From: jf_avon@citenet.net
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 1997 07:53:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses)
In-Reply-To: <33EB9D22.166F80B5@cyberspacetechnologies.com>
Message-ID: <199708082324.TAA26057@cti06.citenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On  8 Aug 97 at 18:26, David D.W. Downey wrote:

>  Next, this country was founded on christian beliefs, or have you
> failed to read the words of the constitution of the US.

Comments from Canada: Libertarians usually attibutes the reference to
the christian cult in the US constitution  as some sort of
psycho-epistemological failure or ill-weighed concession to the
peoples beliefs of the time.  IMO, it is a major flaw that led to
the actual state of affairs.   Causes have effects.  A is A and you 
cannot run away from the Nature of things.

> Considering the apparent ignorance you have
> displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say
> that you probably have not read it. Next, you attack christians for
> trying to control the content made available on the internet. 

Factually, they are one hell of a big pressure group trying to ram 
their personnal convictions down the throat of others, with a 
legalized gun to back them up.  I don't ask that you love eating 
Cheez-Whiz with corn syrup and peanut butter with a dash of Tabasco 
sauce so don't ask me to start eating your stuff.

> At least
> the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.

I would be surprized.  Ultimately, in their deep nature, they are all 
as evil.  A is A.  You will not, in the long run, be able to avoid 
the effects of their nature.

> I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade
> others and their beliefs and ideas.

The degradation perceived by whom?  He might be slightly harsher than 
others, but you discount the good laughs that it also gives to some 
others.  Actually, you should rejoice at 'Monger's opinions; 
doesn't your code of moral preach spreading the well of others at the 
expense of your own?  If not, then, tsk tsk tsk...


> You do this under the unimpressive
> tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger.

> When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a
> logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to

Sorry, but you disqualify for such thing.  The psycho-epistemology 
of religions makes it impossible.  Your axiomatic belief of God 
invalidates all logics.  Therefore, each time you request a 
"logically thought out" explanation, you commit the act of concept 
stealing, i.e. you use the end result of a philosophy to try to 
invalidate it.  But you know, what you saw in cartoons, the vacuum 
cleaner sucking itself into nothing or the snake eating it's tail and 
disappearing, it just doesn't exist...  Reality (with a capital R) 
doesn't work that way.  Sorry.

> handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the
> computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will
> listen.

You mean, "to get a ride on the gravy train, enforced under the 
treath of violence at the point of the governmental gun" ?

> (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an
> obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. 

Again, instead of using "moral duty", you use the word, "obligation".
Coercion galore!

> It's called

... according to some standards...
> responsible parenting 

Here, I tend to agree on your sentence but I have a hunch that our 
basic justifications are quite far...

Morality, according to cultists, is to be defined by the 
worshipped entity.  To free-living rationnal individuals, it should 
be defined according to the most accurately understood Nature of Man.

Most observer of the later would agree that parental supervision is 
necessary.  But also, most of thoses parents would agree that Freedom 
is required for man to live as Man, i.e. as a rationnal animal.

[This paragraph left intentionally unfinished]

> which unfortunately is not a well practiced
> ideology. 

Why "unfortunately" ? because it doesn't not suit your teleological 
slave mentality or because you truly care about other young Human 
Animals?  Personnally, it is because of the later reason.

> And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and

the relevancy of this disclosure baffles me.

> Until
> such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us

Who proclaimed such obligation?  The whole attempt at censorship is 
an attempt to make peoples accept this "obligation".  There is no way 
to bring a slave out of slavery when they willingly forge their own 
chains...

> population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled
> mind does not know what they are)

Here is a long term solution that would solve the problem definitely: 
to promulgate that everybody being offensed by the content of the net 
gets neutered.  That way, they won't have to worry about their 
children's viewing habits...

The acceptability of this solution passes all the tests that the one 
you propose does.  

If you have any arguments that does not have at it.s base, the 
negation of Reason, i.e. non-contradictory identification, then, give 
it your best shot.

jfa
-- 
Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada
  JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers
  Instrumentation & control, LabView programming.
PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
     and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html
PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 
PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C