From: Lewis Cypher Area: THE_OASIS To: Scott Brush 5 Oct 92 20:36:46 Subject: RE: Re: MALE PREJUDICES UpdReq In a message to Michael Lee written on Sunday, October 4, 1992 at 21:25:12, Scott Brush writes: SB> Please let me know what ROFL stands for. For a long time, I kept seeing 'ROTFLMAO!!' on BBS, and had no idea what it meant. Then one day someone said it meant: Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off Well, that's gettin' to the point. But are you sure the 'A' doesn't stand for 'Acne'? Rats On Toast Fried Lightly with Mayonaise and Onion! Its unclear exactly how this originated. It is suspected to have something o do with Arbys or TCBY. Most believe that the earliest records of "rats" were kept by the Aztecs. In those days, as you can well imagine, BBS'ing was very difficult. All those stone tablets and scrolls became very quite unwieldy! Then the marsupial lion became extinct and changed the way we think of lint forever. I hope this dispells some confusion for you. Yes, I am now totally sure of how unclear this ambiguous statement may or may not have a definitive impact upon the complete clarification of the question previously presented. I was trying to pronounce "ROTFLMAO" while reading it. My roomate was looking at me and said I was humped over my keyboard with my eyes squinting and and my lips and jaw twisted and contorted and every time I said it, I would slobber and spit would fly all over my monitor and I would get these pulsing veins on the sides of my head and the hair on the back of my neck would bristle and it really worried her. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Scott Brush 6 Oct 92 08:13:38 Subject: Re: MALE PREJUDICES UpdReq In a message dated 04 Oct 92 21:25:12, Scott Brush wrote: SB> Please let me know what ROFL stands for. Rolling On [the] Floor[,] Laughing 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Dionysia Marqueza 6 Oct 92 08:16:38 Subject: Re: GUNS AND COMMON GOOD UpdReq In a message dated 05 Oct 92 18:06:16, Dionysia Marqueza wrote: > For this nation, it is an exception. Most of go to the grocery > store for food. Most people who are hurting for food apply for > welfare, not gun liscences. As I'm sure you can well guess, guns for > hunting necessary food is not what gun control is about. I, for one, > can't see where a mandatory 5 day wait, like the Brady bill > proposes, or a background check, or the requirement of safety > testing in order to be liscenced (like a car), and prohibiting the > sale of unregistered guns through the mail might all be places where > we can prevent enormous loss of life, not to mention crime, without > bringing harm to the people you mentioned. DM> I couldn't agree more :) In this regard, I am -very- pro gun DM> control: although I generally lean towards wanting to *less* DM> legislation of various human activity, it is these sort of "public DM> welfare" venues that I think a government -could- be a good and DM> useful thing. A couple of things.... 1) When the government claims to act in the "public good" I can guarantee two things: One, it's not for the "public", and two it's usually not "good" It seems to me logically inconsistent fro folks like yourselves to advocate the government staying out of peoples lives and at the same time advocate active government interference in peoples lives. The fact is you want government intervening where _you_ think its appropriate, and staying out where _you_ think they should stay out. HOw is that better than the fundamentalist christians? 2) It seems obvious to me, despite the baggage of rhetoric that comes with the territory, that "if you make owning guns criminal, the only result is that only criminals will have guns." Instead of punishing those folks who legally operate firearms by taking away that "right", punish those that abuse that right. But nooooooooo. It is a fundamental tenent of the liberal-left intellegentsia that we, as humans, aren't responsible for our own actions. It must be our (pick one) race/class/gender/co-dependency/homophobic society that forces us to be "anti-social." It _boggles_ my mind that you folks actually think that its the guns that forces the criminals to do what they do. The simple fact is, that there is no deterrence to criminal behavior. You want gun control? Flog every person (adult or juvie) who commits _any_ crime with a firearm, whether they use it or not. If they hurt anyone, kill them. I _guarantee_ that it won't take 6 months before violent crime committed with firearms has been reduced to a non-problem. On a personal note, It is MHO that advocates of gun control are fundamentally, and by definition, egaltarian cowards. They have abbrogated personal responsibility of self-preservation. They believe, wrongly, that if they don't have to face personal danger, they will be safer. They are unwilling to put there own butts on the line because they might get hurt. So they put forty locks on their apartments, hole up at night, and demand that "government" get rid of all the guns so they don't have to worry about getting their self-important, and self-rightous butts shot off. The only place we really have a "problem" with guns are in urban areas. It might spill out into the suburbs every now and then, but "gun problems" are not a gun issue at all. They're a "power" issue, and in urban areas, it's not the poor liveral-left intellegentsia