Re: POLITICS:

August 18, 2008

> ? I don't post every single thread about the dishonesty/immorality/

> tyrannical ambition of our government to ever forum and list that I " m

> a member of. This isn't after all a political list.

A) I'm not talking about tyrannical *ambition* but rather the very real

tyranny that we now live under

Who asked you if you post about tyranny to *every* list? What does that

have to do with the fact that the thread you were responding to was about

tyranny and you repeatedly attempted to make it about ' character?

C) Hello? This isn't a political list??? I see, well:

___i. second to nutrition, politics is the main subject discussed on this

list

___ii. The politics of nutrition is one of the most common subjects on this

list

___iii. Most importantly, it's impossible to separate out the food, farm and

health freedoms that are common topics on this list from the umbrella of

tyranny from which they emanate. At some point, those of us who have been

fighting for food, farm and health freedoms (NAIS, CODEX, freedom to

purchase raw milk, etc.) must come to understand that the tyranny we fight

in the field of nutrition and health is simply an integral part of a much

larger matrix of tyranny that is being implemented at an increasingly

alarming rate, both in the U.S. and abroad. And it affects ALL of us. So, I

don't care what the primary topic of this list is, as long as it's open to

political discussions I'll keep posting about tyranny.

>

> What ' site lacks is intelligent analysis of these threads, and

> it also contains enough wacko crap that you have to take much more of

> it with a grain of salt.

I agree that the sites could use more critical analysis of some of the

issues it covers, although I have to say that many of his radio show guests

do offer excellent analyses of some of the issues. This is one reason I

don't spend a lot of time on his sites but do listen to his radio show.

As for the whacko cultist stuff you keep referring to, I'm guessing you mean

stuff like Bohemian Grove where some of our illustrious leaders along with

some of the other most powerful men in the world meet yearly and burn

children in effigy, worship some big owl and hire gay prostitutes? If that's

what you're referring to, then it should be mentioned that himself

doesn't believe in any of that stuff and thinks these folks are evil

whackos. And if you question the existence of Bohemian Grove, there are

several media outlets that have been reporting on it for years and this

year, the editor of Vanity Fair was arrested while trying to sneak in. See

The SF sentinel article: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=14718

> Plus, I do think that he's a bit of a buffoon - and clearly thinks a

> lot of himself. " Chomsky, I'm smarter than you with both hands tied

> behind my back " , LOL. In any case, I think that one can gain much more

> from reading a little Chomsky, than sifting through the paranoia on

> ' sites.

is a larger than life character - in your face, confrontational,

emotional, angry, driven, theatrical. Never a dull moment on his radio show.

I could see where some might consider him a buffoon.

As far as his comments about Chomsky after that interview, it was vintage

<g>. I actually thought the smarter comment was the gentlest comment

he made about Chomsky during the lengthy undressing he gave him. BTW, these

days often says he's not very smart and that the power elite are

smarter than he is, etc. I think he's lost a little bit of his cockiness as

he's getting older.

Suze

August 18, 2008

Chris-

> The article was about large corporations

> manipulating the moral beliefs of its employees. We should certainly

> support the liberties of homosexuals (which means supporting the

> liberties of people, since I think the idea that homosexuals are some

> individual class of people is an ideological assumption).

I'm not sure the article itself is really what's under debate here,

but calling the idea that gays are an individual class of people an

ideological assumption is really beside the point. Plenty of people

(many of them motivated by religion) TREAT gays as a distinct class of

people, and in actual practice, any attempt to legally ensure that all

people equally without respect to issues like sexual orientation

(which is actually, in many ways, a de facto attempt to dissolve class

distinctions) will at least APPEAR to many people who see gays as a

distinct class as an attempt to treat them as such, and so the whole

class issue cannot be avoided just by saying it shouldn't exist.

> However, we should defend the rights of people to personally abhor

> homosexuality for the same reason as the slipper slope argument you

> present.

As you know, I'm a staunch defender of the freedoms of belief and

expression. I absolutely believe people should be allowed to hate

gays and homosexuals and say they're all going to burn in hell. The

fact that people should be free to hold and express reprehensible

beliefs like those does not, however, mean that those beliefs somehow

magically aren't reprehensible, and it doesn't mean those people's

attitudes and attempts to enshrine said attitudes in policy and law

should be excused or ignored.

