LC> I am prepared to take moral responsibility for laws
LC> against violence and theft...
JD> So you oppose legislation against theft, rape, child molestation
JD> and murder?...
Rational argument is easier if one has a reading comprehension level
above 3rd grade. I suspect in your case, though, that you do in fact
understand what I wrote, and are employing deliberate deception
rather than honestly arguing the points raised. I will let the
readers decide which style of argument is more credible.
LC> No matter how loudly I may "rave", it is still peaceful discourse
LC> compared to the violence of law.
More dishonest argument. Our system certainly does not "allow"
such activity, and you have provided no rational evidence that it
even encourages it, or provided any alternative that might be better.
Mindlessly reacting to the misuse of hardware by calling for laws
restricting the hardware is irrational and groundless. Show me some
real thought--show me a rational argument why a particular law will
have any positive effect on the violence you see, or I will have no
choice but to oppose it, because the law itself is /known/ violence,
and to practice real violence to only speculatively reduce some
possible future violence without any evidence is morally wrong.
JD> But not compared to the massacres which are now routinely
JD> perpetrated in our schools by those to whom we look to carry the
JD> future. How can you defend a system which allows our children to
JD> fatally mass murder each other? ... [more emotional rant elided]
(Here's a hint: "It's obvious that..." is not a rational argument).
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC