Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 7/26/01 9:17:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > steverino63@... writes: > > > >> Who says they're mutually exclusive? > > They are mutually exclusive, if equality is your primary goal. The > Civil > Rights Act coerces private parties to hire, fire and accommodate > persons > regardless of certain attributes which the private property > owner/employer is > prohibited from considering. This may seem a pleasing result to many, > but it > constitutes coercion and deprives individuals of the liberty to act as > they > deem proper. Mona, I grew up partly in the Deep South during our own American version of apartheid and in my late teens and early 20s worked in Las Vegas and have a great deal of difficulty having sympathy for the " loss of freedom " of the people who ran public accomodations and facilities. Ken > Similarly, if the government takes money from me to give it to > someone else, that is coercion and deprives me of my property and > liberty to > bring about " equality. " > > Many, many have written about the clash between equality and liberty, > as > primary values. Based upon what I know of you Steve, at the end of > the day > you would place equality above freedom; I would not. > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > BUT -- the fact is that Bush has stated publically, numerous > times, that he is completely abstinent and has been so since his > decision to stop drinking some 20 years ago. Therefore moderate > drinking on HIS part shows him to be a liar and a coward. > > > > ~Rita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >At the moment, not a lot. When I joined I was seeking other people >to talk to about bad experiences with AA and about the best ways >to move on from them. At this point I just stay because I like the >company. > > > So, then did you have " behavioral problems with alcohol " yourself. I wasn't even sure of that from your earlier posts? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 At 10:39 AM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote: > >At the moment, not a lot. When I joined I was seeking other people > >to talk to about bad experiences with AA and about the best ways > >to move on from them. At this point I just stay because I like the > >company. > >So, then did you have " behavioral problems with alcohol " yourself. I wasn't >even sure of that from your earlier posts? Yes. Probably just about everyone here has, at some point in our lives. And you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >No one " owns " the free market, by definition. The notion of being a " wage >slave " is colorful, but not literally true. Slaves no doubt could explain >the distinction better than I could. By who's definition does no one own the market? > >If you don't like the wages paid by an employer, quit. If your skills do >not >command what you think you are worth, retrain. But complaining about it is >not useful; your labor remains only as valuable as an employer is willing >to >pay for it, just as the value of a widget is only that which you are >willing >to pay. If my options aren't as free as I would like, I'm not dumb enough to quit, add my name to ranks of the unemployed, and further increase the leverage of big business. Let me offer this thought. 30 years ago, economists consider 3 pct. unemployed as " full " employment, and now it's 5 or 6 percent. Well, its big biz who's ad justing these definitions and pawning them off on the American " sheeple. " Those French guillotines might not be totally bad, but it's unlikely a great deal of people would act here in America. The middle class have bought the arguments of the rich that they have common cause when actually, economically, the middle class has more common cause with the poor. > >Government attempts to change this reality are coercive, intrusive and >distorting of the market. They are wrong in virtually every instance. To follow Ken's post, would that include civil rights laws? And transnational corporations don't distort the market themselves. Too bad lawyers jobs can't be shipped out to Guatamala, too. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like hell >for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if Joe >Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less like >it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly >object >that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working in my >office. So, regarding a post of mine a little bit earlier, you don't favor civil rights legislation? What if a law firm wanted to exclude atheists? Or people born in Michigan? Or left-handed people? Or people named Mona? > >Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able to set >me stright here. Oh, don't worry, I'll do my best to make up for him. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >You need to read up on behavioral economics. It's very different from >behaviorism. I need to? Who says? Is that the Friedmannian economic moral imperative? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 MonaHolland@... wrote: > In a message dated 7/27/01 7:44:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > kenr1@... > writes: > > > >> I grew up partly in the Deep South during our own American version >> of >> apartheid and in my late teens and early 20s worked in Las Vegas and >> >> have a great deal of difficulty having sympathy for the " loss of >> freedom " of the people who ran public accomodations and facilities. >> > > The issue is not " sympathy " for anyone, but liberty. The free speech > clause > is necessary to protect only unpopular speech, and what will be > unpopular > will vary with time and circumstances. Yet the *principle* stands to > protect > everyone's speech no matter the times and circumstances. > > I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like > hell > for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if > Joe > Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less > like > it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly > object > that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working > in my > office. > > Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able > to set > me stright here. > > --Mona-- Mona, We are not talking about the Aryan Brotherhood " expressing their views " when we are talking about the need for U.S. Civil Rights Act unless we are describing lynchings, beatings and cross-burnings (in someone's yard who doesn't want it there) as people " expressing their views. " If a restaurant owner ( or shop owner ) was to allow the " colored " (anyone of non-European descent) to eat or shop, they would be subject to great intimidation ranging from cross-burnings in their yard to being burned out. It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights legislation put a stop to. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 By who's definition does no one own the market? I don't know, and I wrote of the "free market," which by definition no one owns. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 So, regarding a post of mine a little bit earlier, you don't favor civil rights legislation? What if a law firm wanted to exclude atheists? Or people born in Michigan? Or left-handed people? Or people named Mona? And what if they did? If they wish to behave irrationally with regard to their own business and affairs, that is, well, their business. People from Michigan, left-handed people, atheists and people named Mona are not entitled to barge in there and bring armed state agents in to enforce their barging. Free people will not always exercise their liberty in ways we all would approve of. But Nanny State enforcement of Niceness and Decency is not the moral solution. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 Jim Crow laws were socially irresponsible, as a society we made a descision that the right to be treated fairly regardless of skin color superceded the rights odf a business owner to be cruel and inhuman, I agree. Jim Crow laws were enacted because without them, not all southern businessmen would discriminate. Those laws were immoral, in part, because they forced a businessowner to do with his own business and property that which he otherwise might not have been inclined to do. Repealing them was a moral imperative; passing laws coercing the same businessman from the other direction are also immoral, and should also be repealed. If I were living in the south at that time and someone refused to serve me a cup of coffe for no other reason than the fact that he is stupid, narrow-minded and has a selfish desire to be cruel to people that are not just like him, I know how I would feel. I would think it perfectly reasonable to express my views by comming back at night, smashing his windows out, going in and destroying the place. That would be a very immature and foolish response. Organizing boycotts and pickets would be more effective, as well as more civic-minded. Ok, so destroying someone elses property is illegal, but what about destroying someone's sense of being? Someones basic right to be treated as an equal citizen. Everyone is entitled to be treated equally by the state. They are not entitled to engage in business with private people who don't wish to engage in business with them. If that causes them psychic damage, there are ways to punish those who are imposing that harm without bringing armed agents of the state into it. Shunning, ostracism, public opprobrium etc...these are all powerful tools. Free people have the right to be assholes. We don't need protected liberties because men are angels; we need them because they are not. An emotional appeal can always be put forth to whittle away at freedom "just here," "just for this problem." Such appeals will always be there, and always tempt us to give up pieces of freedom in exchange for enforcing our preferred morality. Down that road lies tyranny. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 To me, the various civil rights acts adopted by Congress..... and let's remember there's not one civil rights act... are about enforcement mechanisms for the 14th Amendment. Now, Mona, do you oppose that also? Not in its original principle and purpose. But the pernicious "enabling" legislation is very wrong in many instances. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > >I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like hell > >for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if Joe > >Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less like > >it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly > >object > >that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working in my > >office. > So, regarding a post of mine a little bit earlier, you don't favor civil > rights legislation? What if a law firm wanted to exclude atheists? Or people > born in Michigan? Or left-handed people? Or people named Mona? I guess this question was directed at someone else, but I wouldn't work at that law firm. There are thousands of law firms, ya know, or one could start thir own. > >Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able to set > >me stright here. > Oh, don't worry, I'll do my best to make up for him. Maybe you are him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 Weren't all those things you just cited already illegal acts in the 1940s 50s and 60s? Perhaps new legislation was not needed, just enforcement of the prior legislation. Well, let's take a look at the south today... hmm just as much inequality, and less freedom, wow. Didn't work quite right. > > > In a message dated 7/27/01 7:44:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > kenr1@c... > > writes: > > > > > > > >> I grew up partly in the Deep South during our own American version > >> of > >> apartheid and in my late teens and early 20s worked in Las Vegas and > >> > >> have a great deal of difficulty having sympathy for the " loss of > >> freedom " of the people who ran public accomodations and facilities. > >> > > > > The issue is not " sympathy " for anyone, but liberty. The free speech > > clause > > is necessary to protect only unpopular speech, and what will be > > unpopular > > will vary with time and circumstances. Yet the *principle* stands