Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Super Bowl

["Christian M. Cepel" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Mike Miller wrote:
> > > Some of the ads were fun or funny.  I really don't like the way they 
> > > use animals in beer ads.  It is obvious that this attracts the 
> > > attention of children and shows them that beer is a very 
> > > highly-valued commodity, the ads that include humans are designed to 
> > > show that normal young men are obsessed with beer -- they'll do 
> > > anything to get beer. We're supposed to lighten up and just laugh it 
> > > off, but they are doing this for a reason and it is working, so it 
> > > really isn't all that funny. They get teenage boys to think that 
> > > they must want beer in order to be cool with their friends.
> >
> >
> > With thinking like that, you should consider joining up with the 
> > Family Research Council http://www.frc.org. :-)
> >
> > (That is, of course I agree with you, but your thinking comes off as 
> > surprisingly like that of a social conservative!)
>
>
> I'm sure they have some good ideas but for all the wrong reasons.  For 
> example, one might oppose sex before marriage because of sexually 
> transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and other good reasons 
> (emotional, social, etc.), but not "because God says so!"  I also 
> would oppose laws prohibiting sex before marriage.  That doesn't mean 
> that I think sex before marriage is a good idea.  In fact, if I were 
> to be a leader of a social movement, one of my rules would be "no sex 
> before marriage."
Ah, but all your reasons are those of social conservatives as well....   
oh.. and that God thing added in :)


> So I differ from most social conservatives on the reasons for social 
> rules and I differ with them on what should be put into law.  It might 
> be good, for example, to have a rule against abortions for birth 
> control (but allowing abortion for severe defects, health of the 
> mother, etc.), 
Far and away, the majority of social conservatives (those with their 
heads on straight) are right there with you on this one.

> but I wouldn't make a law restricting abortion rights.  
But of course they would as just not wanting it to be abused for birth 
control wouldn't change the state of abortion on demand of things one iota.

> Not everyone will like my rules, so let them live their way while we 
> live our way.  In the end, the best rules win.
As a person with Libertarian leanings, I agree with this, but it doesn't 
extend to cover what I consider to be one person murdering another.  I 
consider a fetus with a heartbeat (especially if it has reached 
viability) to be a person.  I don't condone murder and insist on having 
laws against it (as do most libertarians), I consider abortion after 24 
days (and especially later) to be murder, and I don't condone that 
either.  Now if the health of the mother is in jeopardy, it would then 
not be murder, but more along the lines of self-defense.


> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion

--
Christian M. Cepel - Thistledowne Productions - http://thistledowne.org
Computer Support Specialist, Sr. - University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Education - School of Info Science & Learning Technologies
VRCbd, KidTools & StrategyTools Support Systems Projects, and Truman,
Library Whistlestop Project - Web Design & Programming - 573.999.2370


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion