Another obituary for the CD [Archive]

Jenn

January 28th 08, 05:35 AM

In article
>,
RapidRonnie > wrote:

> On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
> >
> > HUH!!!???!!!
>
> I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
> by the standards commonly promoted today.
>
> That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> does not like.

I agree.

> The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
>
> "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> not an action,

We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
penalty.

> and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.

But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

RapidRonnie

January 28th 08, 06:54 AM

> > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > not an action,
>
> We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> penalty.
>
> > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
>
> But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

It's very dangerous because it makes some motives in effect illegal.
It essentially means thoughtcrime.

If a bad guy drags a human being to his or her death behind a truck,
is it a worse act because he disliked that person's race or sexuality
than, say, because the draggee was a Mets fan or because he owed the
assailant five hundred bucks for dope?

The Jasper, Texas case occurred when a white convict who had been
raped by blacks in prison dragged a black convict behind his truck.
Now the white convict committed a horrible crime, and was punished, in
my opinion, properly. But it would have been just as proper if the
draggee had been white, or if the perpetrator had no discernible
history of White racial activity.

What's going to happen is that certain groups are going to become
especially protected, for one thing, and that means nonmembers will be
less protected by the same laws. Additionally, people with "wrong
attitudes" and "incorrect beliefs" will be marked for special
harassment.

Sooner or later a different group will get hold of power and these
laws will be used in ways you don't expect-and, I can safely predict,
will not like. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find blasphemy a de
facto crime in certain states, as well as other Biblical offenses.
There are preachers running around right now advocating the death
penalty for blasphemy, heresy, cursing one's parents, sorcery and
necromancy. To say nothing, of course, of good old "crimes against
nature"...which have nothing to do with pollution or ecology, but any
deviance from the standard , one male one female you-know-what. Is
that the sort of America you would find desireable or even tolerable?

I sure wouldn't.

Jenn

January 28th 08, 07:11 AM

In article
>,
RapidRonnie > wrote:

> > > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > not an action,
> >
> > We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > penalty.
> >
> > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
> >
> > But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> It's very dangerous because it makes some motives in effect illegal.
> It essentially means thoughtcrime.
>
> If a bad guy drags a human being to his or her death behind a truck,
> is it a worse act because he disliked that person's race or sexuality
> than, say, because the draggee was a Mets fan or because he owed the
> assailant five hundred bucks for dope?
>
> The Jasper, Texas case occurred when a white convict who had been
> raped by blacks in prison dragged a black convict behind his truck.
> Now the white convict committed a horrible crime, and was punished, in
> my opinion, properly. But it would have been just as proper if the
> draggee had been white, or if the perpetrator had no discernible
> history of White racial activity.
>
> What's going to happen is that certain groups are going to become
> especially protected, for one thing, and that means nonmembers will be
> less protected by the same laws. Additionally, people with "wrong
> attitudes" and "incorrect beliefs" will be marked for special
> harassment.
>
> Sooner or later a different group will get hold of power and these
> laws will be used in ways you don't expect-and, I can safely predict,
> will not like. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find blasphemy a de
> facto crime in certain states, as well as other Biblical offenses.
> There are preachers running around right now advocating the death
> penalty for blasphemy, heresy, cursing one's parents, sorcery and
> necromancy. To say nothing, of course, of good old "crimes against
> nature"...which have nothing to do with pollution or ecology, but any
> deviance from the standard , one male one female you-know-what. Is
> that the sort of America you would find desireable or even tolerable?
>
> I sure wouldn't.

Every hate crime statute that I'm aware of contains language stating
that in order to qualify for the enhanced penalty, a crime must be
committed with the intent to terrify or intimidate a group or class of
people. I don't know of any successful hate crime prosecutions where
such motivation wasn't proved. The philosophy behind the laws is that a
hate crime targets more than just the actual victim; indeed, by the
nature of the crime, there IS more than one victim. I can certainly
understand your POV; I've thought about this issue a great deal.

Arny Krueger

January 28th 08, 12:35 PM

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message

> On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick >
> wrote:
>> On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
>>
>> HUH!!!???!!!
>
> I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS
> a white separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He
> certainly is a racist by the standards commonly promoted
> today.

I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
audio.

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 01:06 PM

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> In article

> But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

But hate crimes are not really based on hate, they are based on
only on attitudes towards race, gender preference and religion.
I may hate my neighbor for various other reasons, and it would
not be classified as a hate crime. The better way is to charge two
separate crimes, the crime itself, and an additional charge for civil
rights
violations. I am in favor of criminalizing civil rights violations.
Bit call things want they are, and prove the civil
rights violation in court. See, I am also in
favor of protecting the civil liberties
of those accused .

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 01:08 PM

On 28 Ian, 07:35, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
> who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
> problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
> audio.

So, you are going to give your posse paranoia a rest for the day.
Good.

