Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Path: clanworld.com!news.webspan.net!feed1.news.erols.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHCn9p.KtF@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <loop-ya023180002609970248450001@news.algonet.se> <01bccaa1$0484f8e0$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <01bccae6$6318f4c0$244837ce@pbcustomer> <dbongardEH92Lq.HH4@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180003009970106580001@news.algonet.se> <dbongardEHAr2G.FM6@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180000110970000280001@news.algonet.se>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:39:25 GMT
Lines: 490
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8619 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:20842 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14719 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4753

Thomas Weigle (loop@127.0.0.1) wrote:
: Dan Bongard wrote:

: The wrong trigger, apparently. I had hoped for something shorter than an
: essay, but this must mean a lot to you, since you waste such amounts of
: time to write it down.

I enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy so-called "animal rights" activists.
You've tried to avoid admitting what a pathetic hypocrite you
are by simply refusing to confront issues like "if all living
things deserve respect, why is it ok to kill insects and bacteria",
but your feeble charade isn't fooling anyone.

:>: God, I hope you die a miserable death. 

:> You value animal life more highly than human life. Interesting. Or
:> are you hoping that animals also die a miserable death?

: No. Since we're animals as well, I value them about equally. The
: above statement was made because your opinion is that humans are
: more entitled to live than are other species.

So if you had a choice between saving the life of a cockroach and
saving the life of a human, you'd have to flip a coin? You're a
sick son of a bitch, Tommy. And a hypocritical son of a bitch at
that, since you have killed countless living things during the
course of your life.

:>: Every living being deserves respect.

:> Pathetically hypocritical of you, unless:

: No. Entirely wrong.

I'm afraid not. You're just too much of a loser to admit that, in
your sick mind, "animal rights" means "rights for the cute and furry",
not "rights for all living things" or "rights for all animals".

:> (a): You never use antibiotics or anti-bacteriological/anti-virual drugs.

: Because some of them have been tested on animals or because the
: bacteria is indeed life?

Both.

: If it's the former, then, yes, I try to avoid anything that's been
: tested on animals.

All antibiotics and drugs are tested on animals first. Does this mean
you never take any form of medication? I doubt it. Furthermore, what
kind of a pathetic moral dodge is "avoiding" things like that? It is
ok to support products that kill living things as long as you don't
do it _too_ often? You call that "respect for life"? Are you having
"respect for minorities" if you only _occasionally_ go to Klan meetings?

: If it's the latter, then it could be said that the virus would be
: exterminated by my body in short time. Naturally.

I congratulate you on sqeezing so many illogical ideas into such
a small area of text. Let's see, now:

(1): You ignore the fact that infections often kill their victims
     if left untreated with antibiotics -- so there is no guarantee
     that you would have outlived the bacteria or virus.
(2): The logic you use above is "as long as it was going to die
     eventually anyway, it is ok to kill it now". Under that logic
     it is perfectly ok to kill anything, because everything 
     eventually dies.
(3): You toss out the word "naturally" as though it somehow lent
     moral credibility to your actions, which is of course not
     the case. On the one hand there is no such thing as "unnatural"
     actions of events; on the other, you are falsely assuming that
     death due to natural causes is preferable to death by violence.
     I would rather be shot dead at 80 than die of smallpox at 30.

:> (b): You carefully step everywhere you go to avoid crushing ants
:>      or bugs underfoot, and never spray to remove insect infestations.

: This is ignorance, not disrespect.

More bad logic. Some more problems with your argument:
(1): You assume that murder through ignorance is ok, while murder 
     through hostile intent is not. The result is exactly the same
     to the victim.
(2): You make no effort to avoid crushing insects underfoot -- you
     don't, for instance, carefully inspect the ground or carpet
     to avoid crushing a wandering ant or two. Which, according 
     to your "humans have no more right to live than ants" theory,
     makes you the equivalent of a drunken driver speeding through
     a crowded playground while firing an Uzi out the window.

