--
I and most others on this list utterly reject that crap. As James
Donald's .sig used to say (and maybe still does) "We have the right
to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals
that we are."
Still does in the newsgroups. For technical reasons I am not
Sampo Syreeni writes:
Actually I s ub scribe to neither view. I see rights as something that do
not
naturally exist, but are purely a societal product, subject to change
through redefinition. Whether this happens because the government effects
it
or if the people start to view something as an
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote:
And if your neighbours are simply malignant? Since when did people need a
reason to harm each other?
Then, too bad. They haven't *done* anything to you.
A distinction without a difference, I say.
Yep. That would be my point. This sounds deceptively
Sampo Syreeni writes:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, David Honig wrote:
Exclusion harms you only if it bugs you ---you have to want to be a
homosexual atheist boyscout for their exclusion to matter.
Non-consensual
violence always harms.
I do not agree. I think shunning harms you regardless, if it