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 02:02 PM

On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
>
> > > HUH!!!???!!!
>
> > I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
> > by the standards commonly promoted today.
>
> > That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > does not like.
>
> I agree.
>
> > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
>
> > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > not an action,
>
> We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> penalty.
>
> > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
>
> But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.

I just ran into this:
it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273/1013

BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
get past any prejudice against the the Times
years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

George M. Middius

January 28th 08, 03:46 PM

RapidRonnie said:

> That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> does not like.

When hateful views are spewed in public, others have a right to disagree.
As long as we don't inflict anything worse on the racist than he inflicts
on us, it's all part of the right to free speech.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 28th 08, 08:13 PM

On Jan 28, 6:35*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I think that we have yet another example of what's wrong with RAO - people
> who would rather waste their time whining about the world's non-audio
> problems, and bickering childishly, rather than sticking to the topic of
> audio.

...said GOIA judgmentally, ignoring the audio content in the original
post in order to whine about what is wrong with RAO without sticking
to the topic of audio.

I think that we have yet another example of why we need universal
health care. Perhaps then GOIA could afford the treatments he so
obviously needs.

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 28th 08, 10:06 PM

On Jan 28, 3:56*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> *I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
leave?

Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
you a one-way ticket to Iran.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 28th 08, 10:10 PM

On Jan 28, 3:59*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> *What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
> others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
> racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
> criteria derived from?

You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
not full of hate.

Perhaps that's because I only have been around normal people. Whether
you know it or not, you're a very sick little guy.

> I want answers.

I hope that you found this helpful.

George M. Middius

January 28th 08, 10:55 PM

Bratzi shakes his rattle and gropes for his pacifier.

> > When hateful views are spewed in public, others have a right to disagree.
> > As long as we don't inflict anything worse on the racist than he inflicts
> > on us, it's all part of the right to free speech.

> What is hate? Who defines it?

As far as RAO, you are the personification of race hatred. (Technically,
hate is a primary emotion, and hatred is the actualization thereof.)

To learn about definitions, you could start with dictionaries. Then, after
learning what the lexicographers say, you could see about ransoming your
humanity from the SS.

> Why are certain preferences hate and
> others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
> racist works, not hate?

Good! Keep asking those "tough" questions.

> I want answers.

We all want something, Bratzi.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 28th 08, 11:25 PM

On Jan 28, 4:40*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 3:59*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > *What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
> > > others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
> > > racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
> > > criteria derived from?
>
> > You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
> > not full of hate.
>
> *A book no one reads.

Tacit admission that the Talmud (a book that many apparently read) and
Mein Kampf are both equally full of hatred.

> *How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?

I bought one with the intent of reading it to find out. The
translation I got read from right to left. When I bought it I didn't
think that would bother me but it did. I gave up.

From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
think so. It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
down lots of people too.

Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?

How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
interpretation?

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 11:35 PM

On 28 Ian, 16:56, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

>
> Stratificationism means letting people hire and associate with others
> as they see fit without restrictions, letting them self-separate as
> they see fit. That's compatible with libertarianism, certainly.
>

It's no so liberating for the
guy who wants to get hired, but, instead,
gets discriminated against because of race, or what have you.

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 11:36 PM

On 28 Ian, 16:56, Bret Ludwig > wrote:

>
> I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.

you mean YOUR sense of values.
you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.

Jenn

January 28th 08, 11:37 PM

In article
>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.
> >
> > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > leave?
> >
> More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.
>
> When they do, stand by.

I'm curious (as always): If you agreed with Obama's positions, could
you vote for him?

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 11:38 PM

On 28 Ian, 17:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.
>
> Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> leave?
>
> Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
> you a one-way ticket to Iran.

Where is the latest bastion of white supremacy?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 28th 08, 11:40 PM

On Jan 28, 5:30*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to > wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > *I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society..
>
> > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > leave?
>
> *More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.
>
> *When they do, stand by.

You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
****.

So why not answer the question, unless you are too pitifully stupid to
understand it.

Clyde Slick

January 28th 08, 11:43 PM

On 28 Ian, 18:40, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 5:30 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to > wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.
>
> > > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > > leave?
>
> > More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.
>
> > When they do, stand by.
>
> You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
> large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
> occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
> ****.
>
> So why not answer the question, unless you are too pitifully stupid to
> understand it.

Not that there is anything wrong with strudel.

Jenn

January 28th 08, 11:44 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> > RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
> >
> > > > HUH!!!???!!!
> >
> > > I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
> > > by the standards commonly promoted today.
> >
> > > That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > > does not like.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
> >
> > > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > not an action,
> >
> > We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > penalty.
> >
> > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
> >
> > But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> I just ran into this:
> it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.
>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273/1013
>
> BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
> get past any prejudice against the the Times
> years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
> He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
> You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.

I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
be answered again by what I wrote above. It's not thought crime,
because having the thought is not criminal. Nor do I believe that
speech should be restricted. The point is that when a perp commits a
crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.

Jenn

January 28th 08, 11:53 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
>
>
> > But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> But hate crimes are not really based on hate, they are based on
> only on attitudes towards race, gender preference and religion.

