🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCxx2.1761$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > > Regardless of the "rose tinted spectacle" view of justice, the burden of
> > > > proof on the prosecution does not remove the burden of defence for the
> > > > defendant. Without defence, the prosecution would have a much easier time
> > > > "proving" their case.
> > > 
> > > Yes but you only need to present your alibi, not have to prove it.
> > 
> > So why are alibis "checked"? 
> 
> Yes, but it's still not such a burden on the suspect since some alibis

"not such a" != "not at all"

You seem to get my point now. :) 

> > No prison terms have been served by some of them for these and other 
> > activities in the past. The doctor threat is a different issue so that is 
> > what this case was about.
> 
> I assume you mean "No, prison terms" rather than "No prison terms".

Yep.

> Anyway, people who have served prison terms are allowed to express
> their thoughts and feelings just like anyone else.

And they should also be punished for future wrong doings. As they have 
been.

> > What, changing roles of women? The fight against racism? These are steps 
> > backwards? How?
> 
> Accepting homosexuality is a step backwards (esp. for the government)
> because doing so has made them total hypocrites.

In what way do they become hypocrites?

> That's the Old Testament.  You'll find that a lot of the New Testament
> actually *replaces* parts of the Old Testament.  The "uncleanlinesses"
> are some of those parts.

You want to give "directions" to the passages you refer to?

> > And this from the one who in this thread so very recently spent a great 
> > deal of time telling me how we *should* be carrying out God's wish of 
> > putting to death people of a certain persuasion!
> 
> Actually, I said I'd rather they be cured than killed.  And there *is*
> psychiatric treatment they can receive, it's been done before and it
> can still be done.

ROFL.

> > > Fact - the Bible has rules which apply to the various societies throughout
> > > time in our world that serve as guidelines for staying out of Hell.
> > 
> > Only those societies which follow Christianity in some form. This, if 
> > nothing else suggests that given the inconsistencies between world 
> > religions, there is little gain to be had but choosing Christianity over 
> > some other religion.
> > 
> > All religion is merely a way for people to try to come to terms with 
> > death and loss and trade with the unlikely promise that it all had a 
> > point and we end up more than mere worm food. Comforting to those willing 
> > to have "faith" in such things. Ridiculous to others. 
> 
> Again, just "bare metal" opinions.

Not really.

> > The bible contains a moral code dating to a time more than 2000 years 
> > ago. Society has evolved a great deal from that time. The bible enforces 
> > strictures which no longer apply. Therefore: Fact - The bible *is* an 
> > outdated moral code. 
> 
> There are more societies than the high-tech ones you and I have.
> Lots of third world countries and the like.  Therefore it is a fact

Many of whom are well past the situation 2000 years ago. 

> that the Bible is *not* outdated.

So you have to all live by an old moral code while we await other 
societies to catch us up. Ridiculous. So when they catch up, what then?

> > Would you consider a book describing the way one should act at a social 
> > occasion written in Victorian times to be applicable today? I think not. 
> > A book only 100 years or so old is so completely out of date it would be 
> > ludicrous to consider it applicable today. A book more than 2000 years 
> > old is surely subject to these same rules.

You seem to have missed the above the first time around, so I'll leave it 
here for your response.

> > If the "terrorists" have been adequately dealt with there is nothing to 
> > fear. If they haven't there is. Therefore no action means the threat 
> > remains forever.
> 
> Wrong, if the "terrorists" have been dealt with, then I have to worry
> forever about them getting revenge.  There is something to worry about.

Only if you are paranoid.

> If they corss my name off the list and leave me alone, then there is
> *nothing* to worry about.

When you name is crosse off, it means you have been successfully killed. 
I think that is bad news.

> If the "terrorists" truly did bomb the abortion labs, and have access
> to the adresses of the doctors' houses, I think it's obvious.

More paranoia.

> > They still have their original gripe with you. You do not get of the hook 
> > that easily. 
> 
> I have stopped giving abortions - what I have done *pales* in comparison

In this particular discussion you had not. You just kind of held off 
while other fought your fight.

[snip]
> Now, maybe after that one gang is caught, they will go back to to
> fighting theft in general.

I see what you are saying but I think you are wrong. If these people 
really believe in their cause, then they would be more than able to "turn 
the other cheek" as far as revenge. Revenge may come in as an added 
bonus, but the original cause is still paramount. 

Besides, if they are as pissed as you suggest I doubt they will target 
only their accusers. They will probably just strike out randomly rather 
than pick and choose who hurt them most!

But as I said, I do not see revenge as much of an issue.

> > So giving into the threat is a choice made under duress. Not doing so is 
> > *not* since you have not changed your course. You have not allowed your 
> > will to be forced. 
> 
> *Both* of them are choices made under duress.  

No.

> Anyway, my will to live
> has not been "forced" out of me under the choice I have made.

survive != live.

> > > And you still don't see why the threat wouldn't be hanging over me
> > > in my decision?
> > 
> > Do you see why it would?
> 
> You just don't get it.  If they were terrorists, you would not fight
> them and risk all.  

So why *do* we fight terrorism then? 

> You have implied it was a cowardly decision for me
> to let others fight for me, remember?  
> 
> Now wouldn't that imply that fighting them is a brave decision?
> Then what's so brave about it if there's no risk involved in fighting
> them?

Because most times fighting back is merely calling their bluff. No risk 
whatsoever. Standing up to face possible danger is brave. 

> > > > and it affiliates itself with Christianity. 
> > > 
> > > Yes, this is what cults often do.
> > 
> > Does;t that kind of tell you something about Christianity ;P
> 
> Judging Christianity by cults would be like judging White people
> by the KKK.

Not really. 

> > > > If it is, your church is an example of homophobia let off the hook
> > > > along with many other things.
> > > 
> > > Not really, since homophobia doesn't actually exist, and as I said
> > 
> > Course it does. We covered this earlier and it definitely exists. It is 
> > as real as racism and sexism. I take it you do believe those exist :P
> 
> Saying someone is homophobic is just like saying the government's
> "zoophobic".

Huh? 

> > > before the governments of the world are "guilty" of the same thing.
> > 
> > Those same Governments who are allowing single sex marriage and 
> > homosexuals into position within the military etc. I think not.
> 
> I meant in reguard to bestiality.

So it is not acceptable to society. So what? Neither are pedophiles.

How this relates to the fact that the bible is out of date WRT today's 
society is beyond me. Or are you trying to say that because a very very 
small percentage of the bible contains morals which we still hold today, 
it is all relevant. 

> > So give me the gist of the case while you look.
> 
> Some people sued the KKK (can't remember if they were Black or White or
> what) but the KKK won based on the First Amendment (free speech of
> course).  Maybe it was someone else who was praising the KKK, as I said
> my memory's not what it used to be.  

Glad you brought up the first amendment since that was pretty much the 
sole defence in this case. Even the most stringent of free speech 
followers agree that the first amendment does not cover threats such as 
those on the web site in question. So, no comparison. Sorry. 

-- 
Mark