the human
actors responsible for its taking place are the people who chose to
have sex, *not* the fetus, who is just its beneficiary.

Women who abort to escape from a pregnancy that *they* brought into
existence by their sexual choices... do violence to others (innocent
fetuses) to obtain gain for themselves (sexual freedom). They're the
ones doing the taking, the interfering.

Nature is just something that *is*, and people know in the first place
before they're old enough to have sex that it makes babies.

John Savard


text:
On Feb 28, 9:58 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:
snip

The problem is that men refuse to listen to No.
And that's why sexual assualt, sexual slavery, etc still continue.
Because of what *men* do, not women.

when men stop forcing women to have sex, or are responsible enough to
get vasectomies, which is the cheapest, safest, most effective method
of contraception available, women will continue to have unwanted
pregnancies, and *that* is the proximal cause of abortion.

But you have demonstrated that you prefer to ignore reality that
conflicts with your perverted world view, which is why in a just
society, you would be put somewhere where you couldn't hurt anyone and
medicated so that your psychotic behaviour would be under control.

Good thing that people like you aren't listened to anymore.


text:
On Feb 28, 10:58 pm, [email] (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Far fewer than men have been convicted for rape . .. and that's not
counting all the cases where the woman's word was not deemed
sufficient.

Like with Richard Allen Davies.  You know, the dude who killed Polly
Klass.  He had been arrested for a particularly brutal sexual assault,
but the DA dropped the sex charges so he wouldn't have to register as
a sex offender.

If that woman's word had been taken seriously, Davies would not have
been free and would have been under at least some sort of control, not
free to repeat his crimes.


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Yes, she should be grateful she doesn't have to supply four male
witnesses.

That is a difficult offense to prove as well.

If only 2% of rapes end in conviction, and we can't improve that
number very much without making it possible for a malicious woman to
easily convict any man she chooses, then we have to try something
else.

How about making the penalty for rape...

death by torture.

Three weeks of torture, say.

Maybe that kind of penalty, even *with* the small chance of
conviction, would be enough to deter *some* of the sick monsters who
commit rapes.

But I know that this would be an un-American solution. Cruel and
unusual punishment is un-Constitutional.

OK, then, the solution is right there in the Constitution.

Some of your American jurisdictions have this law that if somebody
*isn't* known to be a dangerous criminal, the local police have to
issue them a concealed weapon permit, like it or not. And in those
jurisdictions, violent crime goes way down - at least, so the gun
lobby says.

Women are smaller and weaker than men. What's wrong with a little
equalization?

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

Do people who get cancer have to steal and kill to get their
treatment? No.

Abortion is only objectionable because it *hurts someone else*, the
fetus killed by it.

John Savard


text:
elizabeth wrote:

Of course I assume exactly that - that women can Just Say No.

That unless sex is actually and obviously rape, a rare and exceptional
violent crime, then it has two partners who are jointly and severally
responsible for it.

And so, when the unfortunate fetus sues for gestational services, it
goes after the one with the deep pockets - the women. Men are so
incompetent at being pregnant.

Now this blithe assumption that women are as responsible for sex as
men almost all the time *does* depart somewhat from reality, even if
it fits with a certain... sentimentalized... view thereof. But the
opposite picture - that women almost never have a choice, that they
are the abject sexual slaves of men, and thus assigning moral
responsibility to them for their sexual behavior is a bad joke - isn't
quite accurate either, I would think.

John Savard


text:
On Feb 28, 3:38 am, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

But we don't.  Only about 2% of rapes end in conviction.  Rape is a
very easy crime to get away with--because the woman is always held
accountable for what men do, even now.

Then please do so, since it's never been tried before.
Castration is much simpler and easier.  And way cheaper than going to
trial.

Wrong again, asswipe.  The cause of abortion is unwanted pregnancy,
and since most women in the world can't Just Say No, expecting women
to control what men do won't work.

But you don't give a damn about women, or men, or children--you just
hate women for having sex, and feel that children are punishment . ..
you are beyond evil.


text:
On Feb 27, 5:24 pm, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

A fetus is not a child, and can be neither innocent nor guilty.
It is, however, harming the woman.

So only women are responsible for pregnancy?
So you are asserting that men are totally out of control, can't be
held responsible .. .. then we should just castrate the men, which is
very cheap, very, very safe, and 100% effective in eliminating
unwanted pregnancy.

And only the woman has to pay with her body, so it's fine with the
JohnnyWhacker.


text:
elizabeth wrote:

No, but we can't do much to them that will directly help the fetus,
can we?

Certainly we can punish men for rape.

We can even punish men for knowingly having intercourse with women who
they know aren't contracepting, who they know are likely to abort if
they become pregnant. Or even just being careless about those things.

But that's not directly relevant to the abortion issue, so I only
discuss that very occasionally.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

No. Pregnancy is not sustained by acts of will on the part of the
woman.

Yes, the woman is stuck with a parasite... but she may not kill an
innocent child to escape this misfortune.

It's like someone embezzling money to pay a gambling debt.

Because although the fetus is the parasite, it's adult sexuality, not
the course of nature, that is responsible for the parasitism.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

I would certainly agree - *if* we were talking about, say, forcing a
woman to become pregnant. To carry an embryo that was in frozen
storage at a fertility clinic, for example.

But we're talking about a woman who is *already* pregnant. Pregnancy
is natural, not imposed by the government.

To end the pregnancy, you have to kill the fetus, and that's a worse
use of its body than gestation is of the woman's body.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Perhaps I just define "actively" differently than you do.

I see that I *spell* it differently than you do.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

That may be, but then it ought to be easy to explain *why*.

I can see that what I think isn't important to you. But I don't know
how intelligent you are, and even if you are an intelligent person,
that wouldn't mean you were typical of intelligent people in general.

John Savard


author: [redacted]

text:
Hi, John.  Did you read my article on the Alice Crimmins case?  I'd be
very interested in any thoughts you might have.


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

You can look at it that way.

However, the poster to which I was replying simply said that life
begins at birth. He didn't explain which possible definition of life
he was using.

Obviously, metabolic processes and cell division *don't* begin at
birth.

It's true that "for the past several millenia", we tend to reckon
people's lives from birth. But that may simply be a convention, to
have a simple verifiable point from which to compare people's ages. It
doesn't have to be a real belief that people's lives have no value
until they are born.

Also, we know perfectly well that popular beliefs can be wrong. Even
universally held ones. The idea that all people's lives have equal
value, and they all deserve equal rights, even if they *speak a
different language* and *live under a different government* is an idea
of very recent development and spread.

Thus, if you are going to make a claim that a living human organism
shouldn't be protected by law against being killed - because this is
an extraordinary claim, that risks violating the rights of innocent
babies - you had better back it up.

And what can you back it up with?

Do all fetuses, at all points in pregnancy, have absolutely zero
electrical activity in their brains? Zero, zip, nada?

No.

Then how can you claim that killing *them* doesn't matter?

Between a human adult and a horse, there is an absolute clear-cut
chasm - Mister Ed notwithstanding, no horse has EVER spoken. Between a
human adult and a rock or a chair, there is an absolute clear-cut
chasm - a human is alive, a rock or a chair is an inanimate thing.

Exhibit a similar clear-cut chasm between newborn babies and fetuses.

Birth?

Why should birth matter? Both before and after, we're dealing with
something that's human, and alive, but not able to talk and do the
other fancy specifically human things.

Exhibit an obvious yawning gap between us and those you want it to be
legal to kill.