No, one can have any attitude they wish to have!

> I may hate my neighbor for various other reasons, and it would
> not be classified as a hate crime.

Correct. And one can hate anyone for ANY reason and it's not a hate
crime.

> The better way is to charge two
> separate crimes, the crime itself, and an additional charge for civil
> rights
> violations.

Perhaps so. That's what happens in many places.

> I am in favor of criminalizing civil rights violations.
> Bit call things want they are, and prove the civil
> rights violation in court.

You have to do that with hate crimes as well. The goal of intimidation,
etc has to be proved. There are many times where the perp is found
guilty of the crime, but does not receive the enhanced penalty.

> See, I am also in
> favor of protecting the civil liberties
> of those accused .

As am I, of course.

We have a hate crimes case in our sleep little community right now. Or
to be more precise, it MAY be a hate crime. Some churches have been
vandalized, and the DA is saying that when they catch the perp, hate
crime laws MAY apply.

George M. Middius

January 29th 08, 12:02 AM

Clyde Slick said:

> > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.
>
> you mean YOUR sense of values.
> you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.

Ask him about the different colored birdies, and how Nature didn't mean
for the blue birds and the yellow birds to miscegenate.

George M. Middius

January 29th 08, 12:03 AM

Shhhh! said:

> You didn't answer my question, Bratzi. "More" does not represent "a
> large majority". I'd imagine both of you get together for strudel
> occasionally too, and link arms and sing the Horst Wessel song and
> ****.

I would appreciate it if you didn't link strudel -- a fine Austrian pastry
-- with Bratzi's self-serving racialism. TIA.

Jenn

January 29th 08, 01:00 AM

In article
>,
Bret Ludwig > wrote:

> On Jan 28, 5:37 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > > > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration
> > > > > very
> > > > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our
> > > > > society.
> >
> > > > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > > > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > > > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > > > leave?
> >
> > > More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.
> >
> > > When they do, stand by.
> >
> > I'm curious (as always): If you agreed with Obama's positions, could
> > you vote for him?
>
> Certainly.

OK.

Clyde Slick

January 29th 08, 01:09 AM

On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
>
> > > > > HUH!!!???!!!
>
> > > > I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > > > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
> > > > by the standards commonly promoted today.
>
> > > > That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > > > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > > > does not like.
>
> > > I agree.
>
> > > > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > > > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > > > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
>
> > > > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > > not an action,
>
> > > We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > > or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > > penalty.
>
> > > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
>
> > > But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> > > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> > > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> > I just ran into this:
> > it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273...
>
> > BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
> > get past any prejudice against the the Times
> > years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
> > He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
> > You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.
>
> I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
> be answered again by what I wrote above. It's not thought crime,
> because having the thought is not criminal. Nor do I believe that
> speech should be restricted. The point is that when a perp commits a
> crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
> GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.

Wrong.
when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.

Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
the
way the victim looked at him.

Your definition is off the mark.

Clyde Slick

January 29th 08, 01:10 AM

On 28 Ian, 18:53, Jenn > wrote:
> In article

>
> We have a hate crimes case in our sleep little community right now. Or
> to be more precise, it MAY be a hate crime. Some churches have been
> vandalized, and the DA is saying that when they catch the perp, hate
> crime laws MAY apply.

sure, because of what he ThouGHT

Clyde Slick

January 29th 08, 01:11 AM

On 28 Ian, 19:02, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration very
> > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our society.
>
> > you mean YOUR sense of values.
> > you must figure that Europeans ar more likely to be racists.
>
> Ask him about the different colored birdies, and how Nature didn't mean
> for the blue birds and the yellow birds to miscegenate.

Is it a coincidence that starlings are black??

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 01:12 AM

On Jan 28, 5:29*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> > *How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?
>
> *A bunch.

2pid and Bratzi find common ground...again.

So Bratzi, does 2pid represent the 'majority' you claim to have? Will
you leave the US if I can prove that a majority don't agree with you
that your values represent the values of our society?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 01:17 AM

On Jan 28, 5:38*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 28 Ian, 17:06, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > leave?
>
> > Just say the word "yes" and the petition drive is on. I'll even buy
> > you a one-way ticket to Iran.
>
> Where is the latest bastion of white supremacy?

It's a belief that's generally been out of favor since April of 1945.
I think South Africa was probably the last one.

It appears that in Bratzi's psychotic dreamworld even blacks are white
supremacists.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 01:20 AM

On Jan 28, 7:00*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 5:37 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 28, 4:06 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 28, 3:56 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > > > *I have no desire to deport blacks or other nonwhites who are here
> > > > > > legally and have been, but I certainly would restrict immigration
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > severely. And I would give some preference to Europeans because they
> > > > > > are more likely to be in harmony with our sense of values, our
> > > > > > society.
>
> > > > > Bratzi, if a large majority of legal residents of the US who are of
> > > > > white European descent said that you and your views are not in harmony
> > > > > with the values or culture of this country and this society, would you
> > > > > leave?
>
> > > > *More people agree with me than you think. Many won't ad mit it-yet.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 02:26 AM

On Jan 28, 5:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 3:25*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
> > book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
> > true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
> > think so.
>
> *One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the lord.

