"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > >
The oldest post I have on this particular computer in this debate indicates
> > > Problem: without a sophisticated AI, you're not going to be able to detect
> > > messages which have *incorrect* keywords, so there's an easy way for anyone
> > > to get around this kind of blocking.
> > Well that's simple, if someone is going to be that much of an
> > idiot, they are basically grouped into the category of spammers
> > and removed from the list. i.e. if Joe and whoever he has
> > enticed decide to use the keyword "META" in their gun debate
> > posts instead of the obviously proper GUNS, they get banned.
> For purposes of honesty and clarity, I enticed no one. I was
> personally attacked by dogmatic and quasireligious absolutist
> extremists for profferring a logical reasonable and rational
> mainstream sensible center solution to a problem of current
> interest to the US at large.
> > >
The oldest post I have on this particular computer in this debate indicatesthat we were having a rather calm discussion of property rights and natural rights when you posted the following in response to one of my posts:
> > Failure to insist upon the Natural source of individual human rights is
> > the loophole through which all totalitarians are able to cloud the minds
> > and hearts of humanity so that the people conduct the evils crimes of
> > history for their opressors.
> The very same tactic the Inquisitionists, Nazis and antiabortionists
> use: First demonize those who disagree with you, call them villains
> and consciousless subhumans; then you can feel righteous pride
> when you kill them, rather than guilt or shame.
> > If we do not insist upon our rights'
> > Natural origins, then they are in fact merely fictions which rely purely
> > upon the unjustified force we wish to bring to bear to force others to
> > accept our version of reality.
> This is a category mistake. You cannot use a moral argument to
> decide upon the existence or nonexistence of a physical law.
> > I need force no one when I stand upon my
> > own two feet and insist upon my natural rights.
> Nature grants no rights; People grant them to each other or take
> them for themselves, or a combination of the two. A hurricane,
> lightning bolt, earthquake, tornado, tsunami or any other act of
> nature cares not one whit about your assertion of "natural rights".
> The two words juxtaposed form a contradiction in terms. What is
> natural is what obtains prior to any country, society, civilization, or
> culture; the Darwinian Law of Survival of the Fittest For Their Niche
> and the rest be damned by the scythe of Natural selection. The
> "State of Nature" preceding mutually agreed upon norms of
> acceptable conduct was nasty, brutish and short.
> > They may kill me, but
> > they will not enslave me.
> You must be the kind of 2nd amendment gun nut who would dearly
> love to kill all those "different' people whom you suspect of looking
> at you sideways, and who fervently believes that those two
> Colorado kids were a sinister Bradyite plant.
> > You must love your freedom more than your
> > life.
> That, according to Hegel, was what originally separated the slave
> from the master, although a fat lot of good it did the masters to
> become weak incapable parasites ripe for revolution (to pursue
> Hegel's master-slave dialectic further). One who is willing to die for
> his own freedom has historically also been more than willing to kill
> to maintain control of of others.
> >Evil prospers upon the acquiescent surrender of the courage of the
> > individual.
> It takes courage to kill other people, whether your motives are
> tainted or pure, or whether your cause is just or unjust, or whether
> good or evil results (three different things). It would be nice if we
> could equate evil and cowardice, but this we cannot do, for there
> have always been the courageous evil and the cowardly good
> among us.
Two hours later you responded to on of Mark's posts with the following:
> Re: Property Rights
> Mon, 24 May 1999 15:37:43 -0500
> "Joe E. Dees"
> Date sent: Mon, 24 May 1999 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Property Rights
> Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Joe E. Dees [email@example.com] wrote:
> > >The very same tactic the Inquisitionists, Nazis and antiabortionists
> > >use: First demonize those who disagree with you, call them villains
> > >and consciousless subhumans; then you can feel righteous pride
> > >when you kill them, rather than guilt or shame.
> > And then:
> > >You must be the kind of 2nd amendment gun nut who would
> > >love to kill all those "different' people whom you suspect of looking
> > >at you sideways, and who fervently believes that those two
> > >Colorado kids were a sinister Bradyite plant.
> > Joe, how about you stop projecting the worst aspects of your personality
> > onto the rest of us? Just because you can't see someone think differently
> > without wanting to kill them doesn't mean that we can't. Indeed, us 'gun
> > nuts' want to allow all those different people to own guns to protect
> > themselves; to a rational mind I would have thought that would rather
> > indicate that we're not actually intending to kill them... unlike the
> > disarmers, who've been murdering 'different' people all century long.
> > Mark
> I was tired of hearing the raving randian bastards on this list label
> everybody who disagreed with the slightest scintilla of their pet
> dogmas as evil vermin who should be exterminated for the greater
> good, and figured they'd like a gander of getting goosed by the
> same slimestick themselves to see how the fuck it feels to be
> slandered by association with extremists. It's simply karmic tit-for-
> tat; you don't do it to others, it doesn't get done back to you! And
> it's the people with the guns who are shooting everybody (always
> has been); they play this little "Shane" home movie in their heads
> about how they're righteous people pushed too far by bullying
> cliques, and the next thing you know, fifteen kids are lying dead in
> school halls, and the gun lobby steps on its dick by claiming that if
> a guard had a gun he coulda stopped them when one did and
> couldn't, and Li'l Einstein Danny Quayle kisses Wayne LaPierre's
> ring by saying he hoped the massacre wasn't used as an excuse
> to restrict gun sales! FUCK excuses; it's a goddamned REASON!
> Finally the Senate got a testicle transplant and put some
> safeguards on the criminal flea market gun shows where two of the
> guns were bought, and insists on safety locks so's if Junior nurses
> a carelessly left automatic and plays with the trigger, he won't get
> a lead lunch! About Damned Time!
I would not call this a rational, reasonable, mainstream solution.