Show that this distinction isn't just arbitrary, it isn't just derived
from traditional or cultural attitudes, but it is a *principled*
distinction. That is, it's a rule such that, if we landed on another
planet, and found apparently living beings there, the rule wouldn't
have to be changed for the new case, instead it would work to help us
figure out what to do.

If you can't meet those simple requests, then the default behavior is
to include what are apparently human children under the penumbra of
the laws which prohibit wilful homicide.

But you know that you *can't* answer my questions. So you just keep on
resorting to name calling. It's getting old.

John Savard


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:
.

I go on living and I don't give all my money to Oxfam or Unicef or
whatever.

Is that the same as taking a gun, pointing it at someone's head, and
firing?

No.

Which one is abortion more similar to, in relation to the fetus or
embryo?

The latter. Women don't just walk away from being pregnant.

And unplugging someone from a respirator is just like shooting that
person in the head. Unless special circumstances apply, such as it's
your respirator, or the person has made a living will and stuff like
that.

Now, I suppose you could make a case that since it is the woman's own
body involved in pregnancy, she ought to have the same special
authority relative to gestation as authorized hospital staff do with
respect to their patients on life support.

It's because we need doctors, and we need hospitals, so badly and
desperately... and aren't quite willing to fund them well enough so
that one *never* turns off a respirator, one just buys another one...
that we've set up an *extraordinary* apparatus of laws that gives the
doctors very unusual powers of life and death. Powers that it is
intended they never abuse.

Do women have endometria because they spent vast sums of money to have
them constructed, against a public need?

We don't live under some desperate necessity to facilitating people
having sex whenever and wherever they feel like. Pregnancy and
gestation aren't artificial things that had to be brought into
existence with great effort: they're natural processes.

So aborting a fetus *because* it is making a woman pregnant (in the
sense that it does; it is hardly a rapist)... is like killing a little
baby... for breathing.

John Savard


text:
[email] wrote:

Based on your post, not the article, I have one comment:

If you don't want people convicted of crimes based on circumstantial
evidence that isn't quite ironclad...

provide a Scotch-style "not proven" verdict as an exception to the
double-jeopardy rule.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

Well, it's about a woman who is believed to have killed two of her own
children.

Also, the evidence against her was not ironclad, according to the
post, so Denise puts forward the hypothesis that her sexual history
helped jurors conclude that she was guilty.

This does relate, even if not directly, to the abortion issue.

One interpretation of human reproduction is this:

Humans reproduce the same way fishes do, another vertebrate. The woman
lays eggs, the man comes by with milt/semen to fertilize them, and
then new fish/humans develop.

In the case of human women, they lay their eggs within their own
uteri, so that after a new human being is formed, that human being is
then nurtured at the endometrium for a period of time, before leaving
the uterus and then moving on to being nurtured at the breast.

On that interpretation of human reproduction, abortion is a form of
infanticide. Birth, like weaning, is simply a rite of passage within
the life of a human, who came into existence at conception. There is
no fundamental distinction between abortion and other forms of
homicide, and if laws in any jurisdiction *make* such a distinction,
they're engaging in inexcusable and blatant discrimination - and the
only permissible response to such discrimination is to condemn and
reject it utterly, like we would _apartheid_ or Negro slavery or the
Holocaust.

Of course, the abortion issue is a controversial one. Not everyone
agrees with this interpretation of human reproduction - although, to
me, it seems to be the natural result of an objective, disinterested
examination of the scientific facts.

Women who have abortions, in a way, then stand accused of murdering
their children. But the evidence may be inconclusive.

The pro-life movement mainly draws its adherents from conservative
Christian circles. Traditional religions are known as being hostile
towards sexual misbehavior.

So, while I understand that pro-choice posters might condemn Denise
for *daring* to suggest there is any relation, relevance, or grounds
for interest in a case of a woman killing her _born_ children to a
newsgroup on the abortion issue... if they think a little harder, they
might see that what she is doing is challenging those on the pro-life
side of the issue to examine their own thinking, to make sure that
their attitudes towards sex aren't biasing their view of the abortion
issue!

So you have let ideological rigidity trick you into criticizing a post
that was pro-choice in character!

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

I knew that, and I was pointing out that what she could be seen as
doing is instead saying that the pro-life conclusion that women who
abort are committing infanticide may be *influenced* by their
hostility to sexual activity.

But I'm curious as to what grounds you have for objecting to equating
infanticide with abortion.

Sure, the victim in infanticide is older.

But perceiving abortion as essentially similar to infanticide: what
strange, bizarre, false reasoning does it rest upon?

To me, it's only natural to think of abortion as another form of
infanticide. Living creatures grow gradually; they don't get magically
awakened by legislative fiat. If there is a valid reason to view
abortion as significantly and genuinely different from infanticide,
surely that reason can be explained.

John Savard


text:
On Feb 26, 7:36 am, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

(Denise) Actually, it wasn't pro-choice or pro-life.  It was off-topic
which was why I put OT.  The reason I posted it here is because I
frequently post here, respect the thoughts of many others who post
here, and wondered what they would think of this crime case.  I
consider it one of the most baffling and troubling I've ever
encountered.


text:
On Feb 26, 6:00 pm, Robert <[email]> wrote:

(Denise) Did you read my Crime Library piece on the case?  Or do you
base your conclusions on books read or newspaper articles or what?


text:
Ray Fischer wrote:

The fetus winds up dead. People who perform abortions know full well
they are taking actions which are lethal to the embryo. That they are
doing so with another end in view does not protect them from
culpability in homicide.

And so it is. But embryos don't summon themselves into existence from
non-existence.

The choice an adult makes - even a woman - to engage in sexual
activity is a real choice. Made by an awake, aware, thinking
individual who can consider the consequences of her actions. The
implantation of an embryo, should pregnancy result, is a natural
consequence of _her_ choice to engage in sex, *not* an "attack" for
which the embryo is culpable.

I think of a knife-wielding maniac threatening a woman, and I think of
an embryo implanting. I ask myself whether these pictures have
anything in common. I decide that rather than the pro-life case being
built on lies, if that's what the pro-choice case rests on, it rests
on a whopper.

You're repeating yourself. Oh, and I know that embryos haven't been
born yet. As if that made a difference.

John Savard


text:
Robert wrote:

An infant has been born, and a fetus or embryo has not. So? Why is
"born" any more important than, say, "weaned"?

Life begins at birth? Does the heart start beating at birth? Does
electrical activity in the brain begin at birth? Life is, or is not,
present in beings out there depending on their own intrinsic
properties. They aren't "living" because somebody decided to assign
the attribute of life to people who meet certain essentially arbitrary
attributes, like being born.

They kill embryos and fetuses. What's the diff?

Maybe so, but I haven't seen any explanations. I've seen hot air that
doesn't mean anything.

We eat cattle for supper. That's because *they* aren't human beings.

We believe we are safe in making this distinction because it is not
arbitrary. No cow or bull has *ever* been able to communicate
linguistically. They are biologically alive, but they are not rational
thinkers who can join an organized society.

If someone came along and said that one had to be *white* instead of
just human to be a voting citizen, we would know he was evil and
deranged. Because he would be trying to deny people their basic rights
based on a clearly unjustifiable - hence, arbitrary - criterion.

Human beings do have to be adults to vote. But to have legal
protection from homicide, you don't have to be an adult. You don't
have to even be old enough to talk. Except for the child's mother,
anyone who kills even a newborn baby is liable to the same full
penalties as for killing an adult.

Thus, it follows that for protection of a living organism from
homicide, competency is not a condition: only membership in a species
whose members normally develop human-equivalent intelligence.