or the radical right that has the power. DM> In trying to imagine what -I- might find the ideal sort of DM> firearms legislation, a couple of things considered were: DM> * How effective a deterrant would it be if the penalty for the DM> illegal sale of firearms were commesurate with the penalties that are DM> enforced for other crimes committed with firearms? Like I said, the only _real_ deterrence is PAIN. The worse the offense, the worse the pain ought to be. It was the criminals _choice_ (the liberal- left is so fon of that word I thought I'd use it) to do what they do. Let them pay the price if caught. And make the price so painful that they won't want to choose the same thing again. If htye do it more than a few times, obviously they haven't gottent the message, and need to be eliminated. Kill them. That will be at least one person who we won't have to fear hurting someone with a gun. DM> * -Why- aren't children taught at least the bare minimum of gun DM> safety theory in school? As an elective, if nothing else... Again, we're abbrogating our personal responsibility to teach our children. Do you want to know where we have _no_ problems with guns? No accidental shootings and an occasional blown away spouse? In rural america. Do you know why? Because Daddies have been teaching their sons and daughters how to shoot guns, how to respect guns, and what they are used for. I'm in phoenix, and since the beginning of the year we've had 24, yes 24 "accidental" shootings, most involving kids. If folks are going to keep a gun in the house, why don't they do what my daddy di for me, show them how to use the damn things. But please, don't put the responsibility off on the school. Hell, they can't even get johnny to spell IBM. We put the schools in charge of teaching about guns, pretty soon we'll have no children. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Sea Queen 6 Oct 92 08:54:38 Subject: Re: GUNS AND COMMON GOOD UpdReq In a message dated 05 Oct 92 23:45:33, Sea Queen wrote: SQ> Hear, hear! After all, the whole point of government is to not SQ> only protect us from outside harm, but from each other as well. Sad, SQ> but necessary. Have you ever thought of just protecting yourself? Probably not, because that might me that poor old Sea Queen might get hurt. SQ> True, but I was talking about the predominate from of homicide SQ> with a gun. The "crimes of passion". Most homicides aren't in SQ> conjunction with a crime (like robbery, for instance). Most homicides SQ> are along the lines of so-and-so got pissed at his girlfriend and SQ> shot her to death, or such-and such- got in a fight in a bar, and SQ> went and got their gun and came back and shot the offending party. SQ> These are weapons predominately bought through legal means, more SQ> often than not even registered. These are the crimes I think can be SQ> reduced, though Lord knows not eradicated, by some of the control SQ> measures we have been discussing. Not to mention suicides. Crimes of passion have been going on for as long as women have been around to nag men (just kidding. just kidding). Seriously, if a guy or a gal wants to "do" their spouse/significant other, then they will. A gun is just a tool. The thing is, there really is nothing to prevent a person from committing this sort of crime. There is no deterrence. The quickest way to reduce all crimes of passion, not just those committeed with a gun, is to hang the S.O.B. who committs the crime. > * How effective a deterrant would it be if the penalty for the > illegal sale of firearms were commesurate with the penalties that > are enforced for other crimes committed with firearms? Bless my soul, we're in agreement! (I better rethink everything I believe. My world is shattered) SQ> Sad, but true. :( Hopefully, people will begin to look for SQ> other alternatives to blowing each other away to settle conflicts. Why? 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Michael Lee Area: THE_OASIS To: Gerald Del Campo 6 Oct 92 09:13:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. UpdReq GDC> Nope. My point is that since we are a part of society, and we are GDC> therefore either forced to comformity or be put away somewhere, that GDC> we should use our resources to cause change to make this country a GDC> more tolerance place. Or as George Bush put it shortly before GDC> bombing the shit out of a third world country with twice the amount GDC> TNT tonage as was used on Japan during WWII: "I want a kinder, GDC> gentler nation". If voting and legislation don't do it, then people GDC> have to take their bed ridden asses away from the TV and resort to GDC> other methods. "Tolerance" is in the eye of the beholder. It's obvious that you want specific things. It's obvious that you place moral judgements on certain actions. But who cares? Unless you can get other folks to agree with you, what you believe is irrelevant. And if you piss on a lot of folks, ontinuing on with a reply that got cut off... should you expect anything less than to "be put away somewhere"? You become a nuisance, a pest.. If you ain't part of the solution,you're part of the problem. Also that "third world" country your talking about happened to _invade_ and _destroy_ a sovereign nation, and was intent on invading another one before "Chicken George" did something. It's not as if Bush woke up one morning as said "What a