[Arlo had asked a simple question] Again, I ask, what if she had said "the only reason the republicans had nominated McCain is that he is a white man"? What would your response have been? Would you have considered this remark "racist"?
[Platt] Glad to hear you consider a former candidate for vice president of the U.S. a moron. If you ask me, that makes you a candidate for the funny farm. We know you are already a member of loony left. [Arlo] That's now four times I've asked the same question, and each time you respond only with moronic talk-radio rubbish. So, let's try a fifth time. Again, I ask, what if she had said "the only reason the republicans had nominated McCain is that he is a white man"? What would your response have been? Would you have considered this remark "racist"? [Platt] Your freedom to ride as you choose is limited by the racket you make, just as your freedom to set off fireworks in a residential neighborhood is limited. [Arlo] Well, now we are getting past the inane rhetoric and into substance. Glad to hear you are about balancing freedoms with regard to social considerations. [Platt] Redistribution of income means forcibly taking from one person to take care of another -- better known as socialism. Are you saying you won't pay for those who are dedicated to defending your country from its enemies and willing to give up their lives to do so? Sure sounds like it. [Arlo] Well, now we are back to the talk-radio rubbish. I ask again, is it immoral for you to force me to pay for a war I don't believe it? Or is it arrogance that you know what's best? Or is it perfectly moral in your book to steal my money to pay for something YOU think is okay? Is the funding of public libraries immoral forced redistribution of income? Or are you only talking about "welfare" here? What about "education"? Is it immoral to collect taxes to fund schools? What about the federal department of weights and measures? Is it immoral for us to fund them? [Platt] If you can convince a majority of your fellow citizens to pass such a stupid law, be my guest. [Arlo] Hmm. So passing a law to prohibit others from invading my home with a "smell" is "stupid". But passing such a law to prohibit others from invading my home with a "sound" is "sane"? What's the distinction? [Arlo had asked] So if your "sick child" is awoken by the scent of BBQ coming from your neighbor's yard, this is something you feel you could outlaw? [Platt] What an absurd hypothetical. Answer this: Why are there muffler laws? [Arlo] It's always an absurd question when you can't answer it. Let me repeat. You had said that the reason "sound laws" were needed was because "sick children are awoken by the sound". I say, what if it's a "smell" and not a "sound"? Should we pass laws banning BBQs if the smells wake sick children? Or is this just another matter of your clinging to an indefensible position and hoping to use talk-radio rhetoric to distract away from that? There are muffler laws because the citizens of this country have forged a balance between one's "freedom" and the responsibility that comes with social participation. In the end, some people have to learn to live with louder pipes out there, and some riders have to learn to live with a more muffled sound, but that's just the way it goes. But then again, this is what I've been saying from day one. You're the only one who speaks in ridiculous rhetoric about freedom one day, while demanding laws against loud pipes and Islamic veils the next. So once again I've done my best to avoid your talk-radio idiocy. Will you return that by answering my questions? Or will it just be more of the same? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