By way of illustration, a hypothetical conversation about someone's

beliefs wouldn't go like this.

: That guy over there is a bigoted jerk who hates gay people and

wants them all to burn in hell for all eternity.

Defender of religious freedom (or whatever): He's just expressing his

constitutionally protected religious beliefs and exercising freedoms

of speech and belief which you profess to defend. What are you, a

hypocrite?

: Oh, well, that's OK then. I guess he's not a bigot or a jerk

after all since his religion (or minister, or whatever) tells him to

be that way. My mistake. Really sorry about that.

-

August 18, 2008

On Aug 18, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> ,

>

> > To paraphrase from the poem commonly attributed to Pastor

> > Niemöller, first they came for the faggots, and I didn't speak up

> > because I wasn't a faggot. My point being that it's impossible to

> > preserve freedom by playing the " whose freedom is more important? "

> game.

>

> I agree with you so completely but I think you have the future

> scenario backwards. The article was about large corporations

> manipulating the moral beliefs of its employees. We should certainly

> support the liberties of homosexuals (which means supporting the

> liberties of people, since I think the idea that homosexuals are some

> individual class of people is an ideological assumption).

>

> However, we should defend the rights of people to personally abhor

> homosexuality for the same reason as the slipper slope argument you

> present. First they came for the people who thought homosexuality was

> immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for the people who

> thought taxes were immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for

> the people who thought war was immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then

> they came for the people who thought other people should be able to

> criticize the government, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for

> me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

>

Of course, someone should have the right to personally abhor

homosexuality, just as someone should have the right to believe that

Jews should be exterminated, or that black people should be slaves.

However beliefs in general, inclusive of beliefs like these, are not

equivalent to actions when it comes to what should and shouldn't be

allowed, and what constitutes discrimination.

I believe that should be able to publish anything he wants

on his site, and that anyone should be able to say anything they want

publicly, until it gets to the point (and the line obviously has to be

drawn carefully) where the speech is intended to harm, intimidate, or

discriminate. An employer has every right to loathe women, blacks, or

homosexuals, but he should not have the right to post bigoted

literature around the office (in case he has succumbed to the law

about hiring practices).

The notion that corporations are trying to influence their employees

to celebrate homosexuality in this country is absolutely ludicrous

(though I suppose that there is an example or two that you could

dredge up). Even more importantly, though, to be so upset over this

destroying the moral fabric of society is an obvious indication of

one's bigoted sentiments. I don't agree with corporations trying to

teach morality period, but this seems to be a very strange thing to

focus on for a person who claims not to be a homophobe. And as I've

stressed before - the page that I linked to is obviously

(independently of the links) supposed to display examples of this

moral decay - kids being harmed by having homosexual parents,

homosexuality no longer being abhorred, etc.

> Chris

>

August 18, 2008

On Aug 18, 2008, at 7:21 AM, Idol wrote:

> Gene-

>

> > " somewhat ironic " . LOL. First of all, I'm not convinced that

> > is right and Chomsky is wrong, and that you've researched the

> > matter thoroughly. As I've said, I don't think that this is the

> point.

>

> To a degree it's a matter of semantics, as my understanding is that

> even before the 1997 ban, handgun ownership was EXTREMELY restricted

> (demonstrated by the stats in my post of earlier this morning) but on

> balance, I think it's fair to say was more correct than Chomsky

> even though the 1997 ban wasn't entirely a complete one itself.

>

From what you say above, I'd say that Chomsky was more correct. The

point of dispute seemed to be whether the 1997 ban caused a dramatic

rise in violent crime. If it was only a minor change, then how can one

correlate the 2? But maybe I misunderstand you.

In any case, my point wasn't ever about who was right - it was about

' rant after this one particular segment of the interview

when Chomsky left the studio.

>

> >> So, I'm sure Chomsky would beat on an IQ test and he has

> >> certainly climbed up the academic ladder further and gotten more

> >> respect from " educated " people (I think Chomsky might point out

> that

> >> " educated " means " indoctrinated " ), but if keeps all his facts

> >> straight (at least in this instance) and wants to call that being

> >> " smart " I think I'd cut him a little slack.

> >

> > So, then, you agree that Chomsky is a " shill of the new world

> order " .

> > Amazing. You are simply amazing, Chris. You simply have no shame.

