Jeep thing or sheep thing?

Barry White wrote:
>
> ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
> discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay
> individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either
> unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of
> Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides
> new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory...

So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.

> ...Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual
> urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory,
> the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.
> According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative
> emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the
> authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
> possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat
> condition rather than sexual arousal per se...


Ah - the truth comes out.

> ...These competing notions can and should be
> evaluated by future research.'

Oh of course! Imagine that.

Well I learned 3 things from that:
1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
their "new" meanings.
2) (If the study was honestly done and is to be believed) "...[A]nxiety
has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se..."
Of course in subsequent posts, this little statement was ignored and the
erroneous conclusion that you (and the author of the article) wanted
people to draw has been drawn.
3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
this burning issue.

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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Barry White wrote:
> >
> > ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
> > discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay
> > individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either
> > unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of
> > Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA),
provides
> > new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory...
>
> So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
> says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
> urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.
>
> > ...Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed
homosexual
> > urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that
theory,
> > the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.
> > According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused
negative
> > emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As
the
> > authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is
also
> > possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the
threat
> > condition rather than sexual arousal per se...
>
>
> Ah - the truth comes out.
>
> > ...These competing notions can and should be
> > evaluated by future research.'
>
> Oh of course! Imagine that.
>
> Well I learned 3 things from that:
> 1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
> their "new" meanings.
> 2) (If the study was honestly done and is to be believed) "...[A]nxiety
> has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
> possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
> function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se..."
> Of course in subsequent posts, this little statement was ignored and the
> erroneous conclusion that you (and the author of the article) wanted
> people to draw has been drawn.
> 3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
> notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
> that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
> this burning issue.
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")
>
It appears you fit the description of the article

Barry White wrote:

> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > Barry White wrote:
> > >
> > > ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
> > > discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay
> > > individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either
> > > unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of
> > > Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA),
> provides
> > > new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory...
> >
> > So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
> > says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
> > urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.
> >
> > > ...Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed
> homosexual
> > > urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that
> theory,
> > > the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety.
> > > According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused
> negative
> > > emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As
> the
> > > authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is
> also
> > > possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the
> threat
> > > condition rather than sexual arousal per se...
> >
> >
> > Ah - the truth comes out.
> >
> > > ...These competing notions can and should be
> > > evaluated by future research.'
> >
> > Oh of course! Imagine that.
> >
> > Well I learned 3 things from that:
> > 1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
> > their "new" meanings.
> > 2) (If the study was honestly done and is to be believed) "...[A]nxiety
> > has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
> > possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
> > function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se..."
> > Of course in subsequent posts, this little statement was ignored and the
> > erroneous conclusion that you (and the author of the article) wanted
> > people to draw has been drawn.
> > 3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
> > notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
> > that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
> > this burning issue.
> >
> It appears you fit the description of the article

In order to tell that, there would have had to be a penile plethysmographic strain gage on me,
and I would have been the first to know had that been the case.

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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Barry White wrote:
>
> > "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > Barry White wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
> > > > discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay
> > > > individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is
either
> > > > unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of
> > > > Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA),
> > provides
> > > > new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory...
> > >
> > > So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
> > > says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
> > > urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.
> > >
> > > > ...Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed
> > homosexual
> > > > urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that
> > theory,
> > > > the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation:
anxiety.
> > > > According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused
> > negative
> > > > emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic
men. As
> > the
> > > > authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it
is
> > also
> > > > possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of
the
> > threat
> > > > condition rather than sexual arousal per se...
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah - the truth comes out.
> > >
> > > > ...These competing notions can and should be
> > > > evaluated by future research.'
> > >
> > > Oh of course! Imagine that.
> > >
> > > Well I learned 3 things from that:
> > > 1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
> > > their "new" meanings.
> > > 2) (If the study was honestly done and is to be believed) "...[A]nxiety
> > > has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also
> > > possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a
> > > function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se..."
> > > Of course in subsequent posts, this little statement was ignored and the
> > > erroneous conclusion that you (and the author of the article) wanted
> > > people to draw has been drawn.
> > > 3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
> > > notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
> > > that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
> > > this burning issue.
> > >
> > It appears you fit the description of the article
>
> In order to tell that, there would have had to be a penile plethysmographic strain gage
on me,
> and I would have been the first to know had that been the case.

maybe you were distracted ;-)

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is not a federal government issue, it is a states' rights issue. If we
>have to ensure privacy rights between consenting stool pushers, don't we
>need to protect the privacy rights of adults with minors, or johns and
>hookers? If there is a "right" to pushing stools, then there is an equal
>right to violate children or to entertain hookers.

Legally, children can not consent. As the laws go, your adult-child
circumstance is as "consenting" as if you killed someone that didn't want
to be killed. But from your word choice, it looked more like you wanted to
inflame, rather than actually believing the inapplicable analogies you were
presenting.

