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!newsfeeds.sol.net!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHFxnu.B5B@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> <dbongardEHCn9p.KtF@netcom.com> <loop-ya023180000210970432340001@news.algonet.se>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 20:16:42 GMT
Lines: 514
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8830 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:21207 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:15037 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4943

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

:> 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.

: It is better to accidentally kill a human being than to murder him or her.

No, it isn't. In both cases the result is _exactly_ the same -- one
dead human. I don't care if you stab me to death with a knife or
accidentally run me over with your car -- for me, the results are
IDENTICAL. The airline captain whose negligence kills his passengers
is as bad as any serial killer -- or worse, because he has caused more
human death and misery than any serial killer.

: By that logic, 

Or lack thereof, since you give no reasons why accidental murder is
better than deliberate murder.

: stepping on a bug by mistake is better than stomping an ant colony 
: because you find that amusing. Simple as that.

So -- getting back to your "all living things have an equal right
to live" theory -- it is better to accidentally murder a human
than it is to stop on an ant colony. Interesting. 

:> 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".

: Nope. Except for you and the likes of you, all life deserve the same
: respect simply because it is life. 

So given a choice between saving two cockroaches from the exterminator
and saving one human child from a murderer (or even a simple pedophile),
you would opt to save the cockroaches.

: No, I can't say I believe in God, but I do find that life as such is
: pretty damn fascinating, and it's not ours to grant or take.

If you don't believe in God, who handed down this rule that life isn't
ours to give or take? We're predators by evolution and inclination.
Life -- human or otherwise -- constantly takes life, and seldom with
any 'respect' for the creature killed. Most killing is done in
cold blood, so that the dead animal may be exploited for food and
resources, or simply for pleasure or hunting practice.

[Re: crushing bugs underfoot -- remember, Tommy thinks bug lives are
     worth as much as human lives]
:>: 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.

: Wrong. Murder can never equal ignorance in the sense of being unaware of.

Explain your logic. Two acts have the exact same result. You claim
one is moral and one is not. Give reasons. Would you not mind being
killed as long as the killer was negligently ignoring your existance
at the time? Why or why not?

:> (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.

: Wrong again. A drunken driver firing an Uzi out the window should
: be fully aware of the fact that he might well be risking the lives
: of other human beings or other animals.

You are fully aware that insects live underfoot, so the parallel holds.
Besides, what if the drunken driver was so plastered and tunnel-vision
inflicted that he didn't notice the children on the playground? What
if he thought he was in an abandoned neighborhood?

:>: 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? 

: See note in some other post about innocence of animals and children.

More drivel typical of your kind. Cats are no more "innocent" than
humans are, and murder is not excused by ignorance. You, like many
people who share your psuedo-environmentalist point of view, simply
believe that animals can do no wrong, no matter how much suffering
they cause, whereas all human-inflicted suffering is wrong. Nonsense.

:>: 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?

: Cows are bred by humans to be food.

So what? For generations black people in this country were bred to
be slaves. Does that make it alright to enslave them?

: The cow species wouldn't look the way it does if it hadn't been
: bred by humans.

And? Your point is that we took wild animals, kept them penned in
for generations of mistreatment, bred them for food, and now --
now that they are too helpless to survive on their own -- we 
suddenly have the right to kill them and eat them for enjoyment?
Could you explain why millennia of mistreatment of captives by
captors gives those captors a right to kill and eat the captives?

:> 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.

: Swedish cows live pretty good lives. 

No life that ends with being prematurely killed and eaten is "good".

: We had a large debate in Sweden the other year about ill treated cows.

This kind of fuzzy logic continues to astound me -- it is ok to kill
things and eat them, so long as you aren't mean to them first. 

:> That statement is useless, and will remain so until you define
:> what the phrase "perverted lusts" means. 

: Killing deer with the justification that it's needed in order to keep
: the deer population in control.