Fertilization leads to syngamy, the production of a single-celled
diploid human organism. This organism grows and develops into an adult
through cell division and cell differentiation. When immature, this
organism requires nurturance, special care, from his or her parents,
particularly his or her mother. First, this nurturance takes the form
of gestation, then breastfeeding, then other forms of special care and
attention.

Birth is a rite of passage in the life of an existing growing and
developing living human organism, but not the chasm that separates
life from non-life.

These are *facts*, not religious dogmas. How can you claim otherwise?

John Savard


text:
On Feb 25, 12:32 pm, Robert <[email]> wrote:

(Denise) OT stands for "off-topic."


author: Robert

text:
On 25 Feb 2007 01:46:13 -0800, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

WTF does this have to do with abortion rights?


author: james g. keegan jr.

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

of course it does.

no, it would subjugate her to the whims of crazed neocons who argue
the rights of the fetus while concurrently abandoning the interests
of children.

"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock!=.cray.com>


author: Ray Fischer

text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Your point is that your opinion is "correct" and everybody should be
forced to do as you say.

Just like restricting escapes didn't enslave blacks to the demands of
the slaveowners.


text:
On 14 Mar 2007 05:34:27 -0700, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  And no one is suggesting shooting sex month old babies, unless you
pro lifers, have decided to do so instead of murdering Doctors and
Nurses.
  No society that denies women the right to choose to abort a unwanted
pregnancy is founded on humane principles.
  Such a society can only exist as a theocracy, in a Dark Age.  IOW a
Christian controlled society full of Christian hatred, ran by a group
of small brained self righteous bigots.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

'The idea that [fetuses] have such a "need" for [a woman's body] that
it licenses them to enslave women is apparently assumed by many.'


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Nope.  You can justify adoption the same way.

You depend upon the lie that abortion is about killing, but once that
sleaze is rejected then you have nothing left.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Ah, so the pro-liar resorts to the usual babbling idiocy.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Forced childbirth is "violent, wicked, and hence unnatural".

Sex is a "natural consequence of [dating] *in just that way*."


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

So do you.

Yes, it does.

Do you send money to your ISP in order to kill children?

Are YOU a murderer?


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

so does cancer surgery and antibiotics.


text:
On 11 Mar 2007 17:00:37 -0700, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

 The fetus importance is based solely on the woman's choice, and is
none of your self righteous business.


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

nice of you to allow patient to make personal medical decisions.

are you directing others as to what they may think is important?

tisk. tisk. there is no such thing as "innocent unborn children"
although i understand the need of some low iq types to pretend that
there is.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Your entire argument is that women should be forced to suffer through
childbirth because you say so.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

It is desirable not to hate.

[...]

"To say that a [sperm] is not a child because children are born - by
definition - allows an *arbitrary* definition to rule us."

Some moment must be chosen.  Birth is, by far, the most practical.

Your assumption that a fetus has some right to a woman's body is
clearly untenable.


text:
On 8 Mar 2007 19:13:40 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

A fetus is not a person, never has been never will be, a person has
been born. Restricting abortion is denying women the right to choose,
forcing her to make a major sacrifice.

  You are correct, that is not logical, since both are true, your
"Deducting" is seriously flawed.


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

are you going to answer my question, john?

of course many people support the continued existence of legalized
abortion.

the right to act on many beliefs is limited. so what?

of course they do.

so what?


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Stop lying, asshole.  That claim has been refuted countless times.


text:
On 8 Mar 2007 19:18:27 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

O.K. what right do you small brained self righteous bigots have to
make life alternating decisions for other people.
  Why would a chicken shit ass hole have the power to enslave women.
You hate women so much go suck some dicks.


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

again, john, are you going to answer my question?

no, john, they are not.


text:
On 9 Mar 2007 18:06:11 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Truth is you hate women and want them punished for having sex, but not
with you.
  You are simply opposed to abortions, so admit that you want the
bitches to be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, as punishment
for having sex, but not with you. And you are not the least concerned
with the fatherless children, that clog the foster care system. If you
weren't such a hateful piece of shit, I would recommend you take a few
foster children, and shelter and feed them.
  But I love children too much to do that to any child.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

They're your words.

Self-serving BULLSHIT!

Stop lying, asshole.

Again and again we see that you pro-liars CANNOT justify yourselves
without resorting to outright lies and self-serving hypocrisy.  Your
entire ideology is corrupt and it has corrupted you.


text:
On 9 Mar 2007 18:10:23 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  Wrong, a fetus can exist and thrive in the womb, cannot thrive out
of the womb. A infant cannot exist in the womb, a fetus has to have a
womb life support, or die, A infant cannot live in the womb.

   Sometimes, but miscarriages, take a large toll, infant deaths are
common and babies and children die or are killed frequently.

  Taken from the woman's body, often causing severe medical problems,
and sometimes death. Pregnancy is a high risk condition, that severely
handicaps the woman. Many time preventing her from caring for her
older born children, Causing harm to existing children. But you don't
care, just force the bitch to endure pregnancy, punishment for
enjoying sex. You are such a sick, cruel, heartless, self righteous
bigot.

 The fetus feeds on the woman's body, some times causing harm to the
woman.


text:
On 10 Mar 2007 02:40:10 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

   The following is a rant of a big mouthed, small brained, self
righteous, woman hating Bigot.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Yes you do.

After all, sex is a normal and natural occurrance when men and women
socialize.  According to you, she should be forced to have sex as a
consequence of going on a date.


text:
On 10 Mar 2007 02:50:56 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  Like supporting a woman right to choose to terminates a unwanted
pregnancy. The only just and righteous action.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

So are humans and chimps.

Yes.

And yet you keep arguing that women should be forced to keep fetuses
alive.

Nobody asks for a right to kill, pro-liar.

You didn't come to a conclusion.  You came up with a want and have
been trying to alter reality to fit your wants.

Self-serving hypocrisy.  You could use the very same argument to just
ANYTHING, and maybe you do.  But you don't allow that argument to be
applied to you, and you don't allow it to be used with the truth. For
example, miscarriage is the most common outcome of sex, so women must
be forced to have abortions.

But the fact ius that having sex causes the fetus no harm and so
abortion only restores things to the way they were before.  And THAT
is the legal and moral standard we use.


text:
On 10 Mar 2007 02:56:02 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  No one is stopping you from choosing to accept the burden, but that
not your problem, you want to force other to accept burdens, you
approve of.
 That's bigotry, letting other control their own lives is the opposite
of bigotry. If pro choice tried to force some women to have an
abortion, then we would be the same kind of bigot as you. Just a
different opinion of what's right.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

We've found it.

And it's your hatred that leads you to believe that it's a common
occurrance.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Your wish to see women suffer.

Spare us the bullshit.  You freely let children die every day.
The only difference with abortion is that YOU can't be expected
to make any sacrifices.

That's because you look for any justification to make people suffer.

But, for some reason, you're never responsible for letting children
die.


text:
On 7 Mar 2007 21:31:46 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

 So forcing a woman to suffer, because the bitch got laid, is not hate
for the woman. And you really don't hate serial killers, you just want
them executed? So you are free of all hatred, you just want the power
to force other to live according to your rules. Hitler did not hate
Jews, he considered them to be dangerous to society, and to protect
society he had to kill them, but without hate.
  You don't hate women you just want them to suffer from the sin of
having sex. Tell me why do you love the suffering of those you don't
hate, like unwanted children, and women who are pregnant and don't
want to bring another unwanted child into the world.
  What makes you such a bigot.


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

do you know of anyone who is calling for the murder of innocent
children?

that's ok. beliefs are often unreasonable.

do you know anyone who is claiming that adults are not responsible
for their own freely chosen sexual activities?


text:
On 4 Mar 2007 09:33:15 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

 No child is killed in a abortion. A child has been born.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

You don't give a shit about children, remember?  You freely and
knowingly choose your amusements over their lives every day.


