Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:01:31 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>The notion that our rights are granted by the community is un-American.
> >>>Literally. In the monarchies of the past, rights were derived from the
> >>>monarch. They were the gods of their subjects. Communism claims all
rights
> >>>eminate from the government or 'proletariet'.
> >>
> >>It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> >>it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> >>limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> >>people.
> >
> >This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
> >community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
> >guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
> >government, such as, for example, the right to life.
> >
> >What is pecularly a concept of democratic forms of government is that
> >the community itself, and not the government, can grant rights.
> >The government can only codify them.
>
> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.

Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
> >> doesn't it?
> >>
> >
> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
>
> And gays don't have those values?

Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?

>
> >> It's ironic that it's considered un-American, due to the fact that
> >> it's the American community that grants these rights. The state is
> >> limited by agreement in what it can or cannot take away from the
> >> people.
> >>
> >That's not true. The premise of our constitution is that there are
certain
> >rights that are inalienable. They don't come from any community. They
just
> >are and can never be taken away. There are other's that do derive from
the
> >will of the people, but the "inalienable" ones the state can never take
away
> >regardless of any agreement.
>
> Semantics. It was agreed at the formation of the community that those
> rights wouldn't be able to be revoked by the community, that doesn't
> mean that they don't derive from the community.
>
> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
> >
> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown
to
> >be wrong.
>
> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
>

Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

> >> Isn't that what I just said?
> >>
> >I think we agree. It's the unfortunate nature of politics.
>
> The problem with politics is that no matter who you vote for a
> politician always gets in.
>
> >> Both of those were started before things got so badly entrenched.
> >>
> >??? badly entrenched? If you mean politically polarized, then I think
that
> >has to do with the Democrats hold on power having slipped in recent
years.
> >They're going to the trenches to get it back.
>
> By entrenched I mean the prevailing attitudes between the left and the
> right. That being that any idea coming from the other side is wrong
> due to where it came from, not the nature of the idea.
>
> >> And somehow gays getting married will make this worse?
> >>
> >I don't believe the existence of a married gay couple "does" anything to
> >society. It works the other way around. Our values reflect in our laws.
> >The way we regard marriage as a whole has a very significant effect on
> >society and the social order we place on society via the law. If we were
to
> >regard marriage independent of the traditional view (man, woman,
children)
> >then that is an indication of our values and would likewise be manifested
in
> >all our laws. It would be a quantum shift in the traditions of what
people
> >have believed makes society good.
>
> So accepting gays makes society bad?
>

No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad medicine
for society.

> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
> >
> >People generally value modesty.
>
> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
> Puritans.
>

Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.

> >The younger generations and dirty old men
> >have some difficulty understanding it (nothing new), but it is
nonetheless
> >an important social value. It's reflected in public nudity laws and
apply
> >to both genders... but not the same way. If we had a gender normal
society,
> >the law couldn't discriminate between men and women wrt nudity. That
> >matters to most people. If that changes, we'll have topless women at the
> >park and beaches and maybe even public sex. How about that guys!
>
> Hell, what's wrong with topless women?! ;)
>
> In all seriousness though, women being topless cause so much stir
> because it's banned. Try going to a topless beach in Europe or
> Australia. No one cares! In most of North America it's just that
> it's forbidden, thus people get excited when they see it. There's
> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting.
>
> >> The problem with the Equal Rights Amendment was that it was simply the
> >> pendulum swinging the other way instead of rational thought. If it
> >> came down to a choice between a more qualified man and a less
> >> qualified woman, the woman was to be chosen because she was a woman.
> >> Before that it was the other way around. The *right* way to do it is
> >> closer to being in place now, where the gender of the person is
> >> irrelevant. There needs to be a single standard and if someone can
> >> meet it or exceed it, the job is theirs.
> >>
> >That's not what the equal rights amendment was. What you descibe sounds
> >like Affirmative Action.
>
> Then I'm not sure what the Equal Rights Amendment is.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> ...There's
> >> such a huge shame factor associated with our bodies over here that
> >> it's disgusting, and that comes directly from those Puritans that I
> >> mentioned earlier. A friend of mine has a neighbour who firmly
> >> believes that the only time you should be naked is when changing
> >> clothes or having a bath and that kids who run around naked will have
> >> body issues. Only the mother should change the baby and then in
> >> private because other people seeing the baby naked will give the baby
> >> stress. Very Victorian, absolutely disgusting...
> >
> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>
> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.

I think people pretent they don't notice!