Neither does the bible.

> > It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
> > down lots of people too.
>
> > Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
> > wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
> > Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?
>
> 9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months
> of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun
> {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege
> them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent
> and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}),
> and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-
> Forgiving, Most Merciful.

So we could anticipate that these 'true believers' would not kill
during the months which correspond to whatever months these are in our
calendar. If they're going to follow their religion, they should
follow it. It strikes me that many aren't, just as many don't follow
the bible of whatever religion they belong to. Most people can't keep
new year's resolutions, so that isn't surprising.

> > How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
> > while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
> > interpretation?
>
> So they say....but how to interpret 9:5 in an
> acceptable way?

I guess the same way that I'd interpret Joshua 23.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 02:30 AM

On Jan 28, 5:29*pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:40 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jan 28, 3:59 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > *What is hate? Who defines it? Why are certain preferences hate and
> > > > others, such as found in Mein Tampf or the Talmud or other explicitly
> > > > racist works, not hate? When is this decision made? Where are your
> > > > criteria derived from?
>
> > > You're the only person I've ever heard who has said "Mein Kampf" is
> > > not full of hate.
>
> > *A book no one reads.
>
> > *How about the Quran? * How much hate is in that book?
>
> *A bunch.
>
> *The Old Testament (and arguably the New), the Talmud

Say, Bratzi, could you give me the chapter and verse where this so-
called hatred and racism is found in the Talmud?

You see, I just found this, and it seems like it might have been
written just for you!:

Some groups and individuals consider that passages in the Talmud show
that Judaism is inherently racist. In reply it is suggested that the
passages do not indicate inherent racism on the part of the Talmud
(and Judaism), but rather mistranslation, falsification, and selective
choice of quotes out of context, on the part of those making the
charges. Confusion also arises as to whether controversial ideas come
from the Holy Bible itself or originate with the Talmud.

The complexity of the Talmud contributes to misunderstanding. Written
like the transcript of a debate, the text often states propositions,
which are then knocked down during the subsequent debate. Thus many
statements in the Talmud represent ideas eventually rejected by
Rabbinic thought. Moreover, the Talmud focuses on topics one at a
time, and includes many statements within that discussion that are not
to be taken as doctrine outside of that topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#Contemporary_attacks

So lay them on me, Bratzi. I strongly suspect that you can't, and that
you are merely parroting the thoughts of one of your beloved hate-
mongers, but I thought I'd ask.

George M. Middius

January 29th 08, 02:47 AM

Shhhh! said:

> It appears that in Bratzi's psychotic dreamworld even blacks are white
> supremacists.

Are you thinking of Chappelle's version of a white supremacist? That was
one of his best sketches.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 29th 08, 07:22 AM

On Jan 29, 12:03*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
> On Jan 28, 5:50 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 3:25 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any other religious
> > > book, including the christian bible, reads: lots of "we're the only
> > > true religion" and the lord is going to smite down those who didn't
> > > think so.
>
> > One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the lord.
>
> Neither does the bible.
>
> > > It strikes me that gods in most religions in the west smite
> > > down lots of people too.
>
> > > Since you've apparently read it, and I have admitted that I couldn't
> > > wade through it, why don't you tell me? How much hatred is in the
> > > Qu'ran? What passages did you personally find the most bothersome?
>
> > 9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months
> > of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun
> > {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege
> > them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent
> > and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}),
> > and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-
> > Forgiving, Most Merciful.
>
> :So we could anticipate that these 'true believers' would not kill
> :during the months which correspond to whatever months these are in our
> :calendar.
>
> Well, that is reassuring.

It should be, as all Muslims simply do what their bible tells them to
do. That was the whole reason to fear this passage, right?

> :If they're going to follow their religion, they should
> :follow it.
>
> Spoken like a true islamist.

It seems, 2pid, that these scary Muslims are "directed by god" to blow
people up. So these people, eager to please their god, blow people up.
They must do so, as it says so in the Qu'ran. This was your whole
point.

Yet all these "true" Muslims can't be bothered to blow people up when
"god directed" them to. So are they doing it because god told them to
or not?

I'll look at your (and other like-'minded' people) "redneck" logic at
the end of this post.

> : It strikes me that many aren't, just as many don't follow
> :the bible of whatever religion they belong to.
>
> That ****es Osama off too.

Why would you assume that "****es me off"? And what has this to do
with anything?

2pid, no offense, but your one-liners are weak and boring. Was the
kennel closed today or something? ;-)

> > > How is it that many, if not most, Muslims generally live peaceably,
> > > while others blow themselves up? Is it possibly an issue with
> > > interpretation?
>
> > So they say....but how to interpret 9:5 in an
> > acceptable way?
>
> :I guess the same way that I'd interpret Joshua 23.
>
> Like an atheist?