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

what child?


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

And you choose to be a misogynist.

So is being a misogynist.

Why should women pay for your hate?

So is your hate.


text:
On 4 Mar 2007 13:24:39 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Only small brained self righteous, religious bigoted Christians like
you consider a fetus to be the same as a born child.


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

there is no problem.


text:
Robert wrote:

Pro-choice lets women (or their doctors) force fetuses to *die*.

People who acted politically to retain Negro slavery didn't force
black men to pick cotton in the hot sun. Their owners did that.

Of course pro-choice is bigoted. It's bigoted against babies who
haven't been born yet.

John Savard


text:
On 3 Mar 2007 20:25:58 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

You are proposing to punish the woman, for the serious crime of having
sex, as well as condemning her little bastard to a miserable life.
Knowing that he/she is a unwanted child. No John, you are not lieing
here. You are just a hard hearted, self righteous, evil mother fucking
bigot.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

And women don't choose to implant them.

Sex isn't a crime, pervert.

So if a woman dies in childbirth because you choose to deny her an
abortion, you should be made responsible and you should go to prison
for murder.

Right?

And I can call it self-serving hypocrisy.  After all, YOU make choices
that result in people dying and yet you seem to think that you should
be exempt from any punishment.


text:
On 3 Mar 2007 20:31:33 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Bigots never do nor do they look for something to do themselves, to
improve the world. Instead they look for some one to blame. And you
John are a small brained, big mouthed self righteous bigot.

  And forcing the woman to pay dearly for doing same thing her nature
causes her to do. Cruel, self righteous, hate filled, Christian bigot.


text:
elizabeth <[email]> wrote:

You're the one who thinks that sterilizing all men is a solution to
all of your problems.

As I wrote, you think that all women are victims and all men are
criminals.  It's been the problem with all of your sexist whining.


text:
On 1 Mar 2007 17:31:14 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Exactly except a fetus is not a baby. But fetus baby or self righteous
bigots have no right to steal from her. It must really suck to be so
hate filled, I feel sorry for your stupid ass.

  But it's the woman who suffers the risk of a unwanted pregnancy, but
you could care less about her health, safety or well being. Typical
woman hater.

  So you are opposed to freedom for women?

  Not really many religious nuts manage to keep their children
completely ignorant, and work to keep all children ignorant. It's very
easy to control the ignorant.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

That's what makes you perverse ideology evil.

Another reason your ideology is evil.

And the third reaosn your ideology is evil is that you will use any
self-serving lie that's convenient in order to justify your evil.


text:
elizabeth <[email]> wrote:

Any at all?

I'm sure that you think that all women are victims and all men are
criminals.  It's been the problem with all of your sexist whining.


text:
On 1 Mar 2007 17:23:00 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  Women tend to be more religious than men, and have been less likely
to resort to violence in self defense. But that is begriming to fade
away. More women are armed, and more women are killing their
assailants. Hip,Hip Hooray.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

A recent case of a woman accusing three men from Duke university's
lacrosse team shows the double standard.  They were charged with
several felonies, suspended from the team, and villified in the media.

Turns out that the woman couldn't even support her claims, eventually
withdrew them, and the DA is now under criminal investigation.

Will she see any prison time?

No.


text:
On 28 Feb 2007 21:53:40 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  But it saves the woman considerable pain, often times saves other
children that the woman has from suffering a life deprived of many
comforts, like food, clothing, and medical care.
  But fuck them the bitch should not have gotten pregnant right?
It's a shame the English language lacks word to describe how evil a
self righteous bigot like you really is.


text:
elizabeth <[email]> wrote:

You're just whining that men aren't tried and convicted on the mere
say-so of a woman.

Tell us:  How many women have ever been convicted for falsely accusing
a man of rape?


text:
On 27 Feb 2007 17:24:24 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  Smoking allegedly causes cancer, so let's people that have cancer
die from it without medical care. Forget treating STD that's just
punishment for sex outside of marriage. Never fly because men get STD
Pregnancy is a STD men don't get, so no treatment is needed.
  You are such a evil bastard.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

You lying asshole.  You've stated many times that you would not allow
women to end their pregnancies as they wish.

Thus proving that you DO demand that women activily keep fetuses alive.
You must be quite stupid to prove yourself a liar in a single post.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Like most pro-liars you try to justify making women suffer for the
crime of being pregnant.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Perhaps you're just a liar and a pathetic control freak with no morals.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

And so you thought you take the opportunity to play games and be
dishonest.

Typical pro-liar.


text:
On 27 Feb 2007 03:00:39 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

  What gives you or anyone else the power to force any woman to
continue a unwanted pregnancy?  Any right that a fetus or any born
person may have is inferior to the right of any woman to choose how
her body is used. If a woman can be forced to continue a unwanted
pregnancy she is a slave to those that can force her to carry a
unwanted pregnancy to term. Only the smallest brained bigot would
consider him/herself capable to choose for others.
  Applying the appropriate label is not name calling. You continuing
to use the same old proven lies to justify your hatred for women has
been old for long time.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

You demand that pregnant women make extreme sacrifices that you're not
willing to make.

That make syou a hypocrite.

Refusing to save a life.

You're a liar.  You demand that women activily keep fetuses alive.

Then you are a murderer.


text:
On 26 Feb 2007 04:36:46 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

Snip a bunch of elementary, and immaterial info.

   Abortion is not murder, nothing was said about the woman being
forced to have the babies. Injustice with people being wrongly
convicted is very common. Nothing in Pro-choice supports killing any
child. Once born, the woman can give the child away, with plenty of
takers.
  I know what O.T. means but it still has nothing to do with abortion.
I see it as a lame attempt to equate infanticide with abortion, and
object.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

One is nothing like the other.  Duh.

If you think that that's the only difference then you are truly
stupid.

w>infanticide.

Because you are stupid.  Because you believe in lies.

1) Abortion is not about killing.
2) Self-defense is a fundamental right
3) Abortion is about a woman's body, not about an infant's life.


text:
On 26 Feb 2007 09:06:36 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

A infant has been born, an abortion doesn't kill anyone, because life
begins at birth.

I don't know, you and your pro-life buddies, claim that abortion kills
infants. So explain it if you can.

  And a reasonably intelligent, person would understand it. After
having it explained once. It has been explained to you many times, but
in typical willful ignorance you refuse to accept it. You are very
much the self righteous bigot, that will never accept the fact that
you could be wrong.
  And will continue to try to force other to live according to your
view. I know that you claim to be impartial. But that is another of
your lies.


text:
On 26 Feb 2007 11:53:54 -0800, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

  Check out the Darlie Routier case in Texas.

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/

Miscarriage of Justice is way to common. Darlie is the only woman on
death row, for killing her children. She is also the only one that
claims to be innocent.


text:
On 26 Feb 2007 11:53:54 -0800, "[email]"
<[email]> wrote:

I agree that is a troubling case, and she is probably innocent.


text:
On 26 Feb 2007 14:22:37 -0800, "Quadibloc" <[email]> wrote:

To all except small brained self righteous bigots, it's a major
difference. Hey get a clue what you think, isn't important to
intelligent people.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Children end up dead because of YOUR actions.

Just as you know full well that YOUR actions result in the deaths of
others.

Wholly irrelevant.

And you, being a pro-lie pervert, want to make it a crime.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Because, for the past several millenia, humanity has decided that a
human being's life begins at birth.

Yes.

Fallacy of equivocation.

