Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5f.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!jrt
From: jrt@hou5f.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: A FINAL(?) logic reply
Message-ID: <300@hou5f.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Jun-83 12:22:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou5f.300
Posted: Thu Jun 16 12:22:31 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jun-83 21:49:57 EDT
Organization: American Bell ED&D, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 66


(original)
>If the government has the right to force nondiscrimination(1),
>then they also have the right to force discrimination(2).
>I reject the latter, so I must also reject the former.

(reply)
>If the government has the right to force non-murder,
>then they also have the right to force murder.
>I reject the latter, so I must also reject the former.
>    Your logic stinks..go back to high school.

(rebuttal)
>>	Yes, you can reword.
>>	No, you cannot reword like that (and expect the same results).
>>
>>	Non-discrimination(1) is  discrimination(2) (against discriminators)
>>	but non-murder is not murder,  so the first argument is  valid 
>>	whereas the second one is not.
>>
>>				Jeff Kragness

(reply to rebuttal)
You are stating that the government is 'discriminating' against you
because you discriminate.  I will state that my rebuttal was based on
my interpretation of them and that my viewpoint is that:

  I reworded to show that the first use of 'discrimination(1)' is a distinction
based on attributes, or features of a person or a people.  They "are" this
and therefore they are separated and treated differently. 
  The second use of 'discrimination(2)', is a distinction based upon actions
of an individual or group of people.  

   Your statement that non-discrimination is discrimination therefore does
not hold just as you would have my statement of murder versus non-murder
not holding.
	
   The government does not have the right to stop you from believing what
you want.  It also does not have the right to force you to do something(except
for a few special instances..draft, ??).  It DOES have the right and the
responsibility to STOP you from doing something that has been defined in the
law as detrimental to society and people in general.

	You can not steal.
	You can not murder.
	You can not  rape.
	You can not discriminate(1).
	Etc.
	Etc.


   If you want to play word games, go to net.lang.  If you want to argue
a point, then don't play word games.  Discrimination(1) based upon what color
they are, or what national origin they descended from, or their sex, or
any physical attribute IS illegal, and is immoral to most people.  I will
not deny you your right to feel and think what you want.  (to steal a phrase)
"I will defend to the death your right to feel and say what you want".  I
can't defend allowing you to do something that society has through it's laws
defined to be illegal.  

   I wish the laws didn't have to be there, but because of some people's
actions, they have to be there.


				(** FRODO **) alias hou5f!jrt