Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,621

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
>
> The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
> lie to this statement.
>
> DS

And therefore what? (1) Therefore allowing gays to get married will fix
it, or (2) Therefore, since no one has respect for the institution of
marriage, we should finish the job of destroying it by allowing gays to
"get married", or (3) Therefore, since no one has respect for the
insitution of marriage, why should or would anyone care that we are
proposing to deal it the final blow?

Brandon seemed to me to be using the "It's a failed institution,
therefore to fix it, gays ought to be allowed to get married" the other
day, but he denied that that was his logic. What I'm getting at is,
what does the fact that you think it's a failed insitution have to do
with your belief that gays ought to be allowed to get married? You must
think the gays will fix it, or why would you want to be part of such a
failed concept?

I think David Allen hit the proverbial nail on the head when he wrote:
"I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended
consequenses. Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It
doesn't make sense for same sex other than a statement or 'cause'."
That certainly seems to be the case with the repeat of the "50% divorce
rate" and "failed institution" claims. Otherwise, what's the purpose of
claiming that repeatedly in a discussion on gays "getting married" if
that's not part of the justification?

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! =-----

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,622

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:59:34 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

>I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
>Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
>same sex other than a statement or "cause".

David, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
one. It has been a very informative and polite discussion which I've
enjoyed greatly!

All the best,
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,623

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
>what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
>they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
>jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
>speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
>on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
>just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!

The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
response to Bill Maher's comments.

Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,624

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:03 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Note the word "recognized".
>>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>>
>>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
>
>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>those granted by governments.

What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
not having it recognized?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,625

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
>
> The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
> lie to this statement.
>

Not at all. A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
percent of people married regardless of how many times. The percent of
people not ever getting married or never remarrying would be a better
indicator of the decreased relevence of the institution. Even so, that
"failure" rate doesn't diminish marriage, it diminishes society.


> DS
>

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,626

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:59:34 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I think gay marriage would be fertile ground for unintended consequenses.
> >Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense. It doesn't make sense for
> >same sex other than a statement or "cause".
>
> David, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
> one. It has been a very informative and polite discussion which I've
> enjoyed greatly!
>
> All the best,

Thanks. I think we've devolved into talking in circles
> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

 

L

Lon Stowell

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,627

[...]

 

L

Lon Stowell

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,628

Roughly 12/11/03 07:55, David J. Allen's monkeys randomly typed:

>
> Not at all.

 

D

Daniel J. Stern

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,629

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:

> > > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
> >
> > The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined gives
> > lie to this statement.

> A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
> percent of people married regardless of how many times.

H'm. So it's OK with you for some dumb slob to tell lies every couple
years about "In sickness and in health" and "til death do us part" when
s/he really means "...or until someone better/richer comes along,
whichever comes first", and as long as the slob's heterosexual, this
DOESN'T diminish marriage as an institution, eh?

DS

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,630

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:36:42 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:45:03 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:12:10 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Note the word "recognized".
>>>>The right to life existed, even in Iraq.
>>>>The problem was, the government refused to recognize it.
>>>
>>>If it's not recognized then you don't really have it, do you?
>>
>>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>>those granted by governments.
>
>What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>not having it recognized?

To someone who thinks all rights come from governments, I guess not
much.
However, certain rights (such as a right to life) transcend
governments; governments don't grant such rights, but they can
recognize them.
If you have a right that your government doesn't recognize, it's much
easier to get it to recognize it, as opposed to rights that the
government does grant (like driving, for example).

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,631

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
> >what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
> >they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
> >jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
> >speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
> >on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
> >just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
>
> The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
> Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
> response to Bill Maher's comments.
>
> Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...

Like I said - weak-minded.

Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
say". You're so FoS.

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! =-----

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,632

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
> >those granted by governments.
>
> What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
> not having it recognized?

Well, let's see. Could it be that with a legitimate right that's being
denied that as long as you have enough good people who will stand on
principle, you have at least a fighting chance (literally) of regaining
the legitimate right back, whereas if it is not a genuine right that
want to lay claim to, even with a majority of good people around that
you would (and apprently should) never gain/regain it? (Carrying it
further, the consequences if good people decide no to do anything about
gaining or regaining a legitmate right may be that it will be lost
forever.)

Maybe no difference for the moment, but certainly hope for the future
(with a legitimate right that's being denied).

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! =-----

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,633

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:27:01 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
>> >what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
>> >they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
>> >jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
>> >speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
>> >on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
>> >just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
>>
>> The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
>> Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
>> response to Bill Maher's comments.
>>
>> Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
>
>Like I said - weak-minded.
>
>Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
>say". You're so FoS.

You're right, soldiers will be put at risk by someone saying "They
shouldn't be there" much more than by someone saying "Go there". Such
brilliant logic, I'm not sure how I missed the connection...

Fleischer wasn't talking about security issues, he was talking about
Maher daring to contradict the image that the terrorists who flew a
plane into a building *knowing* that they would die were cowards. How
does that threaten any soldiers?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,634

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:27:54 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:36:42 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>>>those granted by governments.
>>
>>What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>>not having it recognized?
>
>To someone who thinks all rights come from governments, I guess not
>much.

What is the functional difference. If there is one surely someone
with as high an opinion of himself as you can explain it. Beyond, of
course, the fact that one makes you feel like an American.

>However, certain rights (such as a right to life) transcend
>governments; governments don't grant such rights, but they can
>recognize them.
>If you have a right that your government doesn't recognize, it's much
>easier to get it to recognize it, as opposed to rights that the
>government does grant (like driving, for example).