Dumbshit pro-liar.


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Just like YOU force children to DIE.


text:
Robert wrote:

I thought it was men's nature and woman's unfortunate situation. Not
that women don't enjoy sex, under favorable circumstances. But unlike
men, they're able to do without it fairly easily.

I wouldn't "force women to pay" except for the fact that the
alternative is to allow the woman to force her innocent child to pay -
with his or her life.

How dare you call me a Christian!

The *rest*, of course, is more uncomplimentary, but it derives
naturally from your misunderstanding of this issue.

John Savard


text:
Quadibloc <[email]> wrote:

Except that you're more than willing to make innocent children pay for
the crime of poverty with their lives.


subject: Kissinger Resigns-----Add another GOODIE to your list.: Cyprus In, Turkey Out..

text:
Updated 5:29 PM ET December 13, 2002
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stepped
down on Friday as chairman of a commission investigating the Sept. 11
attacks, the White House announced.
"It is with regret that I accept Dr. Kissinger 's decision to step down as
chairman of the National Commission to investigate the events of Sept. 11
2001 and the years that led up to that event," President Bush said in a
statement.
Kissinger had been criticized over possible conflicts of interest.
--------------------
Xtes-00k
Kissinger had been criticized over possible conflicts of interest. ?
I am trying to think of one...
.Perhaps he must have failed the Turks not being there in their crucial time
in need.
For a master manipulator of secret deals....Sept. 11 investigations was not
his cup of tea thing.


author: Agamemnon

subject: Re: Kissinger Resigns-----Add another GOODIE to your list.: Cyprus In, Turkey Out..

text:
"Xtes-00k" <[email]> wrote in message
news:FyuK9.60557$[email]...
time
not

The commission had no credibility with a war criminal responsible for the
genocide of million on its committee.

Four celebrations in one day. Not bad.


author: Manos

text:
"Agamemnon" <[email]_SPAM> wrote in message news:<atdt52$riv$[email]>...

     It would be much better if that bastard Kissinger was brought up
on war crimes against humanity for his involvement in Cyprus , Chile,
Vietnam.

Manos


author: Don Swanson

subject: Strange news site

text:
The best satirical site on the web, maybe second best at worst is The
Hoosier Gazette.  http://www.hoosiergazette.com


author: Mark. Gooley

subject: Re: Strange news site

text:
"Don Swanson" <[email]> wrote :

Eh, you Hoosier.

Mark.
[email]


author: >parr(*>

subject: Re: Strange news site

text:
"Don Swanson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
| The best satirical site on the web, maybe second best at worst is
The
| Hoosier Gazette.  http://www.hoosiergazette.com

You mean there might be two?


author: the reverse psychology major

subject: Re: Strange news site

text:
...
"Don Swanson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Kallese

subject: Re: Strange news site

text:
"the reverse psychology major" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

hmmm...posted by the reverse pyschology major...does that mean we _should_
post more links?

Oh, and I'm sure replying to/correcting spam messages will make a biiiig
difference.

poofffffft.


subject: How Many Times Has This Happened To You, 'niyazi?'

text:
<[email]>
[email] (Krzysztof W. Kniaz)

Is that how the mind of a revisionist works? I always wondered what
made revisionists tick and why they did certain acts that no normal
person in their right mind would do. Did you grow up in a troubled
family?

Just love it. But I certainly don't look to a 'wieneramus' for answers
on matters of morality and Turkish Genocide. Now, are you claiming
that this text of the Turkish Genocide is incorrect? If so, please
provide us with your corrections, 'niyazi.'

Source: Stanford J. Shaw, on Armenian collaboration with invading Russian
armies in 1914, "History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Volume
II: Reform, Revolution & Republic: The Rise of Modern Turkey, 1808-1975)."
(London, Cambridge University Press 1977). pp. 315-316.

"In April 1915 Dashnaks from Russian Armenia organized a revolt in the city
 of Van, whose 33,789 Armenians comprised 42.3 percent of the population,
 closest to an Armenian majority of any city in the Empire...Leaving Erivan
 on April 28, 1915, Armenian volunteers reached Van on May 14 and organized
 and carried out a general slaughter of the local Muslim population during
 the next two days while the small Ottoman garrison had to retreat to the
 southern side of the lake."

This sounds so real. How many times has this happened to you, 'niyazi?'
And, culture is the habit of being pleased with the best and knowing why.

        "Document No: 64," Archive No: 1/2, Cabin No: 109, Drawer
        No: 4, File No: 359, Section No: 103(1435), Contents No: 3-20.
        (To Acting Supreme Command - Socialist Salah Cimcoz, Socialist
        Nesim Mazelyah)

"Armenian gangs have been murdering and inflicting cruelties on
 innocent people of the region. This verified information, supported
 by clear statements of reliable eyewitnesses, was also confirmed by
 General Odishelidje, Commander of the Russian Caucasian Army.

 Armenians are entering every place evacuated by Russians carrying out
 murders, cruelties, rape and all kind of atrocities which cannot be
 expressed in writing, murdering all the women, children, aged people
 who happen to be in the street. These barbarous murders repeated
 every day with new methods continue and the Russian Army has been urged
 to intervene to terminate these atrocities. Public opinion is appalled
 and horrified. Newspapers are describing the happenings as shocking.
 We have decided to inform all our friends urgently about the situation."

Hasan B-) Mutlu

                     'Kill Turks and Kurds wherever you find them
                      and in whatever circumstances you find them.
                      Turkish children also should be killed as
                      they form a danger to the Armenian nation.'
                                     (Hamparsum Boyadjian - 1914)


author: CHRIS JUREWICZ

subject: So what can we do about this guy?

text:
Dear users of this newsgroup?
This is how a certain person signs himself :

My personal opinion is, that this person shows a severe psyhological
scaring, probably caused by collosal errors in his upbringing. There is no
need to tell that this person feels a deep resentment towards Turkish and
Kurdish people. Whatever may be his reasons for such an attitude, I think,
that because of it's violent nature it may prove to be a good idea to stop
this person from insulting mostly tollerant users of this newsgroup. Has
anybody got some ideas how to do it?

Yours faithfully,
 ___________________________________
|Chris Jurewicz                     |
|Dept. of  Civil Engineering        |
|Monash University                  |
|                                   |
|[email]    |
|[email]   |
|___________________________________|


author: Krzysztof W. Kniaz

subject: Re: So what can we do about this guy?

text:
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.history
Subject: Re: So what can we do about this guy?
Summary:
Expires:
References: <[email]> <[email]>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Keywords: hasan b-) Mutlu


author: Virgil

subject: Re: There is no Burden of Proof except in courts of LAW

text:
In article <yGvmc.32446$IG1.1630958@attbi_s04>, Dixit <[email]>
wrote:

Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is assuming that physical "space" is
"flat" rather than "curved", but Relativity questions that assumption.

And in relativistic spaces the ratio of C to R is not constant.

One must assume Euclidean geometry to be the space of reality, a
questionable assumption, before  going out on a limb like Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, has done again.

What century did knucklehead Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, say he
lived in? Nothing later than the nineteenth, surely.


author: Dixit

text:
Virgule wrote:

More lame nit picking from Virgule.

We are not discussing an actual object in space/time, knucklehead.

What we are discussing is the idea of 'circle', a theoretical concept
defined as a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from
a fixed point within the curve.

That idea is approximated perfectly well for educational purposes on a
plain sheet of paper, drawn with a compass.

Are we on the same page now, knucklehead?


author: Miss D

subject: Re: PETA's Bruce Friedrich chosen for reality show

text:
First one needs to consider the sources, secondly, the above links you posted
appear to be the work of Hate Groups....I rest my case.