That certainly does give me a bias.

Did you read Joshua 23? These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!

LOL!

-----Redneck 'Logic'----

From your beloved JihadWatch blog, 2pid:

The history of Europe from 711 (the invasion of Spain) to 1689 (the
siege of Vienna) is one long Muslim siege, with Europe pushing the
front line forward or back according to strength and good fortune. But
the siege as such was not broken until the decisive war that ended in
1714, in which the power of Turkey to threaten the Habsburg lands (and
consequently the heartland of Europe) was broken for ever; and even
so, the cruel pirates of Barbary continued to raid European coasts in
search of light-skinned slaves, until the early nineteenth century. If
this depth of history does not teach us that the normal relationship
between Islam and the rest of the world is war, nothing will. Quotes
from this or that Muslim authority are rather beside the point: they
will only convince those who can be convinced, but they will simply
fly past the large class of deluded pacifists like water off a duck's
back.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004855.php

Scary, huh? I think we'd better declare war now. Oh, wait. bushie
already has. LOL!

Arny Krueger

January 29th 08, 01:21 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> ...
> On Jan 28, 5:50 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 3:25 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>>> From what I did read it seemed to me exactly like any
>>> other religious book, including the christian bible,
>>> reads: lots of "we're the only true religion" and the
>>> lord is going to smite down those who didn't think so.
>>
>> One difference....the Quran doesn't say wait for the
>> lord.
>
> Neither does the bible.

Except in Psalms 27:14, 37:14, Isaiah 40:31, Lamentations 3:25, 1
Corinthians 1:7, and other places depending on the translation and your
exegesis.

Jenn

January 29th 08, 04:36 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 28 Ian, 18:53, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
>
> >
> > We have a hate crimes case in our sleep little community right now. Or
> > to be more precise, it MAY be a hate crime. Some churches have been
> > vandalized, and the DA is saying that when they catch the perp, hate
> > crime laws MAY apply.
>
> sure, because of what he ThouGHT

If it's PROVED to be motivated by hate, yes, I suppose so. But he could
have the thoughts with no penalty. But he (or she, or they) did the
crime. If they did it to intimidate a group, those who believe in hate
crimes laws would say that the enhanced penalty is worth it because they
are acting to suppress the rights of more than one person.

Jenn

January 29th 08, 04:39 PM

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > > > RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
> >
> > > > > > HUH!!!???!!!
> >
> > > > > I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > > > > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. He certainly is a racist
> > > > > by the standards commonly promoted today.
> >
> > > > > That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > > > > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > > > > does not like.
> >
> > > > I agree.
> >
> > > > > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > > > > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > > > > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
> >
> > > > > "Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > > > not an action,
> >
> > > > We do that all the time, of course. Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > > > or was it premeditated? Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > > > penalty.
> >
> > > > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
> >
> > > > But a hate crime has a crime. You aren't charged with the hate. You're
> > > > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. We can
> > > > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
> >
> > > I just ran into this:
> > > it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.
> >
> > >http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273...
> >
> > > BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
> > > get past any prejudice against the the Times
> > > years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
> > > He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
> > > You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.
> >
> > I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
> > be answered again by what I wrote above. It's not thought crime,
> > because having the thought is not criminal. Nor do I believe that
> > speech should be restricted. The point is that when a perp commits a
> > crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
> > GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.
>
>
> Wrong.
> when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
> a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
> as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.
>
> Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
> well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
> is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
> the
> way the victim looked at him.

And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.

Clyde Slick

January 29th 08, 10:34 PM

On 29 Ian, 11:39, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > *RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > *Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
>
> > > > > > > HUH!!!???!!!
>
> > > > > > *I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > > > > > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. *He certainly is a racist
> > > > > > by the standards commonly promoted today.
>
> > > > > > *That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > > > > > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > > > > > does not like.
>
> > > > > I agree.
>
> > > > > > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > > > > > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > > > > > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
>
> > > > > > *"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > > > > not an action,
>
> > > > > We do that all the time, of course. *Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > > > > or was it premeditated? *Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > > > > penalty.
>
> > > > > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > > > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > > > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > > > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > > > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
>
> > > > > But a hate crime has a crime. *You aren't charged with the hate. *You're
> > > > > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. *We can
> > > > > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> > > > I just ran into this:
> > > > it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.
>
> > > >http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273....
>
> > > > BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
> > > > get past any prejudice against the the Times
> > > > years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
> > > > He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
> > > > You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.
>
> > > I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
> > > be answered again by what I wrote above. *It's not thought crime,
> > > because having the thought is not criminal. *Nor do I believe that
> > > speech should be restricted. *The point is that when a perp commits a
> > > crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
> > > GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.
>
> > Wrong.
> > when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
> > a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
> > as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.
>
> > Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
> > well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
> > is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
> > the
> > way the victim looked at him.
>
> And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
> general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afiºare text în citat -

they don't deserve any more rights than any other people, nor do
they deserve any less.
(AFA marriage, they already have the same rights as everyone else, but
as
far as same sex unions, they should be legitimized)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 30th 08, 01:09 AM

On Jan 29, 6:41*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 28, 11:22*pm, > wrote:

> > It should be, as all Muslims simply do what their bible tells them to
> > do. That was the whole reason to fear this passage, right?
>
> *Not all, just way too many.