Personally, if you truly believe that animals have as much right 
to live as humans -- which you don't -- I don't see how you can
live with the guilt of all the things you've killed out of convenience
or for your personal gain.

:> (c): You take no action to drive mice or rats out of your house when
:>      they adopt it as a home.

: Haven't done so so far. I wouldn't kill them in doing so if I 
: could avoid it.

"If you could avoid it?" According to you, those mice have as much 
right to live as you. Since the mice have as much right to live as
you, how can you possibly justify killing them under ANY 
circumstances?

: Besides, my cat takes care of them in a most natural way.

But the mice have as much right to live as your cat, according to
you. Why, then, do you allow your cat to kill them? He doesn't need
them for food -- he just kills them because he enjoys it. Would
you calmly sit back while a homicidal maniac slaughtered dozens
of children? Because, according to you, those mice have as much
right to live as children do. If you have no problem with letting
dozens of mice die miserably for a cat's amusement, why would
you bother lifting a finger to prevent the deaths of children?

:> (d): You eat only chemically-prepared synthetic food.

: Nope. But that doesn't mean I disrespect the cow that I'm eating. 

That cow, according to you, has as much right to live as a human.
Is it ok to kill and eat humans as long as you 'respect' them?
Moreover the cow was raised by people who _don't_ respect it -- people
who kept it locked in a tiny cage its entire life, force-feeding it,
before finally killing it. As I said before, you are a hypocrite --
you have no problem with the mistreatment of animals as long as you
don't personally get involved.

: Your standpoint, that we are superior and therefore deserve to kill
: off other animals, clearly shows disrespect of these species.

So tell me, why do we deserve to kill cows? Don't hand me any bullshit
about how "natural" it is -- every action taken by every person or
thing on the planet is, by definition, "natural". It is perfectly
"natural" for us to, if it gives us kicks, torture bunnies for fun.
The cow doesn't _want_ to be eaten -- if you respect it and value
its life as highly as a human's, how can you possibly condone killing
it and eating it? Do you think the cow gives a good fuck if you "respect"
it? It is a cow, it almost certainly doesn't know what "respect" 
even means; even if it did, the fact that you respect it isn't going
to make it want to live any less.

:> The simple fact of the matter is that you have no qualms about 
:> using other living things to serve your own needs, and no qualms
:> about letting other living things die if doing so helps you
:> survive and thrive. But you have chosen to blindly draw a line
:> in the sand and say "it is wrong to kill things on this side of
:> the line, but fine to kill the ones on the other side of the line".
:> That's a load of nonsense.

: Wrong again. Yes, I use animals to a limited extent, but I don't do
: it to help me satisfy some perverted lusts.

That statement is useless, and will remain so until you define
what the phrase "perverted lusts" means. You have no problem with
killing off living organisms by the millions as long as your body
might have killed them eventually; you have no problem with 
living organisms killing weaker organisms for kicks; you have no
objection to raising a living being in captivity so you can kill
it and consume it for nourishment you don't need. None of that
is "perverted"? That means that it wouldn't be in the least
bit "perverse" for a person to raise children in locked rooms
so he could kill them and eat them later -- interesting.
What _is_ "perverse", Tommy? Moreover what makes you think either
people or animals care, when they are dying, _WHY_ you are killing
them?

As I've said before, you are just an ordinary, hypocritical
would-be environmentalist. Killing and mistreating animals is
perfectly ok, so long as people do it the same way you do -- but
those naughty hunters, oooh they are bad.

:> have had an unknown and important role in the ecosystem. But using
:> a species to aid your own survival and well-being is completely normal.

: Indeed. If it doesn't kill the species off, and as long as we recognize
: what we are doing. This does not include killing deer because you happen to
: *like* to kill deer. 

Of course it does. Humans aren't the only animal that kills for fun
or practice, you know. If it is moral to kill for food, then it is
moral to kill for fun. In both cases you are killing a creature that
never did you any harm to suit your own needs.

: No matter if what you're doing is good for the eco-system, it 
: still is sick.