bueatiful day for a bombing." TM> Ahhh, if that was all there was to Gay rights, I'd agree whole-heartedly. TM> The problem is that the _radical_ gays and their sympathizers (ACT UP! TM> Queer Nation, etc.) are dedicated to offending the most people they TM> possibly can. It goes beyond tolerance and mutual respect. The radical TM> gays have no respect for anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. GDC> Like I said; when legislation does not work, then one has to do GDC> whatever they can to get their point across. Shock has a tendency GDC> of making people pay attention. When the system fails you, what do GDC> YOU recommend? I reject the notion that the system failed. The "system" is not designed to please every single interest group that demands attention. The "system" is made to please the majority of people. Again, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Consider the radical "Right to Life" folks. The principals are the same. There is no difference between ACT UP! and RTL other than beliefs. GDC> And just as a side note: ACT UP! is dedicated to AIDS awareness GDC> and securing the necessary funding from our government for research. GDC> Some of those people don't have 10 or 20 years for popular opinion GDC> to change. ACT UP! says it's dedicated to AIDS awareness. What they are dedicated to is the superority of the Gay lifesyle. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Gerald Del Campo Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 6 Oct 92 23:43:38 Subject: Re: Fascism U.S.A. Rec'd UpdReq In a message dated Mon 5 Oct 92 8:34, The Mule wrote: TM> As for the "brain wash" bit. I could easily say the same for you. Some TM> where, in some way, some one placed an incredilby large chip on your TM> shoulder. You refuse to see the opportunity this country provides TM> because your to wrapped up in the things that are wrong. What? I'm not suppossed to point out the many flaws in the system? I'm supposed to overlook obvious violations of constitutional rights because there are so many good other things? Now I can understand your views on gay rights: It does not effect you, or your sense of safety, so you find it very easy to shrug off as an unfortunate injustice, which can easily be overlooked because the issues which concern you are protected. If you love this country, and see its potential you should constantly try to remove the policies which prevent it from being a haven for all Americans. If I did not care it would be very easy for me to believe as you do. TM> Yet consider the alternative? Nazi Germany? Stalanist Russia? Maoist TM> China? Parlamentary Britain? Are these the only alternatives? or did you post those countries because the attrocities of the crimes they committed against their citizens closely match those commited here? How about some REAL alternatives? TM> It's real easy to blame my views on brainwashing, because any TM> consideration o the idea that my beliefs are based on a careful study of TM> history would be a threat. Yeah, if only it were so. It would be just as easy for me to "chose" historical data which would prove or validate my claims. TM> The Dialectic is dead! (in fact it was stillborn, but it took a century TM> for us to realize it.) I find it interesting how many of your arguments TM> are based on the viability of the Dialectic (knowingly or unknowingly). You have a lot of nerve claiming that I have a chip on my shoulder, and in the same breath have the audacity to call me a Marxist. This conversation is coming to an end, as I will not allow myself to be insulted. TM> I suggest you ought to take long look at inconsistencies in your own TM> beliefs before you accuse me of being brain washed. My inconsistencies are a result of my struggle to create or discover a system of government which is beyond curruption, hatred, bigotry, and favoritism. I refuse to waste time trying to defend a system which no longer serves its original purpose and intent. TM> So now we get a qualification. "To the extent that the way I live TM> does not interfered..." And who's to judge what "interference" is? GDC> The result of my actions and those of others who are living by their GDC> own rules will be the determining factor in "who is right or wrong". GDC> The whole concept is based on respect for life, and people are GDC> given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being compitent. TM> You're still not getting the point. You have your "law". This "law" TM> has certain tenents. Great! Wonderful! Super! _BUT IRRELEVANT_!!!! TM> In any society, it's not the specific tenents that matter. What matters TM> is how those tenents fit in. How "popular" the beliefs are, or how TM> "inoffensive" they are, _that's_ what matters. So, by your definition, the effectiveness of a system/idea is to be determined by how popular it is? Think about what you have said; and see if you can realize why I think it is so absurd. TM> Now, you obviously believe that Thelema (or a reasonable derivation) TM> is superior in it's tenent of "non-interference" (Please, let's not get TM> in a discussion of what is, or what is not, Thelema at this time). Yet TM> there is nothing in this world that makes it superior, _OTHER THAN YOUR TM> OWN EXPERIENCES_! Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. Regardless TM> of what someone else beleives, even if that belief means "active TM> interference", you are, from purely collective viewpoint, no more right TM> or wrong than they are. From a collective viewpoint, what matters is how TM> well you can persuade others of your being right. (Or, how well you can TM> prevent others from thinking you're wrong.) You miss my point: I could care less what other people think. It SHOULD not enter the equation. But it does, because others want to control the way I live my life... get it? I don't care HOW other people want to live their lives, it is their right, and they will be held responsible for their own actions. I want to be responsible for mine. TM> ou're trying to focus on the beliefs, and how you are right, and TM> others are wrong. What I was trying to do is show you that "right and TM> wrong" are not relevant, because everyone's definition of right and wrong TM> is different. What is relevant is how well you can get others to think TM> like you. I don't think that is relevant. I am only concerned with my rights. I have a right to believe what I want, just as you what you do. My problem is the OTHERS are deciding what is good for ME. People should do what they feel is "right" for them. They have no right to interfere with my life because THEY think it is "wrong" for ME. TM> Let's take an example you use later on in your last post. Gay rights. TM> To you, advocacy of Gay rights is not interfering. In fact, you percieve TM> it as just the opposite. Your promoting non-interference. Now let's TM> look at it from the other side. Like it or not, there are quite a few TM> people in this world who believe homosexuality is wrong. Some believe it TM> quite vehemently. GDC> this "belief" is based on the premise that there is some gray haired GDC> ancient male god in the heavens somewhere just waiting to smite GDC> those who sway from his law. In fact, the premise is that everyone GDC> is responsible for their own salvation, and that all one must do is GDC> "repent" to Jesus. TM> Who care's what the belief is based on? It's a "belief". It's TM> obvious that your enlightenment and insight on the world has brought you TM> to the true understanding of things... but so what? The only thing I understand is that we tote this "Freedom" flag to impress others, and we are not trully "free". I am not enlightened, nor do I have an understanding of things; in fact, you don't have to be enlightened, you only have to have eyes and ears. I can only say what is "true" for me. No one has the right to define Truth for ANYONE but THEMSELVES. GDC> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the above statement is GDC> correct. Why do these people feel that it is their job to stop GDC> everyone from doing something just because the believe (let's face GDC> it, it is all belief) it is not "right"? If they don't think GDC> homosexuality is cool, they should refrain from it. I AM promoting GDC> non-interference... don't fuck with people. If I am cold, why GDC> should I force YOU to wear a jacket? TM> Who know's what motivates these (or any other) people? From my TM> perspective it's irrelevant. It is irrevelandt because those beliefs have not interfered with YOUR beliefs. But when they do, then what? TM> I do know that if that is their belief, and you actively oppose thier TM> "interference", then, by definition, you are yourself interfering with TM> their beliefs. Whether your interference is justified, or is morally TM> superior, is another matter entirely. But you are "interfering". You TM> are in _conflict_. There will ALWAYS be differences of beliefs. And THAT is what makes existance such a challenge: the diversity. When one group challenges another to the extent that the existance of the group they opposse is threatened then we are in danger of becoming another Nazi Germany. TM> Has it ever occurred to you that when you're challenging their beliefs TM> you are, in fact, "interfering" with thier life? No, I don't see that. Perhaps you should explain why I SHOULD believe that. GDC> This is utter bullshit, and frankly I am surprised that you would GDC> say such a thing. No one is challenging their beliefs any more than GDC> they are challenging mine. I am not obligated to believe anything GDC> you believe, and vise versa. TM> It is not bullshit. You _are_ challenging their beliefs. Your lack TM> of understanding in this matter is single biggest flaw in your whole TM> argument. The biggest flaw in YOUR argument is that you think the "majority" has a monopoly on the way we should ALL live. TM> Your statement "I am not obligated to believe anything you believe, and TM> vice versa." is a paradox. Here's why. Suppose I "believe" you are TM> wrong to believe what you do. In fact, I actively try and force you to TM> beleive the way I do. Active interference is a fundamental tenent of my TM> "law". Now the paradox becomes clear. Because if you beleive that I TM> have the right to my beliefs, then you subordinate your own beleifs, and TM> if you believe in your own beleifs then you subordinate mine. There are certain rights which are universal. And one of them is the right to think what one wants to. If my belief interferes with yours to the extent that your existance feels threatened then war happens. May the best man (or woman) win. GDC> People who have doubts regarding their religious beliefs are driven GDC> by their lack of faith to "convert" everyone else they come into GDC> contact with. It is insecurity, and a paranoid way of saying "I GDC> can't possibly be wrong if EVERYONE believes the same thing I do". TM> In your _opinion_. And the point I'm trying to make is that your TM> opinion (or mine for that matter) doesn't mean a hill of beans by itself. An opinion based on observation and experimentation. Do you think it is true, or not? TM> When their is conflict, the most powerful will win. There are several TM> ways to get power (persuade, lie, grovel, compromise, fight, etc.), but TM> what I've described is _fundamental_ to the human condition. GDC> It may be "fundamental to the human condition", but so is greed, GDC> lust for power, etc. TM> As is laziness, avarice, stupidity, arrogance, conceit, (and so TM> on)... TM> What I'm saying is that life, _life_, is a series of conflicts. Some you TM> win and some you lose. The problem I'm having with this thread is your TM> single minded attempt to "rationalize" your loses. It's obviously TM> someone else fault; they're brains washed; uneducted; pavlovian TM> insects who stand in the way of your "success". Nope. You are attempting to rationalize the validity of your beliefs by insinuating that I blame society for my failures and missfortune. It doesn't work because I have already stated somewhere else on this thread that I am ultimately responsible for the results brought about by my actions. I am fighting for my rights to continue "being my own boss". TM> (1) limiting power; and (2) basing power in the hands of the people. GDC> I will assume that the statement above is posted for its humorous GDC> content; since it is totally inaccurate. It looks good on paper, GDC> but in practice.... TM> It's not inaccurate. It's true (or mostly so). I still say that the TM> problems your're having in this area have more to do with not getting TM> what _you_ want, as opposed to anything else. Nope. What I want is for EVERYONE to have the opportunity to decide and pursure the things they want for themselves. TM> Since the "givernment" doesn't believe what you do, and there is really TM> no possibility of things changing to suit you, then your warped sense of TM> things automatically challenge the validity of the governments TM> esposnsiveness to the people. It's sour grapes. Yet another insultive assumption. Government is not obligated to believe what I believe, only to the extent that I am entitled to my beliefs. TM> You deny all that is good because the world is not the way _you_ would TM> like it to be. The "good" isn't so bitchen as to make me turn my head at injustice. I am sorry you do not understand this. TM> Like it or not, you're "rights" have to be balanced against other's TM> rights. You can't go out an kill some one just because _you_ think its TM> OK. GDC> My Law recognizes every person's right to pursue happiness in what GDC> ever form it manifests in the individual. Respect for other people GDC> makes murder unacceptable. It is not an option. It becomes GDC> permissible when I am protecting my life or the life of the people I GDC> love. TM> Again, I haven't been arguing for or against the validity or superior TM> nature of your "law". What I am arguing is your exclusive insight into TM> the truth. Never have I insinuated this. In fact, I have recognized the fact that there is an infinite amount of "Truth". There is a butt for evey seat. TM> Again, your true colors are showing. You say one thing, then another. TM> I don't find it so morally reprehensible for a person to say "look I'm TM> smarter than you are and Have a greater insight into the true nature of TM> things. So piss off!" as I do when some one like you says "My beliefs TM> are no better off than anyone else, everone has a right to live their TM> life the way the please. (But you don't want to beleive like XY or Z TM> because they're backward, stupid, and superstitous)." I shouldn't HAVE TO believe like XY or Z. Not because they are stupid or supertitious, but bedcause I AM NOT THEM. TM> The poit I'm trying to make is that just because you and I beleive it, TM> doen't mean a hill of beans unless we can get the society in which we TM> live in to beleive it. ANd guess what? Society has a perfect right to TM> say we're fucked. My point is that if they do say we're fucked, to go TM> about changing the way society works, because there are mechanisms in TM> this country to do that. GDC> I believe that these mechanisms are there for people that fit within GDC> a certain category, and NOT for eveyone. This is probably due to GDC> the fact that most of congress is filled with yellowed-bellied- GDC> caucasian-christian-heterosexual men whose lust for life has been GDC> stiffled by their own intolerance and hatred. The system works for GDC> people like them. TM> The _OPPORTUNITY_ is there for everyone. The problem is that human TM> frailities (ignorance, lack of character, laziness, feeling sorry for TM> yourself, etc.) all prevent us from making the most of the opportunity. Yeah, right. The system is perfect. I can go out right now and see hundreds of people scattered on the streets without food, shelter, of health care. AND NO CHANGE OF IMPROVING THE SITUATION. Oh yeah, but this does not effect you, so it doesn't exist. Love is the Law. Gerald ... RPSTOVAL OASIS: Free your mind; your ass will follow. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718