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