🚀 go-pugleaf

rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:
>     I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the
>press.  What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to
>"protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who
>thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies.

    Yes, but is there anything "wrong" with that?  "Unfair" perhaps?
You see, there is something _wrong_ in the context of individual
rights that many people on this forum _prefer_.  When such individual
rights are violated or threatened, this is called "unfair".
This is not a universal thing, mind you, it's only in _relation_
to the basic _principles_ our society claims to cherish.  And when
I complain that men are being treated _unfairly_, they call
it a _game_.  I call it _hypocritical_.

     None of this is _absolute_ so much as _relative_ and _consistent_
to the _principle_ people claim to care about: Individual rights
based on ability.

     Wasn't that fun?  Dick and Jane build a house on the next
installment.  Stay tuned.

--
"Fortunatly, big mailers filled with flames  |
 are not subject to quotas."                 |   sobleski@cs.psu.edu