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:51:34 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Nor mine. I've been married now for about 8 years and have a very
> >> high regard for the institution of marriage. What I have with my wife
> >> and my son isn't threatened at all if gays get married. I don't
> >> understand why *you* feel threatened by it.
> >
> >To me it's not a matter of "feeling threatened" by some gay people down
the
> >street being married or not. The social order we maintain in our society
is
> >based on our values. There are those whose values approach moral anarchy
> >(anything goes). I'd prefer those people were in the minority and
weren't
> >the ones to define our social order.
>
> The problem with this assumption is that you appear to be assuming
> that gays fall into the moral anarchy group. There are a lot more
> straight moral anarchists than gay, many of whom just want the same
> things from a relationship that you and I do (minus kids for most, of
> course).
>

Point taken, but it's still difficult to redefine or expand marriage to
accomodate gays and expect that will be the end of it. The integrity of the
institution as it's current defined and valued will be lost.

> >Since many of our values eminate over many generations far in the past,
it's
> >hard to understand the real meaning of institutions such as marriage. I
> >think we take for granted the good effects traditional values has on
> >society.
>
> True enough, but holding on to something just because that's the way
> it's always been done is never a good thing. *Everything* should be
> re-evaluated on a fairly regularly basis.
>

I think each generation does that to the chagrin of the previous one.


> >I'm sure Lloyd will now bring up slavery and gay bashing a la that
> >Shepard boy that was murdered a few years back as my brand of values.
> >Typical of him to look only for opportunities to spout off the same old
> >(must be memorized by now) lines. Of course, it's false anyway. My
> >progenitors from the south were Lincoln Republicans (which would have
gotten
> >me killed 150 years ago) so don't even let that jaw drop open Lloyd.
>
> Lloyd's a hypocritical idiot, I'd kill file him if it wasn't so funny
> to read his stuff.
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.


 


Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>
> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.

And therefore what????

Tune in to MTV or VH1 - that will alleviate your fears that Americans
are too hung up on anything. We can get nasty with the best of them.
Again - not sure where you're going with this.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Bill Putney wrote:
>
> Dan Gates wrote:
>
>>Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
>
>>>...HillaryCare did a terrific job of scaring Americans off any changes
>>>whatsoever to the current system. I have little doubt that was, in fact,
>>>one of the primary main goals behind it.
>>>
>>
>>Speaking of Texas, "The" CBC is running a report tonight on hospitals in
>>Texas turning people away and choosing the "least expensive" option
>>rather than the "most therapeutic", all because of lack of money!!
>>
>>Hmmmmm. Big difference eh?
>
>
> Hmmm - do you think it might have something to do with resource
> depletion due to having to treat *ILLEGAL* *ALIENS*!?
>
> Bill Putney

You're not thinking that we're getting visitors, are you Bill? We have
treatments for that you know!!

|>))

Dan

 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:24:02 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>No. Your argument for gay marriage is to point out that so called lack of
>an answer to the question of Why Not? or Why are you so threatened? I've
>pointed out that it requires a redefinition of Marriage because,
>traditionally, the over-arching purpose of marriage is to provide the best
>possible place for children to be reared: the family. It is recognized,
>aided and protected by the state not just for it's societal benefits, but
>because of the value people have historically placed on it as a sacred
>institution. A reflection of the people's values.

And gays marrying will have no more effect on that than seniors
marrying.

>The religious connection is unavoidable. Traditional marraige is a covenant
>between God, Man and Woman. A covenant of obedience to God, fidelity to
>each other, but mostly as God's the way to bring children into the world,
>love them and teach them faith in God. It really isn't so much about love
>or a declaration of love. Religiously, love isn't a pre-requisite for
>marriage... obedience to God is. Love is a commandment and as we *pactice*
>love, we find it and happiness.
>
>The decay or rejection of religious faith has effected marriage such that
>there is a common acceptance of children outside of wedlock, divorce,
>infidelity, selfishness and so on. It's become without purpose except to
>gratify self. When that sours, it's off to the next exciting relationship.
>Lost is the sense of religious obligation and the happiness that comes from
>living it.

I don't know about that. I've never been religious at all, nor are
any of my friends, yet we all seem to take our marriages very
seriously. People as a whole are a lot more selfish, but I don't
believe that it is religion that makes people less selfish. I've
known too many Sunday Christians for that to be true.

>Redefining marriage as an expression of love between two people or a way of
>recognizing the commitment between two people just shoots the middle right
>out of it. It becomes an empty shell. The whole issue about protecting
>marriage isn't about fairness or civil rights or gays or anything but what
>it means religiously. Even if one isn't particularly religious. For me,
>it's the sense that the community I live in is generally reflective of my
>values and is blessed with the benefits that come from living them.

Does having a gay couple living next door to you lessen the community?

>Sorry for the Sunday school lession. But it's obvious that marriage
>revolves around it's religious roots.

If this argument were to hold water it should have been made as soon
as people started getting married outside of churches.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:05:24 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:32:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> >> doesn't it?
>> >
>> >Not just physical existence, but spiritual, social, cultural, etc.,
>> >etc....all that stuff. Our values.
>>
>> And gays don't have those values?
>
>Of course they do! Did I say they didn't?