*****************************************************************
"We choose to be inspired!"
http://jregrassroots.org/


author: Jonathan Ball

text:
Miss D wrote:

You really ARE stupid, aren't you?  The Southern
Poverty Law Center is one of the more notable ANTI-hate
groups in the country, you imbecile.  I don't happen to
agree with a lot of their categorizations of things as
"hate speech", "hate crimes", etc, but for you to
accuse them of being a hate group betrays your
appalling youthful ignorance.

In all seriousness, how old are you?


author: rick etter

text:
"Miss D" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
people
posted
================
Like yours below?

John 'effing' Kerry, the self-admitted WAR CRIMINAL

"There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I
committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have
committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones.  I conducted
harassment and interdiction fire.  I used 50-caliber machine guns which we
were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.
I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages.  All
of this is contrary to the laws of warfare.  All of this is contrary to the
Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written
established policy by the government of the United States from the top
down."  Kerry said those who condoned or engaged in such activities were war
criminals.


author: Lloyd Parker

subject: Re: At Least He Can Pronounce "Nuclear"

text:
In article <oLuif.633632$1i.440576@pd7tw2no>,
   "Karl Johanson" <[email]> wrote:
Depends on whom you ask.

"The death toll attributed to radiation could reach 4,000, said the report,
compiled for the Chernobyl Forum, a group that includes the IAEA, other U.N.
agencies and the governments of Ukraine -- where Chernobyl is located --
Belarus and Russia.

"The report finds more than 600,000 people received high levels of exposure,
including reactor staff, emergency and recovery personnel and residents of the
nearby areas.

"The predicted 4,000 death toll includes 50 emergency workers who died of
acute radiation syndrome in 1986, and from other causes in later years; nine
children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 3,940 people who could
die from cancer as a result of radiation exposure."


author: Nanook

subject: Re: At Least He Can Pronounce "Nuclear"

text:
In article <dmf9vm$2qp$[email]>, [email] (Lloyd Parker) writes:

     This is speculation; and anybody can speculate on any wild ass numbers.

     The original expection was that 30,000 would be dead within 20 years,
well 20 years have passed and so far around 50.

     And what we learned from this is not only do humans tolerate higher levels
of radioactivity than we had previously estimated, but some levels even appear
to have beneficial health effects.

     The deaths thus far have been primarily plant workers and fire fighters
involved in putting out the fire that were exposed to massive radiation levels,
and thyroid cancer caused by the uptake of radioactive iodine 131.

     And of the cancer deaths, there have been approximately 1000 thyroid
cancers induced to date, but only nine of those resulted in deaths as the
disease is highly curable if caught relatively early.

     As I stated before, people originally PREDICTED 30,000 deahts in twenty
years, there is no data to support this new prediction.  It's just a WAG from
someone with an agenda.

     Since radiation levels have also fallen off in the surrounding region
faster than anyone had predicted, a more reasonable prediction is that long
term deaths will be lower rather than higher.


author: Don Libby

subject: Re: At Least He Can Pronounce "Nuclear"

text:
"Lloyd Parker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dmf9vm$2qp$[email]...

Multiply by 100 to find coal-death equivalents

Table 6.  Comparative risk by electricity production by fuel cycle

(accidents and diseases per gigawatt-electric-year)

                      Occupational Hazards    Public (off-site) hazards

Fuel source           Fatal    Non-fatal        Fatal     Non-fatal

Coal                  0.2-4.3     63            2.1-7.0    2018

Oil                   0.2-1.4     30            2.0-6.1    2000

Gas                   0.1-1.0     15            0.2-0.4      15

Nuclear(LWR)          0.1-0.9     15           .006-0.2      16

From: _The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma: Energy and the Environment_  William

D. Nordhaus, 1997.  Resources for the Future

http://www.rff.org/books/descriptions/swedenuke.htm


author: Karl Johanson

subject: Re: At Least He Can Pronounce "Nuclear"

text:
"Lloyd Parker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:dmf9vm$2qp$[email]...

And if it eventually does, as unlikely as that is, it will still be
substatially less than the daily death toll from non-nuclear energy, as
I said.

said the report,


subject: Re: At Least He Can Pronounce "Nuclear"

text:
In article <dmj5o2$hui$[email]>,
   [email] (Nanook) wrote:
writes:
U.N.
exposure,
the
levels
appear
levels,
nine
could
I'd consider the IAEA more than a wild guess.

The story goes on:

"Since the accident, some 4,000 cases of thyroid cancer have been seen, mainly
in individuals who were either children or adolescents at the time of the
explosion.

"Melissa Fleming, of the IFEA, said the Chernobyl Forum report showed there
was "finally a consensus" on the health and environmental consequences" of the
explosion.

The report also concluded that, aside from a 30 kilometre (18 mile) area
surrounding the site, radiation levels in the area had returned to acceptable
levels.

However, it raised concerns about the condition of the concrete sarcophagus
surrounding the plant, and the disposal of radioactive waste from the
accident."


author: ONEstar

subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message

Then you illustrate perfectly how you may be deceived.  <smile>

human,
way
formed
what
a
explain
are
knowledge
which

Really?  Definitions are not known by you?  Ahhhhh, then finally you come to
agreement.  But then you attempt clarification by stating a contradiction to
your previous sentence.  This is another example of how you say one thing
from one side of your mouth, and a contradictory thing for the other side.
Why do you not just say that your knowledge is limited thus you can no
nothing that is not subject to deception?

We are confusing nothing, but you seem to have some abiguous method of
definition that does not require perception.  We are merely attempting to
get you to show us what that method is.  If you can not, then we may assume
that your definitions, as other humans, are constructed from the base of
perceptive stimulii.

There is no misrepresentation for it is yourself who claims you have
definitions not formed from perceptions and that you have knowledge of them
in the absolute sense.  We merely want evidence of this claim.  Give us a
definition of flat that is not based upon your perceptions and you will have
accomplished your claim.  Your previous attempt was shown to be based upon
perceptions so you must try once more.  Your reluctance to do so may
indicate you are unable and thus quite possibly deceived over what else you
might think you know.

ONE


author: Wen-King Su

subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;>:>;>So you erred when you say I erred for I have shown you an example which
:>;>:>seesm to define "reluctant".
;>:
:>;
;>:>;<smile> Grasping at straws, are we?   I thought it would come to this.
:>;
;>:>Then you thought wrong.  It was merely a bit of amusement.
:>;
;>:
:>;So too, was I amused, did you not notice the smile?
;
:>You have used the "<smile>" previously to convey a sense of arrogance,
;>and for that reason I no longer pay attention to it.
:
;
:Then you illustrate perfectly how you may be deceived.  <smile>

So?  Did I say I was immune to any deception at all?  What I said was
my definitions are some of the things I can know beyond deception.

;>;>What I term definition is definition.  You are the one who is grasping
:>:>the straw by continuing to mis-represent what I said.  For example, here
;>;>you said I said my definitions are of a nature that can not be subject
:>:>to deception, when I have repeatedly made it clear that it is my
;knowledge
:>;>of my definition that is not subject to deception.
;>:
:>;Once more, let me make this clear.  You have no knowledge except that
;which
:>:is subject to deception.  Definitions are just more of the same.
;>
:>Show that to be true.  What do you mean "definitions are just more of the
;>same?"  Definitions are not knowledges.  What I know of my definition is
:>knowledge.  This is another example where continue to mis-represent what
;>I said.  Now, why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my definitions
:>is subject to deception.
;
:
;Really?  Definitions are not known by you?  Ahhhhh, then finally you come to
:agreement.  But then you attempt clarification by stating a contradiction to
;your previous sentence.  This is another example of how you say one thing
:from one side of your mouth, and a contradictory thing for the other side.
;Why do you not just say that your knowledge is limited thus you can no
:nothing that is not subject to deception?

Where did I say definitions are not known by me?  I said definitions are
not knowledegs, what I know of my definition is knowledge.  I pretty much
clearly said that definitions are known by me.  Here is yet another example
where you continue to mis-represent what I said.  Isn't what you do a
strategy more fitting of the one who is grasping for straw?  Now, again,
why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my definitions is subject
to deception.

:>:>That it is something
;>;>that I can know beyond deception.  And I have been able to explain why
:>:>my knowledge of my definition is not subject to deception -- it does not
;>;>convey information.
:>:
;>;Wrong, it must convey information or it is not a definition.
:>
;>No it doesn't.  You are confusing, as you always have, definition and
:>language that attempts to convey the description of a definition.
;
:
;We are confusing nothing, but you seem to have some abiguous method of
:definition that does not require perception.  We are merely attempting to
;get you to show us what that method is.  If you can not, then we may assume
:that your definitions, as other humans, are constructed from the base of
;perceptive stimulii.

What do you mean by "require perception?"  When did I ever said that
perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
of my definition thus formed.  Even if all my peceptions are forged, and
my definitions are different from what they would be if perceptions are
not forged, I still have 100% absolute knowledge of what my definitions
are.  If I have formed a definition of "flat" that contained what I defined
to be a dimple in it, I would still know my definition of "flat" to have
contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.  So why go through the
excercise of showing me that perception can be the basis of forming a
definition when I do not disagree with it.  What I disagree is that I can
ended up being deceived in my knowledeg of my definitions.  Are you going
to try and show me otherwise?

;>;>And I have shown you examples -- I have a definition
:>:>of "flat", and I have explained to you that even if I have formed a
;>;>definition of "flat" that contained what I defined to be a dimple in it,
:>:>I still know 100% that my definition of "flat" to have contained what I
;>;>defined to be a dimple in it.  Simple.  Not complicated. If you still do
:>:>not understand that, then it is you who are deceived in your thinking.
;
:>:This is an example of nothing except your own delusion regarding what you
;>;think you know.  Elementary and quite common among those who feel they do
:>:not have the same limits as others.  Unfortunately, there is little doubt
;>;that you fall prey to the same limitations in your knowledge as all other
:>:humans, thus you can be and quite possibly are, deceived.
;
:>"Do not have the same limit as others?"  Who are you talking about here?
;>When have I said I don't have the same limit as others?  Here is yet
:>another example where you continue to mis-represent what I said.  I said
;>the limits for people are different from what you said there were.  You
:>said nothing is knowable in the narrowest sense of know.  I said you are
;>wrong for there is at least one thing, and not necessarily the only thing,
:>that can be known to the narrowest sense of know.  I even go as far as
;>to say it is your duty, if you truely want to seek God, that you learn
:>more about these things that you can know.  I wouldn't have said that if
;>I think I have different limit from you.  Now, why don't you answer the
:>challenge set forth.  Show that my knowledge of my definition of flat is
;>subject to deception.
:
;There is no misrepresentation for it is yourself who claims you have
:definitions not formed from perceptions and that you have knowledge of them
;in the absolute sense.

What do you mean by "formed from perceptions".  When did I ever said that
perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
of my definition thus formed.  What I do say is that the knowledge of
definition is not subject to deception.  You were merely making a claim
that it isn't so without being able to show why not so.  That doesn't
constitute a kind of limit.

;We merely want evidence of this claim.  Give us a
:definition of flat that is not based upon your perceptions and you will have
;accomplished your claim.  Your previous attempt was shown to be based upon
:perceptions so you must try once more.  Your reluctance to do so may
;indicate you are unable and thus quite possibly deceived over what else you
:might think you know.

No need to do that, for even if my definition of flat is forme based on
forged perceptions, and I ended up with a definition of "flat" that
contained what I defined to be a dimple in it, I would still know my
definition of "flat" to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in
it.  Unless you can show how I can be deceived in my knowledge of my
definition in such cases, there is no point trying to give you a definition
of flat that is not based on perception, right?


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message
which

Yes, and we have been made aware of how that is not a correct assumption.

here
definitions
to
to

This is a procedure that seems to be going nowhere very slowly.  You say
somehting, and unless it is parrotted back to you, you say you did not say
it.  I would say this tactic is unworthy of an individual who was honestly
attempting to come to the awareness he claims he seeks, and
misrepresentation is clearly shown by means of your posting contrary
sentences.

not
assume

Do not be misled by what you think is knowledge.  If your perceptions are in
question, then anything you define by means of them will also be in
question.  This is too simple and too self evident for me to expend any more
energy in attempting to acquaint you with the facts.

it,
do
you
do
doubt
other
thing,
them

Here, we have but one more careless example of meandering reasoning.  You
have no knowledge if the perception is incorrect by any means.  It is shown
adequately in your refusal to recognize your own limitations in respect to
what you demand from others.

have
you

Ahhhh, once more you sidestep the real issue and proceed to insert
proprietary reasoning as adequate to support your claim.  This conversation
is without substance and your responses become redundant.

ONE


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
In a previous article "ONEstar" <[email]> writes:
:
;
:Wen-King Su wrote in message
;>;>:>;>So you erred when you say I erred for I have shown you an example
:which
;>:>;>:>seesm to define "reluctant".
:>;>:
;>:>;
:>;>:>;<smile> Grasping at straws, are we?   I thought it would come to this.
;>:>;
:>;>:>Then you thought wrong.  It was merely a bit of amusement.
;>:>;
:>;>:
;>:>;So too, was I amused, did you not notice the smile?
:>;
;>:>You have used the "<smile>" previously to convey a sense of arrogance,
:>;>and for that reason I no longer pay attention to it.
;>:
:>;
;>:Then you illustrate perfectly how you may be deceived.  <smile>
:
;>So?  Did I say I was immune to any deception at all?  What I said was
:>my definitions are some of the things I can know beyond deception.
;
:
;Yes, and we have been made aware of how that is not a correct assumption.

Yes what?  That I said I was immune to any deception at all?  When did I
say that?  Again, what I said was my definitions are some of the things
I can know beyond deception.

;>;>;>What I term definition is definition.  You are the one who is grasping
:>:>:>the straw by continuing to mis-represent what I said.  For example,
;here
:>;>;>you said I said my definitions are of a nature that can not be subject
;>:>:>to deception, when I have repeatedly made it clear that it is my
:>;knowledge
;>:>;>of my definition that is not subject to deception.
:>;>:
;>:>;Once more, let me make this clear.  You have no knowledge except that
:>;which
;>:>:is subject to deception.  Definitions are just more of the same.
:>;>
;>:>Show that to be true.  What do you mean "definitions are just more of the
:>;>same?"  Definitions are not knowledges.  What I know of my definition is
;>:>knowledge.  This is another example where continue to mis-represent what
:>;>I said.  Now, why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my
;definitions
:>:>is subject to deception.
;>;
:>:
;>;Really?  Definitions are not known by you?  Ahhhhh, then finally you come
:to
;>:agreement.  But then you attempt clarification by stating a contradiction
:to
;>;your previous sentence.  This is another example of how you say one thing
:>:from one side of your mouth, and a contradictory thing for the other side.
;>;Why do you not just say that your knowledge is limited thus you can no
:>:nothing that is not subject to deception?
;
:>Where did I say definitions are not known by me?  I said definitions are
;>not knowledegs, what I know of my definition is knowledge.  I pretty much
:>clearly said that definitions are known by me.  Here is yet another example
;>where you continue to mis-represent what I said.  Isn't what you do a
:>strategy more fitting of the one who is grasping for straw?  Now, again,
;>why don't you try to show that my knowledge of my definitions is subject
:>to deception.
;
:
;This is a procedure that seems to be going nowhere very slowly.  You say
:somehting, and unless it is parrotted back to you, you say you did not say
;it.  I would say this tactic is unworthy of an individual who was honestly
:attempting to come to the awareness he claims he seeks, and
;misrepresentation is clearly shown by means of your posting contrary
:sentences.

