NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/legal/22993

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky misc.legal:22993 talk.abortion:57086 talk.politics.misc:68886 talk.religion.misc:27113 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13262 alt.rush-limbaugh:14606 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:171
Newsgroups: misc.legal,talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!wetware!drieux
From: [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Fishing With Red Herrings
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:04:26 GMT
Lines: 92

[e-mail] (Daniel Bohoh) writes:

] In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >[e-mail] (Daniel Bohoh) writes:
] >] In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] >
] >I presume you are not aware of the Court Case of the
] >Free Negro Sailors Act, that sought to restrict the
] > ...
] >the 'civil war' - as it pits the Racist Assumption,
] >which you are continuing, that all blacks were slaves.
]
] No, I was not aware of the court case, but it is irrelevant to this
] discussion.  This is a red herring and an attempt to label me
] a racist.  The issue here is whether pro-choice groups should
] be able to interrupt Masses...

Presenting an INACCURATE picture of History based upon
a RACIST PRESUMPTION of HISTORY, is merely a matter of
racism.... and as you may note, that I do not limit my
argument here to merely White People.

Now You were the ONE who introduced the point, subsequently
you wish to dismiss your own point on the ground that to
defend that point you must accept a Racist Position....

Interesting....

I will, none the less, recommend that you read up on the
court case, and its importance in the Development of the
Supreme Court in the USA.

] The point I made was that a third party may have an obligation to protect
] the fundamental rights of another.  Saving people from the "Burning
] Fires of Hell" has nothing to do with rights, and is an attempt
] to make me look like a religion kook.

Any More so than Saving the Lives of UnBornGrandParents?

] >vis_a_vis the matter of In Vitro Fertilization, and the fact
] >that NO PROLIFE GROUP is Protesting Against the MURDERING of
] >UnBorn Persons who are Liquidated at Fertilization Clinics
] >because the Eggs are NOT implanted, but disposed of.
]
] Another red herring.  The internal consistency of the pro-life
] stance is irrelevant to the discussion whether pro-choice groups
] should be able to interrupt Masses...  As a side note, I doubt
] that there is any group that can claim complete consistency in
] their stand...

Why?

It shows that Clearly they are NOT Involved in what they say
that they are Involved with. And Points out that their
"Higher Moral Ground" argument is, to use your phrase,
a "Red Herring"....

It drives the Matter Right Back to what it is:
REPRESSING THE FREE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS TO
GO ABOUT THEIR LAWFUL ACTIVITIES.


] >p3: But I will accept that there is an effort on the part of
] >some in the ProLife Movement to Redefine things in a RADICALLY
] >NEW and TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED MANNER that opposes both the
] >AMERICAN WAY and the BIBLE. All I want them to do is
] >admit that they are AntiBible, and AntiAmerican.
]
] I admit that when I argue against abortion, I attempt to do it
] without invoking religion, because I believe that religious
] arguments are not acceptable to the pro-choice side.  When one
] argues against something, one should argue it from his opponent's
] point of view...


So You are willing to concde Here Apriori that the
ProLife Segment has Violated EVEN ITS OWN ALLEDGED
Biblical Position!

Thank YOu.


ciao
drieux



--
MajorModernDayProblems:

sometimes, a thing will happen after another thing,
and they may not be connected.....