Smoke two...

Alan "iphwin" Jackson and Denis "Denis Lamy" Lamy both have birthdays
today.

Elsewhere in history...

 
TODAY IN ROTTEN HISTORY
we live in a slightly mad world

Apr 13 1883
Convicted cannibal Alfred Packer is sentenced to death in Colorado.

Apr 13 1919
British troops fire on a crowd of Indians peacefully protesting the
occupation, leaving 379 dead and 1,200 wounded.

Apr 13 1970
56 hours and 205,000 miles from planet Earth, the crew aboard Apollo 13
hears "a pretty loud bang" when oxygen tank number two spontaneously
explodes. Astronaut Jack Swigert informs Mission Control in Houston:
"Hey, we've got a problem here." Miraculously, the crew manages to
return home in their crippled spacecraft.

Apr 13 1981
Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke wins a Pulitzer Prize for her story
about Jimmy, an 8 year old heroin addict. Strangely, police could find
no trace of this boy. And this was one of those investigative journalism
Pulitzers, not a fiction Pulitzer, so she was forced to return the award
two days later. Cooke later clerked part-time at a department store
cosmetics counter in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

Apr 13 1982
David Crosby of CSNY arrested while freebasing cocaine and for illegal
possession of a .45 handgun. Sentence: 5 years.

Apr 13 1984
Itinerant serial killer Henry Lee Lucas found guilty by a Texas jury for
the murder of "Orange Socks", a hitchhiker whose name is not known.
Lucas and his partner Ottis Toole are thought to have killed as many as
200 people. Ironically new evidence places Lucas in Florida at the
supposed time of the Orange Socks murder.

Apr 13 1990
The Soviet Union admits to Katyn Massacre of 15,000 Polish army officers.

Apr 13 1992
Chicago's downtown business center is crippled by massive flooding, as
124 million gallons of water inundate 50 miles of underground freight
tunnels and adjoining basements. City workers dump sandbags, rocks, and
mattresses into the Chicago River in a vain attempt to slow the
floodwaters. All told, it will take 12 days to seal the leak and drain
the tunnels. The disaster causes $800 million in damage, and the IRS
graciously grants one week of amnesty for Chicago-area residents to file
their tax returns.

Apr 13 1994
The United Nations Human Rights Committee declares sodomy to be a basic
human right. The committee determined that laws against assfucking
(particularly in Tasmania) breach articles of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

> Alan "iphwin" Jackson and Denis "Denis Lamy" Lamy both have birthdays
> today.

kudos, AJ and DL.

Buggary a basic human right? Sure, why not. Next I suppose bestiality will
be a basic human right. There seems to me to be a difference between a
right and a freedom. We are pledged to protect each other's rights. A
Freedom is merely a choice of action or inaction. I don't know, it just
seems weird to me. If you choose to enjoy/practice buggary I'm not going to
stop you, that's your choice. But dang man, I'm not going to help or assist
you either. I'm a live and let live guy but declaring a behavior a basic
right makes me a bit suspicious of the long-range consequences. I'm just not
sure how I feel about this.

--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman

"R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48023326$0$31725$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Buggary a basic human right?

Umm...yes.

> Sure, why not. Next I suppose bestiality will be a basic human right.

You need to find out the nature of rights.

> There seems to me to be a difference between a right and a freedom.

No, there isn't.

> We are pledged to protect each other's rights. A Freedom is merely a
> choice of action or inaction.

Freedom is a situation/state in which rights can be exercised.

IOW, you can't have freedom without (proper, negative) rights, as you can't
have rights without the freedom to exercise them.

>I don't know, it just seems weird to me.

It shouldn't.

> If you choose to enjoy/practice buggary I'm not going to stop you, that's
> your choice. But dang man, I'm not going to help or assist you either.

Does this mean you're not going to play the forward part? :~)

> I'm a live and let live guy but declaring a behavior a basic right makes
> me a bit suspicious of the long-range consequences. I'm just not sure how
> I feel about this.

Freedom (and consequently rights) are freedom FROM (ie, interference,
restraint) to the point that such action interferes with someone elses
rights.

"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

A right TO something infers that someone else must provide it; that's
privilege or favors, not a right.