In your pathetic and twisted wannabe-environmentalist mind it is sick.
That doesn't matter for shit, Tommy. In the minds of some vegetarians,
YOU are a sick fuck for eating meat. In the minds of some religious
types you're evil because you've taking medication. The simple fact
of the matter is that the universe doesn't give a shit what you think.
The _fact_ here is that the entire animal population of the world 
_is_ subject to human rule, if simply because we are more powerful
than them. That's how nature works. If there is a deer overpopulation
problem, we can, if we wish, choose to kill deer to fix the problem.
Who cares if we show them 'respect' while we do it? The universe
doesn't, the deer don't, the hunters don't -- only whining losers like
yourself do.

:> Target practice and hunting are, to many people, fun. Being prepared
:> in case "the commies come" has nothing to do with it, despite all
:> your leftist delusions. Some people do keep guns to protect themselves
:> from criminals, or their government, or foreign invaders, but that
:> is unrelated to hunting. And some humans enjoy wearing fur. Nothing
:> wrong with that, since there is no shortage of mink.

: Fun. Yes, that's the reason I dislike hunting. 

If I dislike computer games because some people think they are fun,
does that make it immoral or "sick" for you to play Quake? Damn it,
Tommy, I told you to show respect when you frag a death knight. I
bet you didn't even _try_ understanding its feelings first.

: No, there's not much shortage of mink, but the only reason the mink
: died was because the old tart wanted to appear more rich than the 
: tart in the house next door.

And the only reason that cow died was so some asshole named Tommy
Weigle could eat a hamburger when he could just as easily have
had tofu or some synthetic protein product. That sort of moral
double-standard is exactly why I laugh at your kind. And again,
do you think the mink cares what you did with its fur afterwards?
Do you think it would have preferred to die in the jaws of a wolf?

: I find that disgusting.

I find chicken pot pie disgusting, but you don't see me accusing
Kentucky Fried Chicken of being a pack of amoral perverts and scum.

:> but we are the most successful animal. Do you fault a wolf for
:> killing a deer? Would you try to stop it? What about if it was 
:> trying to kill a human? 

: Nope. Nope. We kill off wolves because they're too close to our homes, 
[snip inane story about wolf displacement]

You've avoided the question again. Now answer it -- if everything has
an equal right to live, would you try to stop a wolf from killing
a deer? If not, would you stop a wolf from killing a human? Why or
why not?

: Me eating a few cows raised in captivity does not cause them any real
: harm either

Do you think they died of old age? No, they were "murdered" for their
muscle tissue. If you don't think being deprived of years of life
constitutes "harm" I look forward to seeing your name on a ballot 
urging the repeal of criminal penalties for murder.

: as long as they're respected in their life time

Would it be alright for me to kill you and eat you years before your
natural death as long as I did it respectfully and allowed you to have
a happy life beforehand? According to your morality, it would.

: Cows are what they are today because of us.

So now that we've evolved them to the point where they can't fend for
themselves, it is suddenly ok to kill them? Explain your 'logic'.

: They're probably better off that way as long as they're treated good.

No more so than a deer that gets blasted by a hunter. Both the cow
and the deer have lived "happy" lives up to that point.

: Wolves are not better off in captivity or dead, they're predators and
: should remain that way, now that we have enough knowledge to stop doing
: these mistakes that we humans have been doing for quite some time.

"Mistakes" from whose point of view? Wolves are dangerous to humans
and to our livestock; ergo we got them off our land. That wasn't a 
mistake by any stretch of the imagination. Removing them caused
an inbalance in "prey" animals, but we rectify that by hunting and
trapping. Wolves are unnecessary and irrelevant -- an evolutionary
dead end.

:> Furtherore you seem to be under a bizarre delusion that kindness is
:> somehow a function of evolution. It isn't. Being nice to other 
:> species is not a survival trait, and nobody is evolving towards it.
:> Some of the world's most ruthless predators are some of its most

: We were high on the evolution scale when we were the most ruthless
: as well. As we've developed more, we've come to consider the world
: around us as well as our fellow humans more. 