to > > protect > > everyone's speech no matter the times and circumstances. > > > > I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight like > > hell > > for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like it if > > Joe > > Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even less > > like > > it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I certainly > > object > > that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from working > > in my > > office. > > > > Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be able > > to set > > me stright here. > > > > --Mona-- > > Mona, > > We are not talking about the Aryan Brotherhood " expressing their views " > when we are talking about the need for U.S. Civil Rights Act unless we > are describing lynchings, beatings and cross-burnings (in someone's yard > who doesn't want it there) as people " expressing their views. " > > If a restaurant owner ( or shop owner ) was to allow the " colored " > (anyone of non-European descent) to eat or shop, they would be subject > to great intimidation ranging from cross-burnings in their yard to being > burned out. > > It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights > legislation put a stop to. > > Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 " There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is. " -- Albert Einstein " The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. " -- Einstein " The fundamental question is: Is this universe a friendly place or not? " -- Einstein What is well closed has no bolt locking it. Tao Te Ching 27 The richness of subliminal virtue is comparable to an infant. Its tendons are flexible yet its grip is firm. Tao Te Ching 55 Those who know do not say; those who say do not know. Tao Te Ching 56 Nothing is more flexible and yielding than water. Yet when it attacks the firm and strong none can withstand it. So the flexible overcome the adamant, the yielding overcome the forceful. Tao Te Ching 78 What hurts you, blesses you. Darkness is your candle. Your boundaries are your quest. Rumi • You must ask for what you really want. Draw back the lock bolt. One level flows into another. • The real truth of existence is sealed, Until many twists and turns of the road. Exixtence does this switching trick, Giving you hope from one source, then satisfaction from another. It keeps you bewildered and wondering and lets your trust in the unseen grow. — Rumi •Apart from what we wish and what we fear may happpen, we are filled with other light. Wait for the illuminating opening, as though your heart were filling with light. Don't look for it outside of yourself. There is a fountain inside you. Knock on your inner door. Beg for that love expansion. Meditate only on that. — Rumi • To see 'both sides' of a problem is the surest way to prevent its solution; there are always more than two sides. -- Idries Shah ICQ: 94367059 http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/SeekingSt/gentle---man/ (my website) > >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: Sober as a Bush? >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:49:32 -0000 > > > > > > >I may not agree with the Aryan Brotherhood's views, but I'd fight >like hell > > >for their right to a parade permit. Similarly, I might not like >it if Joe > > >Bob doesn't want to serve a black person at his diner, but I even >less like > > >it that armed agents of the state will force him to. And I >certainly > > >object > > >that I am not permitted to exclude fundamentalist Xians from >working in my > > >office. > > So, regarding a post of mine a little bit earlier, you don't favor >civil > > rights legislation? What if a law firm wanted to exclude atheists? >Or people > > born in Michigan? Or left-handed people? Or people named Mona? > > I guess this question was directed at someone else, but I wouldn't >work at that law firm. There are thousands of law firms, ya know, or >one could start thir own. > > > >Ken, doncha wish Diener was still here? I'm sure *HE* would be >able to set > > >me stright here. > > Oh, don't worry, I'll do my best to make up for him. > > Maybe you are him? > It was directed at Mona. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > In a message dated 7/27/01 9:27:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, kenr1@c... > writes: > > > > We are not talking about the Aryan Brotherhood " expressing their views " > > when we are talking about the need for U.S. Civil Rights Act unless we > > are describing lynchings, beatings and cross-burnings (in someone's yard > > who doesn't want it there) as people " expressing their views. " > > > > The CRA is not necessary, and not even particularly used for, prohibiting > such activity. Homicides, assault and battery, and trespass are against the > law regardless of motive, and with or without the CRA. > > >>If a restaurant owner ( or shop owner ) was to allow the " colored " > (anyone of non-European descent) to eat or shop, they would be subject > to great intimidation ranging from cross-burnings in their yard to being > burned out.<< > > Which is illegal, quite aside from the CRA. If the CRA existed only to > prohibit such behavior (it does not) I would have no problem with. > > >>It was this sort of thing (among others) that the civil rights > legislation put a stop to.<< > > No, it did not. What the CRA did was hand people in my profession the key to > the bank (or, more accurately, the bank accounts of businessmen), so that > employment discrimination lawsuits can rob business owners of their money, > with a good 1/3 of the " damages " going to me and mine. Venturing in another direction... Mona are you pleased by our President's desire to put a limit on that 1/3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >Weren't all those things you just cited already illegal acts in the >1940s 50s and 60s? Perhaps new legislation was not needed, just >enforcement of the prior legislation. Well, let's take a look at the >south today... hmm just as much inequality, and less freedom, wow. >Didn't work quite right. As I noted in an earlier post, these various civil rights acts were all, essentially, enforcement of the 14th Amendment. So they really weren't " new " legislation. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 I guess I owe you a reply. > >I see what Steve fantasizes about as just that, a fantasy. Steppers > >are always hoping that something or someone will achieve what is > >actually the responsibility of the individual. > You have not been reading my posts completely, and/or not have yet received > my last one or two. > First, I haven't said that only one gene is involved. In fact, in my last > reply to Rita, I specifically said it is in all likelihood, a multi- gene > phenonemon. Most genetic traits are. Yes I saw that later. > Second, I don't see it as a fantasy. I'm not advocating " Brave New World, " > but that's no reason for us to bury our heads in the sand about genetic > engineering. Like it or not, like nuclear weapons, it will come. Who's burying their heads? Most of use here are dealing with the here and now, while you are concerned with 10, 20 or 50 years down the road. That avoidance of the here and now seems more like burying head in sand than being realistic about the whole idea (which at this point means giving it very little credibility since it is useless at this point, unless you are trying to start a religion like AA). > With this " alcoholic > >gene theory " they are merely hoping that the choice to drink will be > >eliminated from any potential " alcoholic " before he is born. In my > >opinion (which has about as much to do with Fact as the > >Opinion/fantasy of the steppers), to be able to take away that choice > >to drink or not drink will also take away virtually all other > >choice. I guess that is wonderful if you want a bunch of > >robots/androids/clones. Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes is a > >fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. > Why is it scary if viewed without bias? I find scientific facts, and > scientific theories as well, scary only when viewed **with** bias. If it's > the " Brave New World " angle that scares you, that's why we have regulatory > agencies, IMO. Not that that can prevent Drs. Moreau, or whatever, setting > up shop on Caribbean islands. You have too much faith in government. Our government does very bad things, and is becoming worse. Again, who's head is in the sand? > > I think it is more realistic, when thinking about genes, not to > >say there is an alcoholism gene, but that there are genes or gene > >combinations that lead to less stable mental health. As there are > >genes that lead to poorer physical health or poorer physical > >attributes. That is just what was simply called heredity in the old > >days. But to say there is a specific alcoholic gene that can be > >countered and solve the problems of alcoholics everywhere is, IMO, > >ludicrous. > I agree with you. Again, if you do read my posts, you will **repeatedly** > note that I do not deny individual responsibility or social contributory > causes of alcoholism. Yes, but you don't exactly advocate them either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > Second, I don't see it as a fantasy. I'm not advocating " Brave New >World, " > > but that's no reason for us to bury our heads in the sand about >genetic > > engineering. Like it or not, like nuclear weapons, it will come. > >Who's burying their heads? Most of use here are dealing with the >here and now, while you are concerned with 10, 20 or 50 years down >the road. That avoidance of the here and now seems more like burying >head in sand than being realistic about the whole idea (which at this >point means giving it very little credibility since it is useless at >this point, unless you are trying to start a religion like AA). Who says it's going to take 10 or more years for it to be useful? And how does looking at potential future benefits equate to burying my head in the sand? That's totally a non sequitur. And also, how does being realistic about it today equate to giving it very little credibility. Again, a non sequitur. A clear counterexample to your thought here: Scientists discovered nuclear fission of a uranium atom in 1938. But it wasn't " useful " because they didn't yet know how to make an atomic pile, separate uranium-235 from U-238 or enrich U-238 into plutonium-239, or know how to use chemical explosives to make subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium precisely impact into a supercritical mass. What if Anglo-American scientists had said in 1938, " Nuclear fission is 'useless' " and German scientists hadn't? Or, Ben lin did his kite-flying experiments with electricity in the 1750s. Pretty " useless " .... until Edison invented the light bulb. > > >Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes >is a > > >fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. > > Why is it scary if viewed without bias? I find scientific facts, >and > > scientific theories as well, scary only when viewed **with** bias. >If it's > > the " Brave New World " angle that scares you, that's why we have >regulatory > > agencies, IMO. Not that that can prevent Drs. Moreau, or whatever, >setting > > up shop on Caribbean islands. > > You have too much faith in government. Our government does very >bad things, and is becoming worse. Again, who's head is in the sand? You are the head-buryer. You still haven't answered my original question to your comment above: Cool Guy: " Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes is a fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. " Steve: " Why is it scary if viewed without bias? " And I'm certainly not a paranoiac about our government. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > > Second, I don't see it as a fantasy. I'm not advocating " Brave New > >World, " > > > but that's no reason for us to bury our heads in the sand about > >genetic > > > engineering. Like it or not, like nuclear weapons, it will come. > > > >Who's burying their heads? Most of use here are dealing with the > >here and now, while you are concerned with 10, 20 or 50 years down > >the road. That avoidance of the here and now seems more like burying > >head in sand than being realistic about the whole idea (which at this > >point means giving it very little credibility since it is useless at > >this point, unless you are trying to start a religion like AA). > Who says it's going to take 10 or more years for it to be useful? And how > does looking at potential future benefits equate to burying my head in the > sand? That's totally a non sequitur. And also, how does being realistic > about it today equate to giving it very little credibility. Again, a non > sequitur. > A clear counterexample to your thought here: Scientists discovered nuclear > fission of a uranium atom in 1938. But it wasn't " useful " because they > didn't yet know how to make an atomic pile, separate uranium-235 from U-238 > or enrich U-238 into plutonium-239, or know how to use chemical explosives > to make subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium precisely impact into a > supercritical mass. > What if Anglo-American scientists had said in 1938, " Nuclear fission is > 'useless' " and German scientists hadn't? > Or, Ben lin did his kite-flying experiments with electricity in the > 1750s. Pretty " useless " .... until Edison invented the light bulb. Let the scientists do their thing then. Don't try to convince me of something that science has as yet failed to prove, though. > > > >Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes > >is a > > > >fantasy, and a very scary one if viewed without bias. > > > Why is it scary if viewed without bias? I find scientific facts, > >and > > > scientific theories as well, scary only when viewed **with** bias. > >If it's > > > the " Brave New World " angle that scares you, that's why we have > >regulatory > > > agencies, IMO. Not that that can prevent Drs. Moreau, or whatever, > >setting > > > up shop on Caribbean islands. > > > > You have too much faith in government. Our government does very > >bad things, and is becoming worse. Again, who's head is in the sand? > You are the head-buryer. You still haven't answered my original question to > your comment above: > Cool Guy: " Dealing with " alcoholism " through genes is a fantasy, and a very > scary one if viewed without bias. " > Steve: " Why is it scary if viewed without bias? " Your bias is that there all these poor alcoholics who need to be saved and this is the way (you hope) to save them and my unbiased view is that they can save themselves by simply learning how to live. With your bias it seems like a wonderful solution, whereas to me, unbiased, it seems like a way of cheating people out of living. > And I'm certainly not a paranoiac about our government. You will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > Let the scientists do their thing then. Don't try to convince me >of something that science has as yet failed to prove, though. I was trying to convince you of something science ***has*** proved, but of course, you are obtuse. > > And I'm certainly not a paranoiac about our government. > > You will be. Only if you're part of it. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > > By who's definition does no one own the market? > > >I don't know, and I wrote of the " free market, " which by definition no one >owns. > >--Mona-- And I don't believe such a critter exists. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > So, regarding a post of mine a little bit earlier, you don't favor civil > > rights legislation? What if a law firm wanted to exclude atheists? Or > > people > > born in Michigan? Or left-handed people? Or people named Mona? > > > >And what if they did? If they wish to behave irrationally with regard to >their own business and affairs, that is, well, their business. People from >Michigan, left-handed people, atheists and people named Mona are not >entitled >to barge in there and bring armed state agents in to enforce their barging. > >Free people will not always exercise their liberty in ways we all would >approve of. But Nanny State enforcement of Niceness and Decency is not the >moral solution. It's not a question of morals, Mona, it's a question of human rights. Those " unalienable " rights mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. Those human rights ***guaranteed*** by the 14th Amendment. The Constitution and the Declaration don't anywhere say, as far as I know, " these rights stop at the office door. " As far as any morals angle on this issue, if you want to go back to the Hobbsian law of the jungle, feel free to buy a Pacific atoll. Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 At 12:46 PM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote: >I think I did. If Peele chooses to make reference to behavioral economics in >his website, which is about behaviorism, not behavioral politics, that's his >problem as well as his business. As I'm not a Peel acolyte, I don't feel the >need to be some quasi-official translator. I think I understood him well >enough. You've never explained why you feel suspicious of him. Why would that be? ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 >At 12:46 PM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I think I did. If Peele chooses to make reference to behavioral economics >in > >his website, which is about behaviorism, not behavioral politics, that's >his > >problem as well as his business. As I'm not a Peel acolyte, I don't feel >the > >need to be some quasi-official translator. I think I understood him well > >enough. > >You've never explained why you feel suspicious of him. Why >would that be? > > I believe he is behaviorist, and that behaviorism has been shown to be a largely unscientific theory, and that has been the case for nearly 30 years. A " pure " behaviorism, not my multi-factoral view of human behavior, views humans as robotic automata. Implement stimulus A, watch action B. Drop 2 quarters in, get a Coke out. That's not to mention whether any of Peele's research funding may in any way be connected with the liquor industry, which of course would prefer to deny alcoholism as physical addiction to alcohol, exists. And now, who's trying to evade personal responsibility there? Steve _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.