Semantics.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Dec 11, 2003

• #2,635

Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:27:01 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:48:53 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Geeze, Brandon! If that's your take on it, you haven't a clue about
> >> >what rights are, and are not even competent to discuss the subject. If
> >> >they were arrested when they returned back to American soil and put in
> >> >jail for it, then, YES, that would have violated their freedom of
> >> >speech. But for me to burn their CD, or if I refuse to play their songs
> >> >on my radio station!? Give me a break. Some of your other stuff has
> >> >just shown weak-mindedness, but this - woof!
> >>
> >> The whole thing was supported by the gov't, which is scary. Even Ari
> >> Fleischer said "We have to watch what we say" (to paraphrase) in
> >> response to Bill Maher's comments.
> >>
> >> Freedom of speech? As long as you support the current regime...
> >
> >Like I said - weak-minded.
> >
> >Yes - never mind that soldiers lives may be put at risk by "what we
> >say". You're so FoS.
>
> You're right, soldiers will be put at risk by someone saying "They
> shouldn't be there" much more than by someone saying "Go there". Such
> brilliant logic, I'm not sure how I missed the connection...
>
> Fleischer wasn't talking about security issues, he was talking about
> Maher daring to contradict the image that the terrorists who flew a
> plane into a building *knowing* that they would die were cowards. How
> does that threaten any soldiers?

You really don't know, do you. Not surprised at all.

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! =-----

 

C

Chuckles

Guest

• Dec 12, 2003

• #2,636

x-no-archive: yes

Lon Stowell wrote:

> [...]

?

 

D

David J. Allen

Guest

• Dec 12, 2003

• #2,637

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > > > Marriage is relevent in the traditional sense.
> > >
> > > The plus-50 percent failure rate of marriage as currently defined
gives
> > > lie to this statement.
>
> > A more relevent metric wouldn't be the divorce rate, but the
> > percent of people married regardless of how many times.
>
> H'm. So it's OK with you for some dumb slob to tell lies every couple
> years about "In sickness and in health" and "til death do us part" when
> s/he really means "...or until someone better/richer comes along,
> whichever comes first", and as long as the slob's heterosexual, this
> DOESN'T diminish marriage as an institution, eh?
>

Did I say that? Wow! Actually, I had in mind people who just didn't get it
right the first time. The nice spouse of the poor dumb slob you described.
My sister really believes in the institution of marriage. She's used it 4
or 5 times. Somehow the last one has lasted. And not to be too negative,
some creepy people actually change their ways and end up kind of decent.

I don't think people who fail in marriage diminish it. Actually an analogy
might be the California School System. It used to be that plenty of people
failed and had to repeat grades. It didn't diminish the program. Now days,
everyone passes, (sort of like "anything goes" in marriage). Now that's a
diminished system.

> DS
>

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 12, 2003

• #2,638

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:35:28 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>> >those granted by governments.
>>
>> What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>> not having it recognized?
>
>Well, let's see. Could it be that with a legitimate right that's being
>denied that as long as you have enough good people who will stand on
>principle, you have at least a fighting chance (literally) of regaining
>the legitimate right back, whereas if it is not a genuine right that
>want to lay claim to, even with a majority of good people around that
>you would (and apprently should) never gain/regain it?

You mean like unions demanding higher wages, health insurance and a
donut after every shift? If enough people demand it and are willing
to go far enough, a government or organization will grant it.

>(Carrying it
>further, the consequences if good people decide no to do anything about
>gaining or regaining a legitmate right may be that it will be lost
>forever.)

For evil to win, good must simply look the other way. *Any* right is
like that, be it "legitimate" or not in your eyes.

>Maybe no difference for the moment, but certainly hope for the future
>(with a legitimate right that's being denied).

See, "no difference for the moment". Thanks for playing.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

B

Bill Funk

Guest

• Dec 12, 2003

• #2,639

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:35:28 -0500, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Brandon Sommerville wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:09:02 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >It's obvious that you don't think there are any rights other than
>>> >those granted by governments.
>>>
>>> What's the difference between not have a right and having a right but
>>> not having it recognized?
>>
>>Well, let's see. Could it be that with a legitimate right that's being
>>denied that as long as you have enough good people who will stand on
>>principle, you have at least a fighting chance (literally) of regaining
>>the legitimate right back, whereas if it is not a genuine right that
>>want to lay claim to, even with a majority of good people around that
>>you would (and apprently should) never gain/regain it?
>
>You mean like unions demanding higher wages, health insurance and a
>donut after every shift? If enough people demand it and are willing
>to go far enough, a government or organization will grant it.

You evidently don't (or can't) make a distinction between the right to
life, and a right to a coffee break.

>
>>(Carrying it
>>further, the consequences if good people decide no to do anything about
>>gaining or regaining a legitmate right may be that it will be lost
>>forever.)
>
>For evil to win, good must simply look the other way. *Any* right is
>like that, be it "legitimate" or not in your eyes.

Right.
The right to life, and the right to a coffee break are equal, in your
eyes.
>
>>Maybe no difference for the moment, but certainly hope for the future
>>(with a legitimate right that's being denied).
>
>See, "no difference for the moment". Thanks for playing.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

B

Brandon Sommerville

Guest

• Dec 14, 2003

• #2,640

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:20:50 -0700, Bill Funk <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>You mean like unions demanding higher wages, health insurance and a
>>donut after every shift? If enough people demand it and are willing
>>to go far enough, a government or organization will grant it.
>
>You evidently don't (or can't) make a distinction between the right to
>life, and a right to a coffee break.

Look, this isn't about which one is more important. Of course the
"right" to life is tremendously important to any society, as is
freedom of speech. Unfortunately, without something to back up the
right (either your own strength or the strength of the group behind
you) those rights are mere concepts.

As far as I can tell there is no functional difference between not
having a right and having a right but not having it recognized. It's
simply a matter of semantics.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.