Re: Filtering out Queers is OK

[Troy Denkinger <troy_d@ix.netcom.com>]

At 07:07 PM 7/18/96 -0700, you wrote:

[Cerridwyn Llewyellyn's text snipped]

[Lucid argument snipped, I was with you until right around here]

>I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to
>set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed.
>And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can
>and can't do.

We have an interesting problem here, though.  You say that the government
has no right to tell you how to set your filter; no doubt about that, imo.
However, most people who use these filters are going to be quite happy to
allow some corporate entity the privilege of setting their filters for them
and, if the consumer should ask about criteria and such, they are told that
that's a trade secret.  So, people will be allowing a corporate entity that
exists for profit to set their filters for them.  This is a very scary thing
and perhaps even more frightening than having the government do it.  I think
that the people on this list tend to maintain a healthy scepticism toward
the various TLAs, but we have to remember that a large, multinational
corporation has not even got a sense of a greater "national good" or even
"national security" to guide it.

[snip]

I'll preface my following remarks by saying that I'm not a libertarian.

>Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo
>the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two
>Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in
>religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for
>schools their own children are no longer using).

First point first.  The "propaganda" taught in schools is generally aimed at
teaching our children how to think.  Perhaps rote learning and cultural
naivete make us all comfortable at night and let us sleep better, but in a
world where critical thinking is undervalued I'd rather have my and my
childrens' views challenged than constantly affirmed.  (Btw, I have no
children at this moment, so it's quite possible to contend I'm talking out
my ass here; time will tell.)  

Public school funding is way off topic, so I'll concede your "point" and let
it slide.

[Now the meat of the queer bashing, how charming.  Sad to see you sully what
was a decent argument up to this point with ignorant foolishness]

>Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their
>AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but
>I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid
>their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which
>I don't).

When was the last time a homosexual attempted to force their practices on
you?  I'll leave your fictitious children out of it for the moment.  Are you
an active eschewer or simply a theoretical eschewer?  Have you ever been hit
on by a gay person?  I have; I told them I wasn't gay and that was that.  No
one forced their "AIDS-spreading practices" on me.

>I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which  have existed
>for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no
>tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on
>such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay
>for the research.

I usually read your posts to this list and often find them insightful,
however the above statement leaves me wondering if some ignoramus has taken
control of your keyboard or if the above was a simple, but remarkable,
typing error.  

Following your reasoning, it's also proper to say that cancer and heart
disease as well as violent crime resulting in death of a victim are also
"evolution in action" isn't it?  Your assertions are absurd and unfounded.
Your final point that those who "introduced the new vector" should pay for
the research for a cure continues to spotlight your inchoate notions on this
topic.  Pray tell, who introduced the vector?  Who was responsible for the
spread of the virus?  Who are the victims of this disease?  Who are the
future victims of this disease--do they have to pay because obviously
they're engaged in some kind of risky behaviour?  What part does an
unresponsive worldwide health structure have to pay?  How responsible are
you for the social blight that leads the underclasses to participate in
risky behaviour through hopelessness or lack of education?

Really, Mr. May, look further than your own front yard for a change.  You
live in a world -- welcome to it.

Troy Denkinger