The Founders were on the right track, but had a faulty foundation as to
nature of rights.

But buggary is a moral point. Can an international group declare that men
have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs and
then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK? We kill sheep for
food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic right
but bestiality is not? These are the troubling questions.

--
R J Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
"What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman

"R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48026fa7$0$3374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> But buggary is a moral point.

Yes.

>Can an international group declare that men have a right to sex with young
>boys?

Is that what they say, or is it they are saying buggery with adult men is
okay, or with a woman?

> Can I have a right to purchase dogs and then treat them as I wish?

Yes. It may not be "nice", but animals still qualify as property. Note how
close the links from protecting dogs and cats to protecting snail darters
and spotted owls (thattaste like chicken).


>Do we condone bestiality all in the name of freedom?

I dunno...what does the horse say about it?


>What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK?

The sheep have a harder time smoking a cigarette after sex?


> We kill sheep for food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human
> sodomy a basic right but bestiality is not? These are the troubling
> questions.

Inquiring minds want to know!

They're only troubling if you have a faulty theory of the nature of rights.

Do we have a 'right' not to be offended? I would venture that much of the
theory of natural rights was polluted by puritanism. There are thing that
are not MORAL (self-abasing) but that are not an ETHICAL (other person)
issue. In sum "rights" pertain to ethical issues only. This is why
"legislating morality" is such a slippery slope.

[to be continued...no doubt]

In article <XNuMj.105539$Ft5.50522@newsfe15.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox.net> wrote:

> >Do we condone bestiality all in the name of freedom?

> I dunno...what does the horse say about it?

> >What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK?

> The sheep have a harder time smoking a cigarette after sex?

Easier than the horses, though, due to the split hooves.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-CEB8B3.14555413042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <XNuMj.105539$Ft5.50522@newsfe15.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >Do we condone bestiality all in the name of freedom?
>
>> I dunno...what does the horse say about it?
>
>> >What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK?
>
>> The sheep have a harder time smoking a cigarette after sex?
>
> Easier than the horses, though, due to the split hooves.

They should file for being disadvantaged under ADA (Animals with
Disabilities Act).

"R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48026fa7$0$3374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> But buggary is a moral point.

Yes -- and as such we should be very, very careful indeed about passing laws
to ban or even just regulate it. Attempts to restrict and regulate morality
by legislative fiat almost always end in misery and strife.


Can an international group declare that men
> have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs
> and then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
> freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK?

Two words: informed consent. A child cannot freely give informed consent to
sexual congress; neither can an animal. As soon as there is a free and
informed decision, there is no moral case against any sexual activity. An
animal is incapable of giving consent, as is a child. The real question
here is: at what point may one reasonably assume that a young adult is
mature enough to make an informed decision?

FWIW, studies I've seen estimate that around 10 per cent of American women
practise anal sex (aka buggery) with their partners/spouses, either by
preference or as a form of birth control.

We kill sheep for
> food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic
> right but bestiality is not? These are the troubling questions.

It may be a time lag in the law. Look at the time it took to give women the
vote, or Native Americans citizenship. Maybe in ten or twenty years' time
there will be issues of Playpet on the top shelf of your local news agent
....

In article <66fts6F2h55d5U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "R J Talley" <omgb@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48026fa7$0$3374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> > But buggary is a moral point.

> Yes -- and as such we should be very, very careful indeed about passing laws
> to ban or even just regulate it. Attempts to restrict and regulate morality
> by legislative fiat almost always end in misery and strife.

Ref: cigar smoking.

> > Can an international group declare that men
> > have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs
> > and then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
> > freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK?

> Two words: informed consent. A child cannot freely give informed consent to
> sexual congress;

Well, he can the SECOND time...! ;)

> The real question
> here is: at what point may one reasonably assume that a young adult is
> mature enough to make an informed decision?

For that matter, why is it illegal for me to sell my indentured
servituded, hmmm?! I'm an adult; I have rights! <G>

> > We kill sheep for
> > food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic
> > right but bestiality is not? These are the troubling questions.

> It may be a time lag in the law.

Not to mention the FDA processes...