That is the entire definition of "perverted lusts"? So, for instance,
pedophiliac child-killers could not be said to have "perverted lusts"?
Tell me, where did you get this definition from? And -- since you
have restricted the definition of "perverted lusts" to "doing what
wolves and mountain lions do when they have the chance", might I
ask why you think "perverted lusts" are bad?

:> 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.

: Nope. In both cases, it is true that they didn't do me any wrong. 

That's all that matters.

: In one case (kill for food) it's a natural link in the great almighty
: food chain.

There is no such thing as a food chain. That is a simplistic description
of nature taught to grade-schoolers. Furthermore there is nothing that
makes the "food chain" -- or, more appropriately, which animals each
what -- either "natural" or "almighty" except with those animals that
are physically incapable of eating anything outside of a certain 
range of foods. We do not have to eat deer; neither do wolves or
mountain lions. We do it because we feel like it, because it is
convenient, because it suits our needs, and because the deer are 
powerless to stop us from doing it. The deer does not care that we
will eat it, or that we want to eat it -- it wants to live. There is
no way you can claim to be showing respect to something when you
kill it before it wants to die.

: In the other case you'd be just as well off not killing that deer
: (or even worse: lion).

You would lack the enjoyment you got from killing the deer or lion. 
The results, from the der's point of view, would be the same. If
_I_ don't care why I killed a deer, and the _deer_ doesn't care why
I killed the deer, there is no reason for anyone else to be concerned
about why I killed the deer.

:>: 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.

: Stupid little twat. Silly logic, strawman argument.

Which is Weigelian for "Duh-uh, me can't think of response." Disliking
something because people enjoy it is insane, Tommy.

:> [snip inane story about wolf displacement]

: Sick fucker. The wolves are not displaced. It's we who are.

Look up the definition of "displaced" sometime. Furthermore you seem
to be under the mistaken (but typically pseudo-environmentalist)
delusion that there is such as thing as a "natural habitat" that
animals are entitled to. The reality is that all organisms compete
for space with all other organisms with similar environmental needs.
The wolves lived on lands we needed for expansion, so we took the land
from the wolves. Had they the ability and the need, they would have 
done likewise to us. They don't "deserve" the land we live on. Nobody
does. It is just dirt and plants. We live on it simply because we
want it, we need it, and we are a superior species.

:> 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?

: No. No, unless it's a child. If it's you, I'd help it. Why? Well, 
: there are far less wolves than human beings on this planet. 

As I observed before, you are insane.

:> 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.

: But you see, there was no need to kill that deer in order for you
: to live a good and prosperous life (change the 'you' to 'one' on 
: second thought.

Maybe there is; maybe I enjoy killing deer. Besides, you don't _need_
to eat beef to live. You eat beef because you like it, and because the
lives of cows mean less to you than a tasty meal does.

: I doubt you live a very prosperous life. 

Dream on.

: I see a lonesome, unhappy wanker who's pissed at the world and loves
: trying to beat the people who flushed him down the toilet in school
: in verbal abuse on the Usenet.).

Feel free to fantasize. In you I see a person so filled with hatred 
for humanity that he shows his love only to the cute, furry animals
of the world. A person so deranged he thinks a cockroach's life
has the value of a human's, and a person so sick he would happily
help rogue animals kill humans if the opportunity arose.

:> "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.

: Humans are by no means wolves' natural prey, and they would only
: stretch to attack us if we pose a threat to them or their kids. 

Such as through competition for scarce resources. We would still be
living in grass huts if we refused to take land away from its
previous animal inhabitants.

[Re: Tommy's theory that humanity has evolved to be nice in recent history]

:> 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.

: We've become more tolerant, more willing to understand others and more
: considerate. Hence, nicer.

No, no, Tommy -- I didn't ask "did we become nicer". You used the
word "evolved". Explain how we have _evolved_ to be nicer, or pick
a different word.

:> 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.

: We don't need to hunt to get food anymore.

We don't _need_ to play Quake or eat beef, either. Life would be a
sickly thing if we only did what we _need_ to do.

: Recreation could be taken care of with airguns.