If marriage is about those values and you don't want gays to get
married, I thought maybe you thought gay marriage would remove those
values from the definition of marriage.

>> >> Patriot Act, anyone?
>> >
>> >Leftist fantasy. All of their predictions of lost rights have been shown to
>> >be wrong.
>>
>> Haven't you heard of Guatanamo Bay?
>>
>Nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

True enough, but it's an excellent example of rights being trampled.
>>
>> So accepting gays makes society bad?
>>
>No. Abandoning the traditional definition of marriage would be bad medicine
>for society.

Society is evolving. 20 years ago you couldn't be openly gay, now
it's a lot less of a big deal in most circles and doesn't matter at
all in many.

>> >> If it wasn't forbidden none of this would matter!
>> >
>> >People generally value modesty.
>>
>> *Americans* generally value modesty. Comes from being founded by
>> Puritans.
>
>Hmmm. I disagree. Modesty is common courtesy.

Depends on where you are and what the circumstances are. At work?
Certainly. At the beach? Shouldn't be an issue. If it's a really
hot day at the park? Well, why not?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:42:25 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
>an
>> >>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>> >
>> >And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> >doesn't it?
>>
>> In part, yes.
>> It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
>> at all.
>> Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
>> not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
>> must have children.
>> Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
>> marriage, do not define a marriage.
>
>It's roots are religious. A covenant between God, husband and wife. God's
>way for us to bring children into the world.

And yet seniors get married.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>
>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.

Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
doesn't exist.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:21:42 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> The problem with this assumption is that you appear to be assuming
>> that gays fall into the moral anarchy group. There are a lot more
>> straight moral anarchists than gay, many of whom just want the same
>> things from a relationship that you and I do (minus kids for most, of
>> course).
>
>Point taken, but it's still difficult to redefine or expand marriage to
>accomodate gays and expect that will be the end of it. The integrity of the
>institution as it's current defined and valued will be lost.

People as a whole don't appear to believe in the integrity of marriage
now. You're defending something that for most people doesn't mean
anything.

>> True enough, but holding on to something just because that's the way
>> it's always been done is never a good thing. *Everything* should be
>> re-evaluated on a fairly regularly basis.
>>
>
>I think each generation does that to the chagrin of the previous one.

And each generation remembers how bad they had it when they were young
and only remembers the "good old days". The world changes.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 06:45:26 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:20:38 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >You're painting with a pretty broad brush, and the example you gave is
>> >pretty extreme and atypical - so atypical, that one has to wonder why
>> >you bring it up. I think the pendulum has swung plenty far in the other
>> >extreme in the recent past - to the point where *THAT* has gotten pretty
>> >disgusting. There is a reasonable balance.
>>
>> That neighbour is an extreme case, but she's firmly against any sort
>> of public nudity. What everyone is missing is that public nudity
>> doesn't have to be about sex. The only reason everyone gets so
>> excited about it is that it's forbidden. As I said, go to a topless
>> beach in Europe or Australia, no one notices it.
>
>And therefore what????

Nudity isn't forbidden and therefore isn't a big deal.

>Tune in to MTV or VH1 - that will alleviate your fears that Americans
>are too hung up on anything. We can get nasty with the best of them.
>Again - not sure where you're going with this.

A very small subset is able to, yet there are very firm limits.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:58:55 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
>>>necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
>>>need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
>>>means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
>>>afford to pay for the procedure.
>>
>>But that's not "equal access to health care".
>>That's access for all.
>>Two very different things.
>
>Not necessarily. It's equal access to that which is essential to your
>health. Anything else that you want you can pony up for on your own.

You're redefining.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On 8 Dec 2003 10:38:01 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:

>Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 5 Dec 2003 09:59:45 -0800, [email protected] (z) wrote:
>>
>> >Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "David J. Allen"
>> >> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Reminds me of my experience in a country a few years ago that had "free"
>> >> >(i.e., rationed) medical care for all. The demand for care outstripped the
>> >> >supply and the only people who got decent medical care were the people with
>> >> >money, who could pay for a private doctor. Everyone else had to go wait in
>> >> >line at the clinic and hope for decent care.
>> >>
>> >> Well, Hillary's solution would have fixed that; any doctor caught
>> >> giving care outside the approved system would be liable to legal
>> >> prosecution, with penalties including fines, jail time & loss of
>> >> license.
>> >> A true utopia.
>> >
>> >Better now. Only doctors doing 'Partial Birth Abortions', whatever
>> >those may be, get fines, jail time & loss of license. Much better.
>>
>> "whatever those may be..."?
>> You use it as an example, but don't know what it is?
>
>Well golly, I just can't seem to find anything by that name in the CPT
>book. I suggest you try to send a letter to your healthcare insurer
>asking if they reimburse for a 'Partial Birth Abortion' and see what
>kind of answer you get.