> Done

> > reading.

>

> I have no idea how you interpret Chris's statement to betoken

> agreement that Chomsky is a shill of the new world order. As far as I

> can see, your conclusion is logically insupportable.

>

Actually - you're correct. I misread the quote above. Yes - Chomsky

would say that 'educated' usually implies indoctrination, but not

always - they don't mean the same thing. My main point, however, has

always been that everyone may be wrong some of the time, and that

' remarks about Chomsky (in his entirety) being a shill of the

new world order, and not as smart as is absolutely ridiculous.

But yes - I was tired at this point, and having misread the paragraph,

that conclusion is insupportable.

>

> -

>

August 18, 2008

>

> > Enjoy your police state and tyrannical government while we waste our

> > time

> > here discussing ' views on homosexuality

>

> To paraphrase from the poem commonly attributed to Pastor

> Niemöller, first they came for the faggots, and I didn't speak up

> because I wasn't a faggot. My point being that it's impossible to

> preserve freedom by playing the " whose freedom is more important? " game.

I'm familiar with the quote, and it actually supports exactly what I was

saying, not the opposite. The tyranny we face affects ALL_OF_US, including

gays. The relevance of one man's views on gays is hardly comparable to a

group of the most powerful people in the world working to remove liberties

from ALL_OF_US. AJ's opinion on homosexuality is simply a distraction.

Suze

August 18, 2008

Gene-

> From what you say above, I'd say that Chomsky was more correct.

Now I'm not sure. I tried to find out exactly what the state of gun

law in England was after the 1967 law, but I didn't manage to discover

anything useful in the time I had. In a strict sense, I think

was probably closer to technically correct in that I don't think there

was a literal ban prior to 1997, but even that's a bit fuzzy, I

suppose, since the 1997 " ban " only resulted in a reduction of about

24k gun certificates with over 100k surviving. So in a practical

sense, it may well be that Chomsky was closer to the mark.

> The

> point of dispute seemed to be whether the 1997 ban caused a dramatic

> rise in violent crime. If it was only a minor change, then how can one

> correlate the 2? But maybe I misunderstand you.

I wasn't discussing the alleged effects of the 1997 law at all; I

haven't looked into the matter, and in any event, my philosophical

position on gun control wouldn't change regardless of the sequelae.

> ' remarks about Chomsky (in his entirety) being a shill of the

> new world order, and not as smart as is absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, I agree about that completely. The idea that Chomsky is shilling

for more corporate/fascist control of the populace is extraordinarily

ludicrous.

-

August 18, 2008

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <paul.idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > From what you say above, I'd say that Chomsky was more correct.

>

> Now I'm not sure. I tried to find out exactly what the state of gun

> law in England was after the 1967 law, but I didn't manage to discover

> anything useful in the time I had. In a strict sense, I think

> was probably closer to technically correct in that I don't think there

> was a literal ban prior to 1997, but even that's a bit fuzzy, I

> suppose, since the 1997 " ban " only resulted in a reduction of about

> 24k gun certificates with over 100k surviving. So in a practical

> sense, it may well be that Chomsky was closer to the mark.

>

> > The

> > point of dispute seemed to be whether the 1997 ban caused a dramatic

> > rise in violent crime. If it was only a minor change, then how can one

> > correlate the 2? But maybe I misunderstand you.

>

> I wasn't discussing the alleged effects of the 1997 law at all; I

> haven't looked into the matter, and in any event, my philosophical

> position on gun control wouldn't change regardless of the sequelae.

>

Right - my only point was that (as I understood it) the central disagreement was

over the issue of gun control and whether it works. If the change in 1997 was

minimal, then it can't be pointed to as causative of the rise in crime. I think

that this is purely a logical point. I haven't been arguing the point of whether

we should have gun control (beyond simply citing my own opinion) at all, and

certainly wasn't trying to change your mind on the issue.

> > ' remarks about Chomsky (in his entirety) being a shill of the

> > new world order, and not as smart as is absolutely ridiculous.

>

> Yes, I agree about that completely. The idea that Chomsky is shilling

> for more corporate/fascist control of the populace is extraordinarily

> ludicrous.

Yes. Ridiculously extraordinarily ludicrous

>

> -

August 18, 2008

Suze-

I'm not even sure how to construct a response.