And the hooker thing is commerce. They are selling goods or services
without permission. That can be regulated. Also, since many of the
customers are travelers from out of town, the federal government could
possibly get involved on "interstate commerce" reasons (they use that to
justify the EPA, FCC, FAA, and many others from the alphabet soup).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Marc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Another oddity: On the "100 Greatest Country Music Songs" on CMT, it
>> >> >was remarked that only Loretta Lynn could rhyme "hard" and "tired" in a
>> >> >hit song and make it sound natural (song "Coalminer's Daughter").
>> >>
>> >> That would seem natural for any one from the south. "Tired" is pronounced
>> >> "tard."
>> >>
>> >I hope you're not implying that everyone in the south prounces it that
>> >way - I certainly don't (born and raised in VA) - it's more NC, GA, W
>> >VA, TN, KY hill or trailer park accent.
>>
>> You left out MS, LA, TX, OK, AR, and possibly some others.
>>
>> And yes, I am stating that the Southern Accent (tm) does pronounce it that
>> way. If you are claiming to be from the south but not pronounce it that
>> way, then you don't have the Southern Accent (tm).
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>Well no - not the stereotyped accent that they portray on TV.

On TV, it sounds to me like a New York accent that was slowed down. The TV
accents manage to drop letters when southerners add them (the
black-southern accent pronounces "car" as "car-uh" and the "r" is clearly
distinct in the regular Southern Accent (tm)), but on TV, I'll hear the
soft (almost missing) "r" on the end, as a New Englander would do it.

>But
>you're right - I think you will find the "tard" pronunciation more
>prevalent than I had indicated. In fact the only southern states where
>it is not at least relatively common are Florida (panhandle near Alabama
>excepted) and maybe half of Virginia (Bristol and extreme southwest part
>of the state excepted).

The Southern Accent (tm) is spread across quite a distance. However, you
will not find the accent as strong in some places. The accents come and go
depending on geography. There are some areas of TX that were settled by
Germans. These areas, though housing some of the oldest communities in TX,
do not have a Southern Accent (tm). I was born and raised in Dallas and
lived there for more than 28 years before moving. I have no identifiable
accent. I use idioms and incorrect grammar associated with the south
sometimes (very rarely now, but more when I was there to speak like the
locals). For instance, it is a Texas thing (don't know how prevalent it is
across the rest of the souther states) to drop the -ly from adverbs,
especially when they end sentences. "Run down to the store real quick."
That and the regional descriptors for generic soft drinks (soda, pop, soda
pop, or, as they do it in Texas, Coke). Yes, you'd walk into a restaurant
in TX and no one would look at you funny if you asked, "What kind of Cokes
do you have?" and the waitress would respond, "Coke, Diet Coke, 7up, Dr.
Pepper, and Orange." Or you'd order a "Coke" and the waitress would ask,
"What kind?"

But now that I'm out of there, I dropped those, and people guess me as
being from the midwest. I get an occasional California, but I'm not tan
enough to pull that off...

>Believe it or not, you will also find it deep in the Rocky Mountains of
>Colorado (apparently common ancestry to hill people of Kentucky).

I've only been through Denver and to some of the resort towns. Like
Dallas, where I grew up, the resort towns weren't too distinctive in accent
because no one there was born there...

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So there is the big lie. Contradicts the end of the article where it
> says there is a competing theory (having nothing to do with homosexual
> urges) that needs more study to be conclusive.
>

Bill, chill out!

This is a PRESS RELEASE not the actual article. Note they didn't even cite
the article
title - probably because it was some boring title.

The person that wrote the press release deliberately slanted it like this to
get
the attention of journalists.

It is an interesting study but all it proves is that the men that seem to go
out of their
way to have a hangup about gay sex, seem to get aroused by sex scenes of all
kinds.
Well anyone could have predicted this, obviously a hetro whom sex is so
central
to their lives that they actually have an opinion about gay sex, is probably
going to
be aroused by anything having to do with sex.

They probably could have shown cartoon sex to the "homophobes" and seen the
same
increase level of arousal - not because the homophobes **** naked cartoon
chicks,
but because since sex is so important to them that they are going to carry a
banner
about it, ANYTHING hinting of sex is going to get them aroused. Hell, the
penile
measuring tool probably gets them a hard on.

>
> Well I learned 3 things from that:
> 3) (Immediately following the quote of item 2)) "...These competing
> notions can and should be evaluated by future research..." Why imagine
> that! They have concluded that they need more government money to study
> this burning issue.
>

You also didn't learn that this just shows yet another example of how easy
it is to manipulate so-called "journalists" and how most news today is
entertainment, not news.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
>

Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would rule.

Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
currently
sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precident setting. They
did
this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.