Yet down below you say it is men telling people that is what the
Qu'ran says. I am more inclined to go along with that.

> > They must do so, as it says so in the Qu'ran.
>
> *They do have the option to say....this Islam ****
> is BS....I'm not doing that.

Neither do christians, if they're really christians.

> > This was your whole
> > point.
>
> > Yet all these "true" Muslims can't be bothered to blow people up when
> > "god directed" them to. So are they doing it because god told them to
> > or not?
>
> *They're doing it because some man told them god said
> to do it. *As an atheist you must believe he is lying.
> So we have that in common.

Do you also believe the pope or any other religious leader is equally
full of ****?

I do.

> > Why would you assume that "****es me off"?
>
> *Everything else does. Is this an exception?

Not everything elae ****es me off, so your question is invalid.

> > And what has this to do
> > with anything?
>
> *****ed off people are more prone to blow **** up as
> they think god has told them to do.
> Good thing you're an atheist or you would have
> exploded a long time ago.

This from the King of Anger Management Skills. LOL!

> > 2pid, no offense, but your one-liners are weak and boring. Was the
> > kennel closed today or something? ;-)
>
> *Should I do the multi-paragraph rambling nonsense thing
> as you so dearly love?

I know words confuse you. That was more about stupid and lame one-
liners like:

"Good thing you're an atheist or you would have exploded a long time
ago."

> > Did you read Joshua 23?
>
> *Yup. It's not the same as 9:5 IMO.

Actually, the point was that god is telling them to expect exactly
what is happening. I thought that would make you happy.

> > *These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
> > prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!

See?

> *Why do you assume that quoting one thing from
> a blog implies one agrees with everything on the blog?

Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 30th 08, 09:52 AM

On Jan 29, 9:40*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
> On Jan 29, 6:41 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 11:22 pm, > wrote:

> :Neither do christians, if they're really christians.
>
> If Christians in significant convinced me that the bible
> ordered them to kill or convert non-christians or
> subjugate women....I'd suggest being a christian was
> dumb too.

Does the bible specifically relegate women to a lower tier? Yes.

> :Do you also believe the pope or any other religious leader is equally
> :full of ****?
>
> Only when the pope said pedophilia in the Catholic church
> was a media conspiracy. *That's about the closest in
> recent times. *History before our times is not relevant
> AFIAC....you, however, seem inclined to bear guilt.

Oh, 2pid, believe me, I *know* that "history before our times is not
relevant" to you. That's the sign of a true bonehead.

There's also a distinction between understanding history and "bearing
guilt".

Understanding, for example, that we in the US used to enslave people,
understanding the causes and the effects of that enslavement, and
understanding the long-term results is not "guilt".

I am not directly responsible for slavery. Neither are you. But one of
the results of it was legal, institutionalized discrimination. One of
the results of that was "white privelege". There are many other
results of that as well. They exist today, as do the attitudes that
provided the foundation for that "peculiar institution" (see any post
by Bratzi as an example). You are responsible for understanding that
if for no other reason than to be a decent human being. You (in
particular because you are a white male) are responsible for fighting
it for the same reason. You have failed in your responsibility. "It's
just not your problem."

BTW, the bible DOES allow slavery. There are even rules about how it
should be conducted. You are no doubt dismayed at the passing of that
institution here, you being a good christian and all.

> > > Why would you assume that "****es me off"?
>
> > Everything else does. Is this an exception?
>
> :Not everything elae ****es me off, so your question is invalid.
>
> Actions speak louder than words.

Puhleeze don't preach to me 2pid. You have "actions" that you
recommend for everybody but yourself. This is no different.

It's also "trite". LOL!

> > ****ed off people are more prone to blow **** up as
> > they think god has told them to do.
> > Good thing you're an atheist or you would have
> > exploded a long time ago.
>
> :This from the King of Anger Management Skills. LOL!
>
> I am blessed.

With a noticeable lack of grey matter.

But plenty of hypocrisy.

> > > 2pid, no offense, but your one-liners are weak and boring. Was the
> > > kennel closed today or something? ;-)
>
> > Should I do the multi-paragraph rambling nonsense thing
> > as you so dearly love?
>
> :I know words confuse you.
>
> *I just can't read your bull beyond a paragraph or two.
> The eyes close and the music fills the air....

Is that your excuse for not understanding anything that's said to you?
Apparently anybody you disagree with has the same affect on you.

> *That was more about stupid and lame one-
> liners like:
>
> "Good thing you're an atheist or you would have exploded a long time
> ago."
>
> You think? * I think your persona with a religious conversion
> is a crusade waiting to happen.