And I will suggest that if you use something as an example, you should
know what it is.
http://www.google.com/search?q=part...illa-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
340,000 entries.
It's not rocket science to find this stuff.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:03:15 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have no first-hand experience with Canadian healthcare, so I ask
>>questions.
>>When Branden wrote, "What you *don't* get is the right to skip to the
>>head of the line because you've got more disposable income if you need
>>or want a non-critical procedure", that seems to say that money won't
>>get you medical care any faster than what the government system
>>provides.
>>You're saying the opposite.
>
>
> I've been reading Dan's stuff and he seems to know a lot more about
> the topic than I do. If there's a discrepancy between what we say,
> I'd believe him.


Don't paint me as too much of an expert. Most of my knowledge is about
the "free market medical system". My wife is a veterinarian and has
just opened her own shop with a partner. They can charge whatever the
market will take, and will make our physician friends very envious with
the amount she will make vs the time she will put in (after the loan is
paid off, that is).

|>))))

Dan

 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:42:25 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 16:07:44 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Changing marriage into a civil right for <fill in the blank> rather than
>an
>> >>institution to bless our continued existence over the generations.
>> >
>> >And "our continued existence over the generations" means children,
>> >doesn't it?
>>
>> In part, yes.
>> It also means self-defense. Which, of course, doesn't involve marriage
>> at all.
>> Is children within marriage the sole reason for marriage? Obviously
>> not, otherwise there would be a rule that any couple that gets married
>> must have children.
>> Marriage is a complex concept, and children, while a major part of
>> marriage, do not define a marriage.
>
>It's roots are religious. A covenant between God, husband and wife. God's
>way for us to bring children into the world.

THat's not what the New Testament says.
It's about the two people being married leaving their respective
families and becoming one
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>
>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>
>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?

That's not the same as the right existing.
Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
life.
>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.

The government doesn't stop that, does it?
>
>>More particularly, the American government?
>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>
>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>of speech, that sort of thing.

Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
something else.
I wrote:
"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
government, such as, for example, the right to life."

As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
granted. And you specifically responded to that:
"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
exist."


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:41:39 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:05:36 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:43:43 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>>>original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>>>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>>>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>>
>>>So the right to life is dependant on the existance of a government?
>>
>>Without a government, how do you protect your right to life?
>
>That's not the same as the right existing.

Without a means of protecting those rights they are meaningless.

>Without a government, there ar estill many ways to protect my right to
>life.

Without law (backed by a government) anyone can be killed for no
reason. There is no inherent right to life.

>>If might makes right, you can lose your life very easily.
>
>The government doesn't stop that, does it?

No, but it significantly reduces it.

>>>More particularly, the American government?
>>>I have a hard time understanding how that can be said.
>>
>>The rights to which I were referring to were access to courts, freedom
>>of speech, that sort of thing.
>
>Ah, then you didn't respond to what I wrote; you responded to
>something else.
>I wrote:
>"This is an interesting concept; some rights are granted by the
>community (the right to drive, for example), while others are
>guaranteed (and recognized as existing absent any government) by the
>government, such as, for example, the right to life."
>
>As you see, I spoecifically said the right to life was guaranteed, not
>granted. And you specifically responded to that:
>"And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from
>the original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer
>exist."

No one has an innate "right to live". It's only very recently
historically that people as a whole were valued enough to come up with
the concept. Without a government that supports that approach "right
to life" is simply meaningless words.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:28:22 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:08:31 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:58:55 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 17:18:53 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>You can pay for elective care if you want it, it's just that the
>>>>necessities are all covered by the gov't. If there is too much of a
>>>>need for a specific procedure then setting it up on a fee basis simply
>>>>means that the wealthy will be able to get ahead of those who can't
>>>>afford to pay for the procedure.
>>>
>>>But that's not "equal access to health care".
>>>That's access for all.
>>>Two very different things.
>>
>>Not necessarily. It's equal access to that which is essential to your
>>health. Anything else that you want you can pony up for on your own.
>
>You're redefining.

As I understand it if it's not essential to your health then it's not
government covered. One could argue that going to a naturopath is
health care, but I don't think the government covers that.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:58:15 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:44:55 GMT, "David J. Allen"
><dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> And the rights that Americans view as "God given" are derived from the
>>> original framework of what America is. Under that agreement that
>>> formed the state were some rights that the state is not allowed to
>>> take away. Remove the state however and those rights no longer exist.
>>
>>Not true. They always exist in principle. They just aren't protected.
>
>Semantics. If I don't have the right to free speech, for me it
>doesn't exist.

But that's not considered a "God given" right, such as the right to
life.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
46K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top