Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,alt.politics.libertarian
From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Subject: Re: Pedophile movement inhibits gay rights movement
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 06:48:19 GMT

quirke_a@ix.wcc.govt.nz wrote:
>    By *our* standards, and by the standards of the Western nations, this
> was an immoral act, and Iraq was an immoral nation in condoning it.

Actually Saddam did not condone it.  He used the incident as an
excuse to change the line of succession.

>    By the standards of Iraq, and for that matter most real monarchies,
> this was a moral act. Indeed, ancient Japan had the custom that a samurai
> could kill a lower ranking peasant without having to justify it (formally,
> anyhow). This was "moral" in that society.

False.  It was not moral in Japan, and it was not thought to be moral
in Japan.  It was safe to do.  It was not socially acceptable.

You are confusing morality with the will of the state, from which
I conclude that you worship the state.

ALL PURPOSE MODERN PHILOSOPHY FLAME
 
Modern philosophy is in the second childhood of human
reason, blissfully putting up arguments that were put up
over two thousand years ago and were blown out of the water
two thousand years ago, and totally unaware that it
retreading old ground.
 
[X]  Your position was sunk over two thousand years ago,
     and you are obviously totally unaware of the history of
     this debate.
 
     [X]  A modern paraphrase of this demolition is 
          available on my WWW site, whose URL is
          ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/jamesd/index.html, 
          but I will not waste bandwidth by casting 
          pearls before swine.
 
[ ]  Your argument can be equally applied to
          [ ] the desk in front of me
          [ ] the existence of the desk in front of me
          [ ] the solidity of the desk in front of me
          [ ] the woodiness of the desk in front of me
     and if so applied gives an obviously stupid conclusion.
 
[X]  You are not making any arguments, you are simply
     proclaiming stupid ideas as if they were self evident
     truth.
 
[ ]  You have used the following lengthy, obscure and
     awesomely impressive word [____________________] 
     and used it incorrectly.
 
[ ]  You have assumed that categories are defined by
     explicit definitions, whereas in fact they are usually
     defined by pointing at examples, and therefore what belongs
     in a category depends on the properties of things in the
     world, not on legalistic technicalities concerning the
     definition.  Any explicit definition shorter than several
     pages will usually categorize some things in a way that is
     ludicrously wrong.
 
[ ]  The ignorance that you have displayed is so 
     profound and amazing that you must have had 
     formal training in philosophy.
 
END ALL PURPOSE MODERN PHILOSOPHY FLAME

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com