There you go, 'thinking' again. You've never been successful at it.
Nobody, however, has been successful at making you aware of how you
appear to others, so have at it.

Are you even dimly aware of how angry you come off? (A preemptive
strike at the invariable "IKYABWAI" that will follow. Most people
understand that sarcasm, etc. is not "anger" but it's probably "trite"
of me to say so. LOL!

> > > Did you read Joshua 23?
>
> > Yup. It's not the same as 9:5 IMO.
>
> :Actually, the point was that god is telling them to expect exactly
> :what is happening. I thought that would make you happy.
>
> I would be happy if one of them did not explicitly order
> killing.

Well, that doesn't appear to be the case. Now what? Should we do some
killin' of our own? Oh, wait: we already are. I suppose we are morally
superior, as the killing we do isn't ordered by the bible. Our killing
is justified.

And we should reinstitute slavery.

As I said many times before (MANY times before), it may indeed at some
point come to a 10th or 12th or 15th (or whatever number we're on now)
Crusade. Why are you in such a hurry? This stuff has been happening
for centuries. Suddenly to those "less-endowed" in the brains
department Islam is THE BIGGEST DEAL EVER TO HAPPEN EVER! WE WILL ALL
LIVE UNDER SHARIA! FOREVER! LIFE WILL BE OVER!

Those guys you posted a photo of recently may be building rowboats (no
doubt paid for by robbing banks) as we speak. Meanwhile we arm the
House of Saud (perhaps the "worst of the worst" as the seat of the
most fundamental Islamic Extremism) with F-16s and other military
hardware. Ditto Pakistan. Ditto Afghanistan (in the 1980s and again
now). Ditto Iraq (in the 1980s and again now). Ditto Iran. History
does indeed repeat itself, even if we don't want it to, 2pid.
According to you, we are arming the Devil Himself. And I'll bet you do
not even have the faintest glimmer as to why that is, and has been, an
amazingly bad thing for us in the long haul.

That's why my advice would be to take a longer view and not get swept
up in the emotions of the moment. But because you cannot, or will not,
do that, that's also why I've said (MANY times) that you'd be an
absolute disaster as a military leader. And you would be.

Duh.

Anyway, no doubt when "Rapture" comes you'll be snapped up like a sale-
priced bra at the annual Filene's Basement sale. And I agree with you:
that's an entirely 'rational' belief. LOL!

And 2pid, please send down a glass of cold water occasionally, as you
look down upon me burning in the eternal fires of hell and damnation
with a self-satisfied smirk. OK? LOL!

> > > These Muslims are simply fulfilling biblical
> > > prophesy. You should be happy. Rapture is near!
>
> :See?
>
> *Nope. *You're not being rational or accurate, but I'm not
> really inclined to debate religion with an atheist.

Thank god. (LOL!) There's nothing less interesting to me than
'discussing' religion with somebody who 'thinks' they're 'rational'
and needs "proof" of other claims. They always end up making circular
arguments, but I suppose someone as 'rational' as you are would see
that.

Cables make all the difference in the world, 2pid: you just have to
have faith.

LOL!

> > Why do you assume that quoting one thing from
> > a blog implies one agrees with everything on the blog?
>
> :Um, why not? What did you disagree with?
>
> The relevance of ancient history to today's problems.
> Human history only repeats itself if we let it.

Um, the Muslims were beaten back, 2pid. The Islamic empire described
in that historical excerpt is no more. I'd suggest that you reread
that history. I think that you've been trying to argue the reverse of
that.

Here's some more Islamic history for you to misunderstand:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM

Does *everything* confuse you?

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

Clyde Slick

January 30th 08, 12:26 PM

On 30 Ian, 04:52, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> BTW, the bible DOES allow slavery. There are even rules about how it
> should be conducted. You are no doubt dismayed at the passing of that
> institution here, you being a good christian and all.
>

"At least" we have given up trying to implement it.