I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
exists
to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
apply
equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
is
permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
media,
publication of encryption algorithims used to encrypt music and movies on
DVD's

And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a state
ban on gay marriages.

There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
that
last one but I thought they did)

But this is disingenous. The currently sitting court is very conservative.
Every
time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the least
bit
liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precident. Every time they
are
able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
to
set future precident.

Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least little
bit
of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal vs conservative
bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
extreme is terrible, of course.

From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But don't
ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe vs
Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
liberal years of the court then were an aberration.

Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
effectively
the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex statues
became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.

>
> This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
>

Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
know for certainty what He wants, now can you?

I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my own
philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
problem
is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead of
truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that just
drags
the discussion down.

If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to the
understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
roadmap
to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
figure out how
to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
missteps,
on that road.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
>

Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would rule.

Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
currently
sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting. They
did
this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.

I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
exists
to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
apply
equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
is
permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
media,
publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
DVD's

And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a state
ban on gay marriages.

There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
that
last one but I thought they did)

But this is disingenuous. The currently sitting court is very conservative.
Every
time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the least
bit
liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precedent. Every time they
are
able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
to
set future precedent.

Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least little
bit
of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal Vs conservative
bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
extreme is terrible, of course.

From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe Vs. Wade. But don't
ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe Vs.
Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
liberal years of the court then were an aberration.

Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
effectively
the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex statues
became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.

>
> This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
>

Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
know for certainty what He wants, now can you?

I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my own
philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
problem
is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead of
truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that just
drags
the discussion down.

If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to the
understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
roadmap
to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
figure out how
to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
missteps,
on that road.

Ted

Its the other way round in the UK. The Liberals want everyone to have a fair
chance at everything with free education, state railways, free health
service, and the conservatives want the state to butt out. New Labour and
Tony Blair just want to stay in power, and deliver as much as the
conservatives at the cost of the liberal agenda but put plenty of comforting
positive spin on everything they do.


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
After all that's what all this liberal vs conservative
: bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
: conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state.

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> > logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> > conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> > adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
> >
>
> Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would rule.
>
> Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
> currently
> sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
> years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precident setting. They
> did
> this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.
>
> I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
> exists
> to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
> apply
> equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
> is
> permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
> and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
> media,
> publication of encryption algorithims used to encrypt music and movies on
> DVD's
>
> And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a state
> ban on gay marriages.
>
> There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
> Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
> affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
> that
> last one but I thought they did)
>
> But this is disingenous. The currently sitting court is very conservative.
> Every
> time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the least
> bit
> liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precident. Every time they
> are
> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
> to
> set future precident.
>
> Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
> impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least little
> bit
> of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal vs conservative
> bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
> extreme is terrible, of course.
>
> From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
> like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But don't
> ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe vs
> Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
> liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
>
> Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
> effectively
> the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex statues
> became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
> one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
> someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.
>
> >
> > This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> > feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> > decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> > anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> > offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> > those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
> >
>
> Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
> know for certainty what He wants, now can you?
>
> I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my own
> philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
> problem
> is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead of
> truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that just
> drags
> the discussion down.
>
> If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to the
> understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
> moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
> God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
> roadmap
> to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
> figure out how
> to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
> missteps,
> on that road.
>
> Ted
>
>

there's no such thing as "free will"

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> "Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> > logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> > conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> > adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
> >
>
> Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would rule.
>
> Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
> currently
> sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
> years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting. They
> did
> this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.
>
> I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
> exists
> to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
> apply
> equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
> is
> permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
> and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
> media,
> publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
> DVD's
>
> And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a state
> ban on gay marriages.
>
> There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
> Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
> affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
> that
> last one but I thought they did)
>
> But this is disingenuous. The currently sitting court is very conservative.
> Every
> time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the least
> bit
> liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precedent...

I don't know about that - it seemed to me that the phrasing of one of
the justices (sorry - don't remember which one) was carefully designed
to pave the way for the inevitable next layer of the onion regarding
incest and polygamy (or as some like to phrase it, "the slippery
slope").

Every time they
> are
> able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
> to
> set future precedent.
>
> Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
> impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least little
> bit
> of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal Vs conservative
> bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
> extreme is terrible, of course.

I see that as true in some issues but the opposite in others. For
example, I see forcibly stealing money out of my pocket and calling it
taxes to give to someone else for situations that I disagree with as a
severe type of control on personal freedom. Heck - Canada now has a
program in which gov't paid nurses are stationed in clinics to help drug
addicts shoot up without endangering themselves - I'd sure hate to pay
taxes to support that. Now that program a "liberal" idea or a
"conservative" idea? That illustrates how sick the modern concept of
personal freedom has become.

There are many examples in the "government control and regulation of
businesses" area that also illustrate this "hands-off" vs. "micromanage"
difference.