At best, you're restricting your focus and approval to one type or

aspect of freedom. More generally, do you think fighting NAIS is a

distraction from fighting a possible i-Patriot Act? Do you think

fighting the statinators is a distraction from fighting NAIS? Do you

think fighting for freedom of speech is a distraction from fighting

against for habeas corpus? Because I don't see fighting for gay

rights as a distraction from fighting for free speech any more than I

see fighting for freedom of speech as a distraction from fighting for

gay rights. While it's true that any given individual only has so

much time and energy and other resources to devote to the larger

fight, the larger fight is just that -- the larger fight for

fundamental liberty, of which all the individual freedoms we speak of

are just aspects and manifestations. By denigrating one, you harm

them all.

-

> > > Enjoy your police state and tyrannical government while we waste

> our

> > > time

> > > here discussing ' views on homosexuality

> >

> > To paraphrase from the poem commonly attributed to Pastor

> > Niemöller, first they came for the faggots, and I didn't speak up

> > because I wasn't a faggot. My point being that it's impossible to

> > preserve freedom by playing the " whose freedom is more important? "

> game.

>

> I'm familiar with the quote, and it actually supports exactly what I

> was

> saying, not the opposite. The tyranny we face affects ALL_OF_US,

> including

> gays. The relevance of one man's views on gays is hardly comparable

> to a

> group of the most powerful people in the world working to remove

> liberties

> from ALL_OF_US. AJ's opinion on homosexuality is simply a distraction.

August 18, 2008

> I'm not even sure how to construct a response.

>

> At best, you're restricting your focus and approval to one type or

> aspect of freedom.

,

I think you are having trouble constructing a response because you

mistakenly thought I had mentioned something about gay rights, which I

didn't. I was referring to Gene's perception of Jone's perception of

homosexuality based on 2 links on a long page of links on an obscure page on

an old website that owns.

Suze

August 19, 2008

,

> As you know, I'm a staunch defender of the freedoms of belief and

> expression. I absolutely believe people should be allowed to hate

> gays and homosexuals and say they're all going to burn in hell. The

> fact that people should be free to hold and express reprehensible

> beliefs like those does not, however, mean that those beliefs somehow

> magically aren't reprehensible, and it doesn't mean those people's

> attitudes and attempts to enshrine said attitudes in policy and law

> should be excused or ignored.

Ok, but, while I didn't read the entire article in question, I read

far more than anyone else here has claimed to, and the overwhelming

thrust of the article was about economic and political power being

leveraged into forcing people to morally celebrate homosexuality. So,

I think the slippery slope argument here applies to the progressive

loss of liberty of belief, starting first with the beliefs many people

would instinctively object to, moving towards other beliefs that are

simply a nusiance to people who are consolidating power. As opposed

to the other slippery slope of homosexuals losing personal liberties

and that progressively spreading to everyone else.

> By way of illustration, a hypothetical conversation about someone's

> beliefs wouldn't go like this.

>

> : That guy over there is a bigoted jerk who hates gay people and

> wants them all to burn in hell for all eternity.

>

> Defender of religious freedom (or whatever): He's just expressing his

> constitutionally protected religious beliefs and exercising freedoms

> of speech and belief which you profess to defend. What are you, a

> hypocrite?

>

> : Oh, well, that's OK then. I guess he's not a bigot or a jerk

> after all since his religion (or minister, or whatever) tells him to

> be that way. My mistake. Really sorry about that.

Well that is nonsense, equating liberty with freedom from criticism.

It seems like you've been skimming the thread until you jumped into it

and have been missing some of the important turns in the conversation.

It's true that Gene's original point was that is a bigot.

His principal example from this was the article in question, which

opened with a quote indicating that a class action lawsuit would be

waged against religious institutions for their private exchanges about

homosexuality on the basis that it contributed to hate crimes, and it

went on to describe large corporations giving ultimatums to people

demanding their support for the moral legitimacy and laudability of

homosexuality.

I was not arguing the author (who was not ) was not a bigot

because it was *legal* for him to abhor homosexuality. I was rather

arguing that, while the author may personally have abhorred

homosexuality, the article is not about his personal beliefs, but

economic and poltical power undermining personal religious beliefs.

And it's place on the page Gene linked to was that it shared in common

with other articles there the theme of elites manipulating culture.

Chris

August 19, 2008