Spoken like a true member of the gun-ignorant, Tommy. Could all your
computer gaming needs be taken care of with a copy of Pac-Man? If
so, why do you play Quake? You are squandering resources that could
be used to feed the homeless or something.

: The last argument 

You skipped "self-defense". I presume this was because you have no
rebuttal for it? The ad hominem attack below pretty much shows that.

: just goes to show what a sad pathetic closet fascist you really are.

Try looking up the definition of fascism sometime. I do not advocate
forcing everyone to be alike or forcing everyone to adhere to the
same, strict standard of behavior. That point of view is better
represented by the "we have to ban all guns because some gun users
are bad" crowd -- ie, you and people who think like you -- than
people like myself.

: You want it, you love it, and if I choose to question the fact that
: you own it, you slap "Tyranny" in my face.

Ah, but I forget -- I'm talking to a resident of the country that
said "Oh, sure, you can run the place" the last time a fascist
dictator came along. I wouldn't expect you to recognize the 
value of an armed populace as protection against tyranny.

: Same old lame argument over and over again.

Kind of like "people have a right to express themselves, and to speak
out against the government so as to make sure it does not behave
inappropriately" is the "same old lame argument" people make in
behalf of free speech. :) I use the "tyranny" argument, and the
free speech one, because those are the bases for those rights. I
repeat it because you, and people like you, keep ignoring it.

:> 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.

: And with the forms of communication that we have today and the
: education of our society--even soldiers in the army--you think it
: would somehow be easier to turn a country like the US into a 
: dictatorship?

Of course. Common experience has shown us that the populace can be
brainwashed into accepting anything if the government presents it
in a sufficiently negative light. Everyone in the country, for
instance, knew we were herding the Japanese into concentration
camps during WWII -- and that was before the government had mastered
the art of spin control. Today it is justifyable for the police to
stop and search somebody based on criteria like "he was a black man
in a nice car" or "he was a hispanic man with a bandanna". There is
no public outcry against this. People can lose their houses, cars,
and bank accounts based on a simple police accusation of drug 
smuggling -- with the accompanying confiscation of their lawyers
fees if they lose the case, just to scare away defense attorneys --
and there is no public outcry. The populace of this country has
gotten used to three ideas: (a) the government has a hand in
everything, and SHOULD have a hand in everything, (b) it is justifiable
to ignore human rights if the victims are Bad People or Suspected
Bad People, and (c) nothing changes, no matter who is in power. Those
three ideas, together, are a recipe for disaster. Let us say
that a nasty incident (another Oklahoma City bombing, but worse, and with
suspected Arab involvement) occurred. Would anybody stop the government
if it decided to start rounding up any religious Arabs in the country
and tossing them in jail without due process? No, because they'd be 
too busy watching TV show after TV show about the "dangers of terrorism",
arab terorists, etc. History has taught us nothing if not that humans
beings are capable of being monumentally stupid when they act as
a unified group.

:> 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.

: No, the only sane thing to do if you find the world such a scary
: place, is to lock yourself away in a bomb shelter. 

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of balancing costs
against gains. I am confident that a gun gives me the ability to
defend myself if need be.

: There is no reason to own a gun for personal protection as very few
: civilians are killed in situations where a gun would've helped them,

I'm afraid there's simply no evidence to back up that claim. You
are also ignoring the people who _don't_ get killed _because_ they
were carrying guns. Surveying people who died to determine which
of them could have used guns -- which you haven't done -- would
still not tell you anything about the usefulness of guns.

: and all all these guns do is make damn sure that gang punks will have
: more of them.

There would be very few "gang punks" if this country's bizarre 
drug and social policies were not being enforced by the government.
As it is there are several hundred million guns in this country,
compared to a few ten-thousands of violent gang members. If one-tenth
of one-percent of guns excaped confiscation the problems would still
exist, although the civilian populace would be unarmed and helpless
before both criminals and the government.

: Your handgun won't save you IF your country, against all odds, should
: decide to turn into a terror regime.