> From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
> like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe Vs. Wade. But don't
> ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe Vs.
> Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
> liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
>
> Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
> effectively
> the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex statues
> became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
> one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
> someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.
>
> >
> > This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> > feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> > decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> > anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> > offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> > those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
> >
>
> Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
> know for certainty what He wants, now can you?

Absoltuely not true. The Bible (His Word) is *VERY* clear on a certain
issue that is being discussed here in many places, but I won't go into
the detalis because it will just be considered by some to be
inflamatory.

> I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my own
> philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
> problem
> is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead of
> truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that just
> drags
> the discussion down.
>
> If you believe that God gives us freewill,...

Absolutely! It is crucial. HOWEVER, don't you think that if I strongly
believe that the quality of a society and a nation can be dragged down
and destroyed by that society and its legal systems thumbing its nose at
God that I owe it to my kids and grand kids to try to uphold the
standards that he set for that quaility to be maintained. Personaly I
think that that is the crux (no pun intended) of the disagreements.

> then you have to also come to the
> understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
> moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
> God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
> roadmap
> to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself.

He has provided both. I just find it paradoxical that man will reject
the very entity that created him and try to make it on his own "logic"
and "wisdom" and not only reject God's wisdom, but make it illegal for
it to come into play on issues that have dire consequences not just for
the individual but for the whole society - but people thru either
ignorance or dishonesty pretend not to see the broader effects, and
everybody suffers.

It is up to us to
> figure out how
> to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
> missteps,
> on that road.
>
> Ted

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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 22:50:13 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

> Also, since many of the
>customers are travelers from out of town, the federal government could
>possibly get involved on "interstate commerce" reasons (they use that to
>justify the EPA, FCC, FAA, and many others from the alphabet soup).

The EPA is justified by the fact that most major pollution - for
example the pollution from the Midwest that causes all the acid
rain in New England - is an interstate issue. The FAA is clearly
interstate in scope, and the FCC is often interstate (and a
non-Federal system of controlling airwaves is impractical).

The only way your example would work is if there were interstate
travel of the *product*, not the customers. The FTC regulations
would be interesting.

Bob

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:28:03 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
>is
>permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
>and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
>media,
>publication of encryption algorithims used to encrypt music and movies on
>DVD's

Two different issues, long ago differentiated. Free speech does not
give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Free speech
does not give you the right to publish your previous employers trade
secrets. Free speech gives you the right to state your political
views without hinderance.

> After all that's what all this liberal vs conservative
>bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
>conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
>extreme is terrible, of course.

Extremes are terrible. You example is just that. At the extreme,
real conservatives want limited government interference in our
lives too. It's the practical application of conservatism today
that has lost track of everything but the name.

BTW, your example labels most of the Founding Fathers as liberals.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:28:03 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
>>is
>>permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
>>and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
>>media,
>>publication of encryption algorithims used to encrypt music and movies on
>>DVD's
>
>Two different issues, long ago differentiated. Free speech does not
>give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

That case is no longer good law. Good thing, too, because what that
case really outlawed was distributing pamphlets which asserted that
the draft violated the 13th amendment.

Further, the DMCA has never made it to the Supreme Court.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Marc wrote:

> The Southern Accent (tm) is spread across quite a distance. However, you
> will not find the accent as strong in some places. The accents come and go
> depending on geography.

More to the point, there is not just one "southern accent" any more than
there is just one "northeastern accent." Its just as easy to tell a
Texan from a Georgian as it is to tell a Bostonian from a New Yorker.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:06:57 GMT, "Dave Milne"
<jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>Its the other way round in the UK. The Liberals want everyone to have a fair
>chance at everything with free education, state railways, free health
>service, and the conservatives want the state to butt out.


Allegedly it's the same thing here, but the conservatives forgot a lot
about what conservative is supposed to mean along the way. They spend
your money as fast as the liberals, it's just a case of where they
spend it.

Bob

On 9 Jul 2003 17:23:50 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Your meds are wearing off.
>>
>>The court decision has to do with men taking it in the ass, and their
>>constitutional right to behave that way. They ought not have the right to
>>violate the natural desire of men to be attracted to women. They can behave
>>that way if they want, but the rest of us have the right to be totally and
>>utterly repulsed by that behavior.
>
>I'm repulsed by people talking on cell phones in restaurants. That's
>despicable behavior. Does that give me the right to discriminate against
>them? Refuse to rent to them? Refuse to hire them?

Yes.

"Barry White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:IuZOa.18$OP.7@fed1read04...
>
> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > No, you cannot argue for laws against incest on the basis of science
and
> > > reproductive issues. The only justification for such laws is that
most
> > > people find incest disgusting.
>
> If you outlawed incest, what would the Morons (mormons) do???
>
>
Huh? Where did that come from?

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:28:03 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> BTW, your example labels most of the Founding Fathers as liberals.

that is correct