Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4122 alt.romance:5709 soc.men:24217 soc.singles:74759 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!numenor!sobleski From: sobleski@numenor.endor.cs.psu.edu (Mark Sobolewski) Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.singles Subject: Word Play. (was Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?) Message-ID: Date: 9 Dec 90 21:49:57 GMT References: <6195@crash.cts.com> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 25 Nntp-Posting-Host: numenor.endor.cs.psu.edu rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes: > I see very little evidence that fundamentalists are insulted in the >press. What I see is a society willing to forego the constitution in order to >"protect itself" from drugs, drunk-drivers, readers of Playboy, and anyone who >thinks there's a reason for sex other than having babies. Yes, but is there anything "wrong" with that? "Unfair" perhaps? You see, there is something _wrong_ in the context of individual rights that many people on this forum _prefer_. When such individual rights are violated or threatened, this is called "unfair". This is not a universal thing, mind you, it's only in _relation_ to the basic _principles_ our society claims to cherish. And when I complain that men are being treated _unfairly_, they call it a _game_. I call it _hypocritical_. None of this is _absolute_ so much as _relative_ and _consistent_ to the _principle_ people claim to care about: Individual rights based on ability. Wasn't that fun? Dick and Jane build a house on the next installment. Stay tuned. -- "Fortunatly, big mailers filled with flames | are not subject to quotas." | sobleski@cs.psu.edu