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

On Apr 13, 1:52 pm, "R J Talley" <o...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> But buggary is a moral point. Can an international group declare that men
> have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs a=
nd
> then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
> freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK? We kill sheep fo=
r
> food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic rig=
ht
> but bestiality is not?  These are the troubling questions.
>
> --
> R J Talley
> Teacher/James Madison Fellow
> "What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman

Why does this topic bring to mind the names "Mig and Annabelle"?

<davidckimberly@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59121ca4-2543-41a8-a534-64675ac9a919@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 13, 1:52 pm, "R J Talley" <o...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> But buggary is a moral point. Can an international group declare that men
> have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs
> and
> then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
> freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK? We kill sheep
> for
> food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic
> right
> but bestiality is not? These are the troubling questions.
>
> --
> R J Talley
> Teacher/James Madison Fellow
> "What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman

Why does this topic bring to mind the names "Mig and Annabelle"?

=============

Because you're dirty-minded with excellent long-term memory retention?
:-)

On Apr 14, 6:48 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <davidckimbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59121ca4-2543-41a8-a534-64675ac9a919@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 1:52 pm, "R J Talley" <o...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > But buggary is a moral point. Can an international group declare that me=
n
> > have a right to sex with young boys? Can I have a right to purchase dogs=

> > and
> > then treat them as I wish? Do we condone bestiality all in the name of
> > freedom? What makes buggary OK and sex with sheep not OK? We kill sheep
> > for
> > food why not buggar them for pleasure? What makes human sodomy a basic
> > right
> > but bestiality is not? These are the troubling questions.
>
> > --
> > R J Talley
> > Teacher/James Madison Fellow
> > "What? Me Worry? Alfred E Newman
>
> Why does this topic bring to mind the names "Mig and Annabelle"?
>
> =============
>
> Because you're dirty-minded with excellent long-term memory retention?
> :-)

Styleman returnth to the ASC.

In article <EptMj.105503$Ft5.74836@newsfe15.lga>,
"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox.net> wrote:

> Freedom is a situation/state in which rights can be exercised.
>
> IOW, you can't have freedom without (proper, negative) rights, as you can't
> have rights without the freedom to exercise them.

As I understand it, when the U.N. says something is a "basic human
right", they're saying that humans have a right to do something and if
some country or another doesn't give its people the freedom to do these
things [to which they have a right], then we should all send over
diplomates to give them a stern talking to.

[R. J. Talley]
> > I'm a live and let live guy but declaring a behavior a basic right makes
> > me a bit suspicious of the long-range consequences. I'm just not sure how
> > I feel about this.

You SHOULD feel good about it. Just as you feel good about the fact
that the KKK has the right to peacefully assemble and, march, protest or
make other [responsible, non-criminal] speech.

These are GOOD things, despite how they might rub one the wrong way.

> "He that would make his own liberty secure,
> must guard even his enemy from oppression;
> for if he violates this duty, he establishes
> a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Right -- like Tom said.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-37C967.14262313042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <EptMj.105503$Ft5.74836@newsfe15.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Freedom is a situation/state in which rights can be exercised.
>>
>> IOW, you can't have freedom without (proper, negative) rights, as you
>> can't
>> have rights without the freedom to exercise them.
>
> As I understand it, when the U.N. says something is a "basic human
> right", they're saying that humans have a right to do something and if
> some country or another doesn't give its people the freedom to do these
> things [to which they have a right], then we should all send over
> diplomates to give them a stern talking to.

Not entirely; the UN has quite a few "rights" that ential someone else
providing something for them.

>
> [R. J. Talley]
>> > I'm a live and let live guy but declaring a behavior a basic right
>> > makes
>> > me a bit suspicious of the long-range consequences. I'm just not sure
>> > how
>> > I feel about this.
>
> You SHOULD feel good about it. Just as you feel good about the fact
> that the KKK has the right to peacefully assemble and, march, protest or
> make other [responsible, non-criminal] speech.
>
> These are GOOD things, despite how they might rub one the wrong way.

Freedom, in many ways, requires a thick skin, both for how YOU behave, as
well as how OTHERS behave.


>> "He that would make his own liberty secure,
>> must guard even his enemy from oppression;
>> for if he violates this duty, he establishes
>> a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
>
> Right -- like Tom said.