The problem is with you.  Where did I say in the above that the definitions
are not known by me?  Parrot it back to me please.  You are the one who
is using a tactic unworthy of an individual who was honestly attempting
to come to the awareness he claims he seek.

:>:>:>That it is something
;>;>;>that I can know beyond deception.  And I have been able to explain why
:>:>:>my knowledge of my definition is not subject to deception -- it does
;not
:>;>;>convey information.
;>:>:
:>;>;Wrong, it must convey information or it is not a definition.
;>:>
:>;>No it doesn't.  You are confusing, as you always have, definition and
;>:>language that attempts to convey the description of a definition.
:>;
;>:
:>;We are confusing nothing, but you seem to have some abiguous method of
;>:definition that does not require perception.  We are merely attempting to
:>;get you to show us what that method is.  If you can not, then we may
;assume
:>:that your definitions, as other humans, are constructed from the base of
;>;perceptive stimulii.
:
;>What do you mean by "require perception?"  When did I ever said that
:>perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
;>that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
:>of my definition thus formed.  Even if all my peceptions are forged, and
;>my definitions are different from what they would be if perceptions are
:>not forged, I still have 100% absolute knowledge of what my definitions
;>are.  If I have formed a definition of "flat" that contained what I defined
:>to be a dimple in it, I would still know my definition of "flat" to have
;>contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.  So why go through the
:>excercise of showing me that perception can be the basis of forming a
;>definition when I do not disagree with it.  What I disagree is that I can
:>ended up being deceived in my knowledeg of my definitions.  Are you going
;>to try and show me otherwise?
:
;
:Do not be misled by what you think is knowledge.  If your perceptions are in
;question, then anything you define by means of them will also be in
:question.  This is too simple and too self evident for me to expend any more
;energy in attempting to acquaint you with the facts.

Again the narrow sense of "know" is that you are said to know something
to be true if that thing is in fact true and that you are aware of it
being true.  In that narrow sense I certainly do know what my definitions
contains. Please show that I can't have that knowledge even if all my
perceptions are forged.

;>;>;>And I have shown you examples -- I have a definition
:>:>:>of "flat", and I have explained to you that even if I have formed a
;>;>;>definition of "flat" that contained what I defined to be a dimple in
:it,
;>:>:>I still know 100% that my definition of "flat" to have contained what I
:>;>;>defined to be a dimple in it.  Simple.  Not complicated. If you still
;do
:>:>:>not understand that, then it is you who are deceived in your thinking.
;>;
:>:>:This is an example of nothing except your own delusion regarding what
;you
:>;>;think you know.  Elementary and quite common among those who feel they
;do
:>:>:not have the same limits as others.  Unfortunately, there is little
;doubt
:>;>;that you fall prey to the same limitations in your knowledge as all
;other
:>:>:humans, thus you can be and quite possibly are, deceived.
;>;
:>:>"Do not have the same limit as others?"  Who are you talking about here?
;>;>When have I said I don't have the same limit as others?  Here is yet
:>:>another example where you continue to mis-represent what I said.  I said
;>;>the limits for people are different from what you said there were.  You
:>:>said nothing is knowable in the narrowest sense of know.  I said you are
;>;>wrong for there is at least one thing, and not necessarily the only
:thing,
;>:>that can be known to the narrowest sense of know.  I even go as far as
:>;>to say it is your duty, if you truely want to seek God, that you learn
;>:>more about these things that you can know.  I wouldn't have said that if
:>;>I think I have different limit from you.  Now, why don't you answer the
;>:>challenge set forth.  Show that my knowledge of my definition of flat is
:>;>subject to deception.
;>:
:>;There is no misrepresentation for it is yourself who claims you have
;>:definitions not formed from perceptions and that you have knowledge of
:them
;>;in the absolute sense.
:>
;>What do you mean by "formed from perceptions".  When did I ever said that
:>perception cannot be the basis for forming a definition in such a way
;>that even if the perception is deceived, I still have complete knowledge
:>of my definition thus formed.  What I do say is that the knowledge of
;>definition is not subject to deception.  You were merely making a claim
:>that it isn't so without being able to show why not so.  That doesn't
;>constitute a kind of limit.
:
;
:Here, we have but one more careless example of meandering reasoning.  You
;have no knowledge if the perception is incorrect by any means.  It is shown
:adequately in your refusal to recognize your own limitations in respect to
;what you demand from others.

No you havn't shown that.  All you have done is to say what I claim to
know isn't knowledge.  Again, the narrow sense of "know" is that you are
said to know something to be true if that thing is in fact true and that
you are aware of it being true.  In that narrow sense I certainly do know
what my definitions contains. Please show that I can't have that knowledge
even if all my perceptions are forged.

;>;We merely want evidence of this claim.  Give us a
:>:definition of flat that is not based upon your perceptions and you will
;have
:>;accomplished your claim.  Your previous attempt was shown to be based upon
;>:perceptions so you must try once more.  Your reluctance to do so may
:>;indicate you are unable and thus quite possibly deceived over what else
;you
:>:might think you know.
;>
:>No need to do that, for even if my definition of flat is forme based on
;>forged perceptions, and I ended up with a definition of "flat" that
:>contained what I defined to be a dimple in it, I would still know my
;>definition of "flat" to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in
:>it.  Unless you can show how I can be deceived in my knowledge of my
;>definition in such cases, there is no point trying to give you a definition
:>of flat that is not based on perception, right?
;
:Ahhhh, once more you sidestep the real issue and proceed to insert
;proprietary reasoning as adequate to support your claim.  This conversation
:is without substance and your responses become redundant.

You are invite to show it to be the real issue by showing me how I can
be deceived in my knowledge of my definitions if all my perceptions are
deceived.  The reply from your side is without substance until you can
show it to be relevent.

Show that even if all my peceptions are forged, and my definitions
are different from what they would be if perceptions are not forged, that
I couldn't still have 100% absolute knowledge of what my definitions are.
Show that even if I have formed a definition of "flat" that contained
what I defined to be a dimple in it, that I wouldn't know my definition
of "flat" to have contained what I defined to be a dimple in it.


subject: Re: PROVE THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST !!!!

text:
Wen-King Su wrote in message
this.

Yes,and we have been made aware of how yours is not a correct assumption.
You are not immune, nor can you show one instance whre you might be.

grasping
subject
the
is
what
come
contradiction
thing
side.
example

Do not be obtuse.  You said definitions are not knowledges.  You also say
you know your definitions.  Contradictory and illogical is one who does not
even recognize his own failings.

why
to
defined
in
more

No.  You show a definition not based upon perception.  Then you will show us
all that you can have knowledge not subject to deception.

I
thinking.
here?
said
are
if
is
shown

I have shown it, you have observed it, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.
One more example of how you may be deceived.

upon
definition
conversation

You have been invited to define anything at all by whatever method you
choose which adequately relays your knowledge of that definition, please,
then stand back and watch as I will show you how you might be deceived.

ONE