It might, or it might not. The mere presence of an armed populace 
serves as a deterrent in the first place, of course. And if it did
come to that, it would be better for me to take a soldier or two
with me. 

: And if you think it's sane to own a gun "just in case", you truly are
: one sick fucker.

I also have car insurance "just in case" I'm in a car crash and 
disability insurance "just in case" I get crippled. Does that make
me a "sick fucker" too, or am I only a "sick fucker" if I exercise
the rights granted to me by my country's highest laws?

There is nothing wrong with taking precautions, particularly when
it involves no harm to others. My owning firearms represents no
harm to others, excepting those people who actively attempt to
kill or rob me.

:>: 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.

: No. These questions become damn more important if the chance that they
: actually carry a gun is high, which it is in your country but not in mine.

In my country it is illegal to carry a gun. I don't know anybody who
carries one, although there is a slim possibility that they are carrying
one without telling me. The "bear" part of our "right to keep and bear
arms" has been conveniently ignored by the government and the supreme court
for quite some time now. Even if it were legal, that does not mean
that there would be a high probability of a given person carrying a
gun, particularly in a bar (where guns are also illegal).

There have been occasions, in recent history, when mass allowances
were made for civilians to carry guns. In Florida between 1987 and
1995, 258000 people were licensed to carry guns. Only 18 of them
used those guns to commit crimes. The murder rate fell 22% in that
state, while the national rate rose 14%.

:>: 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. 

: Funny thing is, because we seem to respect life more here, even if
: in a hypocritical way, we have less murders per capita every year than
: have you.

"Respect for life" has nothing to do with it, Tommy. The violence in 
this country is a side-effect of governmental policy.

:> 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.

: Ahem, don't you guys censor porn and keep the violence?

Depending on what you mean by "censor", yes. Exact enforcement and
laws vary from community to community, but in general the two things
that are illegal in American porn are violence (or simulated violence)
and underage (or perceived underage -- whatever that means) actresses
or actors. Bondage, fisting, etc, are considered "violent" for some
reason. Pretty much anything else goes.

If you were referring to nudity on TV -- which i wouldn't really call
"porn", but then I've never seen much foreign, non-Mexican TV -- it
is pretty much not allowed, although that's changing. There is
plenty of violence, with a growing movement to ban it. The logical
thing to do would be to let anything on the air and let parents
regulate what their kids watch, but here we're getting back to the
standard "the government is our friend, it will solve our problems
for us" attitude.

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

: Nope. I've said over and over again that guns have served a purpose during
: that long stretch of time when the Western world was a bloody chaos, but
: that they now serve no purpose whatsoever in the hands of civilians other
: than to satisfy some perverted lusts. That's what I've said.

Ie, you are completely anti-gun. I would also call a person "100% anti-
free-speech" if he said that free speech _used_ to be necessary but
isn't anymore. I'm concerned with the laws of the world I live in, not
with the laws and necessities of the distant past.

:>: 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 Constitution and Bill of Rights and 
:> conclude that these were anything other than good.

: Nah. You just made that awful mistake of screwing up your own logic. 
: If the US isn't or hasn't been a good thing, the Bill of Rights 
: wouldn't be listed among the good things either, since that's what
: made it the US.

Not really. The US government has ignored much of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights pretty much from day one, and certainly within
the last century and a half. For instance, under the Constitution
we should not have a standing army in this country -- yet we have
troops all over the world, messing with other peoples' affairs.
Slavery was unconstitutional, even before it was amended, yet the
government ignored that out of political and economic convenience.

As a parallel -- I'm not a religious person at all, but there is a 
lot of value in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha. Despite this
fact, Christian and Buddhist countries and people, like all others,
have caused enormous suffering in the world. Why? Because they
don't follow their own rules. The USA is the same way.

: Obviously you have little else to do but to answer these posts.

I guess it just takes you a lot longer than me. I spent maybe
forty minutes on this; I wrote it on my lunch break.

-- Dan