Given that the human race has not demonstrably evolved in recorded
history, I'd very much like to know how you learned that we have
evolved to be nicer.

: And you think that "kindness" has nothing to do with evolution?

I think that you aren't educated enough to know the difference 
between evolution and moral philosophy. The fact that philanthropy
and humanitarianism are more widespread now than before has nothing
to do with evolution. It mostly has to do with prosperity, actually.
Prosperity achieved through exploitation of the animals and
resources of the earth.

:> You have raised an important point, though, in that things like
:> tactical nuclear weapons should not be in the government's possession.
:> They serve no morally justifiable military purpose.

: Nope. That's absolutely correct. Just as you shouldn't own a gun, your
: government shouldn't own nuclear weapons.

Half-assed as always, I see. Nuclear weapons serve no legitimate 
purpose. Guns can be used for hunting, recreation, self-defense,
and rebellion against tyranny.

:>: You'd be far better off sitting on your butts refusing to move.

:> Of course. Just like the civilian populace of Germany was, on an

: More like Gandhi.  Name rings a bell? You seem to be obsessed with these
: references to WW2 Germany. That all the historical knowledge you've got?

That is the relevant portion of history. Non-violent protest only
works when the government is reasonably humanitarian. Gandhi's tactics
worked because of a weak British presence in India, a lack of will on
Britain's part, and a reasonably free press to spread word of the
protestor's activites. In the end, after most of a century, the British
left because they wanted to, not because they had to.

In contrast, non-violent protesters during the Vietnam war were ignored
by the government and utterly failed to hasten our withdrawl. Non-violent
protesters in Soviet bloc countries were largely jailed or executed. 
Ditto protesters in WWII Germany, and in most petty dictatorships
today. Freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun, not the mouth of
a college student.

That was almost certainly too complicated for a person such as yourself
to understand, so I'll repeat: non-violent protest is nice when it
works, but it usually doesn't. Then you need guns, unless you feel
like spending a few generations living under an oppressive tyrant.

:>:> Trust has nothing to do with it. I know for a fact that you plan
:>:> on using your right to free speech to advocate stripping innocent
:>:> people of _their_ rights, but I still accept that you DO have a 
:>:> right to free speech. 

:>: The right to free speech is important. The right to free guns is not.

:> In your worthless opinion, yes. Historically speaking, weapons have
:> won people their freedom far more often than words have. In either
:> case the point is moot, since the second amendment is just as
:> important as the first. There is no clause in the second amendment
:> saying "this right is null and void if some dipshit named Thomas
:> Weigle comes along and says he doesn't like it." There is a process
:> for repealing and altering the Constitution, and it is a hell of 
:> a lot more involved than saying "This right isn't important."

: Your lamest paragraph yet. You stoop to personal insults and do not
: come up with a single reasonable argument.

Neither did you. "The right to free guns is not important" is not
an argument, Tommy -- it is a baseless statement of your own 
personal opinion. You offered nothing to back it up, so I felt no
need to offer arguments to 'refute' you. There is a right to keep
and bear arms in this country -- if you think that right is 
unimportant, demonstrate why.

: It's pretty obvious in our world that it's far more important that
: newspapers and magazines can print whatever they want and that
: citizens can say whatever they want without risking being attacked 
: by *anyone* than owning handguns. 

Sure, that's important. But only as great a fool as yourself would
think that "forbidding citizens to own or carry guns" somehow
prevents other citizens from being attacked but gun owners. 
Criminals will still carry guns, as will the government. You seem to
have this insane idea that people get killed with guns because of
their opinions. That is virtually never the case; they are usually
killed for their property, or by the government.

: Everybody owning a handgun just makes damn sure that you can never
: feel entirely secure.