Jenn

January 30th 08, 05:43 PM

On Jan 29, 2:34*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 29 Ian, 11:39, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Ian, 18:44, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 28 Ian, 00:35, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > *RapidRonnie > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 27, 7:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 27 Ian, 20:30, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > *Since I have never advocated "white supremacy"
>
> > > > > > > > HUH!!!???!!!
>
> > > > > > > *I don't think Bret is a white supremacist. I think he IS a white
> > > > > > > separatist, or at least a white nationalist. *He certainly is a racist
> > > > > > > by the standards commonly promoted today.
>
> > > > > > > *That said, I think a person has a right to be a racist, provided he
> > > > > > > does not infringe on the rights of members of groups he personally
> > > > > > > does not like.
>
> > > > > > I agree.
>
> > > > > > > The same is true of people who disapprove of Catholics,
> > > > > > > Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals. Their prejudices won't be corrected by
> > > > > > > laws: what will happen is they will be made covert.
>
> > > > > > > *"Hate crime" laws are dangerous because they criminalize a belief,
> > > > > > > not an action,
>
> > > > > > We do that all the time, of course. *Was a murder a "crime of passion"
> > > > > > or was it premeditated? *Makes a difference in the charge and the
> > > > > > penalty.
>
> > > > > > > and once one belief is a crime, any belief-or lack
> > > > > > > thereof- can be made a crime. Don't believe in transubstantiation, the
> > > > > > > virgin birth, or the necessity of burning witches before they can
> > > > > > > deprive the community's men of their privy members? Die for heresy!
> > > > > > > That was exactly what happened 300+ years ago.
>
> > > > > > But a hate crime has a crime. *You aren't charged with the hate. *You're
> > > > > > charged with the underlying crime, but with enhanced penalty. *We can
> > > > > > debate the philosophy behind this if you would like to do so.
>
> > > > > I just ran into this:
> > > > > it is partly about hate crimes and thought crimes.
>
> > > > >http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080128/EDITORIAL07/459776273...
>
> > > > > BTW, Hentoff is a devout civil liberterian, so try to
> > > > > get past any prejudice against the the Times
> > > > > years ago, he appeared in the Washington Post
> > > > > He is syndicated, and appears in many liberal newspapers.
> > > > > You may also know him as a noted jazz critic.
>
> > > > I don't have time to read every word at this moment, but what I read can
> > > > be answered again by what I wrote above. *It's not thought crime,
> > > > because having the thought is not criminal. *Nor do I believe that
> > > > speech should be restricted. *The point is that when a perp commits a
> > > > crime due to harm or intimidate a GROUP, the perp is a danger to a
> > > > GROUP, i.e. more than one individual, hence the enhanced penalties.
>
> > > Wrong.
> > > when a dealer offs a snitch, he is also intimidating
> > > a group, there is no large penalty for that, and no designation
> > > as a hate crime. No, hate crimes target motivation, i.e., thought.
>
> > > Conversely, if a gay basher offs a guy for being gay, he may very
> > > well be targeting just that person, depending on circumstances, and
> > > is not threatening or a threat to anyone else. Maybe he didn't like
> > > the
> > > way the victim looked at him.
>
> > And if it's not shown that the perp was acting against gay people in
> > general, he/she won't receive the enhanced penalty.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> > - Afiºare text în citat -
>
> they don't deserve any more rights than any other people, nor do
> they deserve any less.

I agree.

> (AFA marriage, they already have the same rights as everyone else,

And if the laws change, we still will. So will you.

> but
> as
> far as same sex unions, they should be legitimized)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 30th 08, 10:00 PM

On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:

> *Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
> *and so it goes.....

You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
all brand new.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 30th 08, 11:34 PM

On Jan 30, 4:10*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > *Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
> > > *and so it goes.....
>
> > You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
> > rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
> > all brand new.
>
> *Same o, same o. *Gross misrepresentation after gross
> misrepresentation.

:Um, why not? What did you disagree with?

"The relevance of ancient history to today's problems."
Human history only repeats itself if we let it.

-and-

"I am not responsible for anything before my birth."

> To what end?

Never mind, 2pid. It's pretty clear you never know what you are saying.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 31st 08, 12:17 AM

On Jan 30, 6:06*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:34*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 4:10*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 2:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jan 30, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > *Pretty typical...I say I think this...you say, No you don't.
> > > > > *and so it goes.....
>
> > > > You've made it very clear, 2pid, several times: the world was a tabula
> > > > rasa before you were born. Nothing of import happened. Everything is
> > > > all brand new.
>
> > > *Same o, same o. *Gross misrepresentation after gross
> > > misrepresentation.
>
> > :Um, why not? What did you disagree with?
>
> > "The relevance of ancient history to today's problems."
> > Human history only repeats itself if we let it.
>
> > -and-
>
> > "I am not responsible for anything before my birth."
>
> > > *To what end?
>
> > Never mind, 2pid. It's pretty clear you never know what you are saying.
>
> It's completely clear that you haven't a clue what I say...nor really
> care.

Not true, 2pid. I just find what you say naive and unintelligent (and
usually unintelligible, but that's a different topic).

> It just makes your sad life complete claiming I said or meant
> something completely different.

That's not true, 2pid. Several others here see the same thing. In
fact, you might be the only one who doesn't see it.

> That's really weird.

I know, but there it is.

Tell me again how history has no bearing on today's problems. I like
that story. And tell me how you would have fought against slavery, for
example, during the 1850s, as that "peculiar institution" was around
before you would have been born and would therefore "not have been
your responsibility". I like that one too.

For further credit, explain how the Ottoman Empire's liberal
interpretation of Sharia differed from the interpretation you so fear
today. It's in that Ottoman history I provided that you misunderstood
(if you bothered to read it). Then compare and contrast the rise of
conservatism in the US with conservatism in the Islamic world.

Oh, never mind. Many of the foundations of those shifts were laid
before your time.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!