You'd have to be an idiot to feel entirely secure with or without
a handgun. The world isn't a daisy farm, boy. Even if we ignore the
large number of bad things that could potentially happen whether
you own a gun or not, it is IMPOSSIBLE to guarantee, with any
reasonable degree of certainty, that the rest of the population is
unarmed. You can only be sure that you are. Given that, the only
sane thing is to own a gun.

: Who knows what *might* happen if that guy across the street gets 
: pissed at you... And does that drunk bastard in the bar carry a
: piece?

Both of these questions hold whether guns are legal or not.

: Damn fine I brought mine tonight so that I can take out the fucking
: Nazi if he gets too close... 

Or a drunk bastard across the bar with an illegally-purchased handgun.
Feel free to die with a bullet in your brain, thinking "at least I
was 'moral' enough to not carry a gun". I don't care.

: And so on.

And so on indeed. I'm hearing some flimsy reasons why drunkards
shouldn't carry guns, but no reasons why I shouldn't.

: Feels pretty good to live in a country where I know that there are 
: indeed a few criminals with handguns, 

Yeah, that way you can be stabbed instead of shot. 

: but that at least my neighbour hasn't got one just in case I for
: some stupid reason run over his cat or dent his Volvo.

I've lived my entire life in a country where most households have at
least one gun. I grew up in the south, where guns are practically
ubiquitous. I have, to date, never fired a gun at another person,
had one fire at me, seen a weapon fired in anger, seen anyone
threatened with a gun, or threatened anyone with a gun myself.
Your Dodge City scenario stinks of the government propaganda and
media hysterics you got it from, Tommy -- it doesn't reflect 
reality in the slightest. The reality of the situation is that
you can have a country that is almost entirely armed without
violence being a problem. Most of our gun crimes are, after all,
comitted with illegally-purchased weaponry.

: Larry Flynt is an asshole in many ways, but the fact that he was
: shot by some republican fuckbrain just goes to show how screwed up
: lots of people in your country are.

Does the fact that a man offed a bunch of schoolkids in Britain 
prove that the British are a nation of sick fucks? By your logic,
yes. Larry Flynt was shot, yes -- though I don't think they caught
the guy who did it -- but the nation as a whole condemned the action.
Yes, some people abuse their right to own guns, just as some people
abuse their right to free speech, due process, or what have you.
That does not negate the existance of that right.

: That people consider guns more important than porn...

I hope you didn't sprain your brain making that logical leap there.
The fact that many Americans think we have a right to guns is
unrelated to our feelings about pornography. Do I think guns are
more important than porn? Yes, to the extent that I could imagine my
own porn if need be -- it is much harder to use an imaginary gun
in self-defense.

:> Remember this free speech and the right to vote gave the world 
:> concentration camps and the German Nazi party. Guns gave us the
:> American Revolution and an allied victory in WWII.

: Forget my previous comment about lame paragraphs, this is the new peak.

You're quite fond of harping endlessly on the downside of gun rights 
while ignoring the up-side; I just thought I'd like to see you try it
the other way around.

: Yes, indeed, we can name a few things that are either good or bad about
: both free speech and weapons. 

I can, anyway. You so far have been 100% anti-gun.

: The fact that you limit your choices to two each,

... reflects the fact that I didn't feel like spending weeks listing
every armed conflict and piece of demagougery in human history.

: Free speech has done a helluva lot more for this
: world than *your* right to own guns,

Prove it. And, after proving it, demonstrate why this alleged 
"superiority" of words over bullets somehow detracts from the
usefulness of weapons or the important of allowing people to own them.

: As for the American Revolution, I'm not so sure that the entire
: world consider it a Good Thing (TM).

The fact that not everyone in the world has pulled their head out of
their ass is no surprise to me. After all, I'm responding to one
guy who hasn't right now. Whether the United States as it currently
exists (or has existed) is a good thing is debatable, but only 
a great fool could read the Contitution and Bill of Rights and 
conclude that these were anything other than good.

: Now, could you please try to do some snipping in your next post, should
: you choose to continue this thread?

If you don't want me responding to your comments, don't make them.

-- Dan
