2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (11/07/84)
> It seems to me that a law which is broken so much of the time is in > some fundamental way sick, and should be re-thought. Just a thought... **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh You have a very sick and short sighted view of society. It is human nature to push the limits. We feel we need to show our independence. But we still need safeguards to protect the rights and safety of our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. If you don't give a shit about them, who do you care for. Perhaps you don't care and there is no law against that but it tends to reduce the number of friends, neighbors, and loved ones.
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (11/07/84)
Who says nobody obeys those dumb laws?! Here in NJ, toll booths on the Parkway exit ramps are unattended after dark and we never exceed 55 when driving through them. Jim
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (11/08/84)
I too think that the numerous "stupid little laws" that no one listens to, are indeed needed. I dont think that they try to make people behave certain ways all the times, but rather provide a legal means for placing blame in the far-out circumstances when SOMEONE has to be blamed. Take the case of solid whie lines. Legally, crossing them can provide you with a moderately sized ticket if an officer so desires. This isnt enforced much at all however. BUT, in the case of an accident, if you hit someone while crossing the solid lines, you are at fault! This is when the law seems to come in handy. -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (11/08/84)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh a First, an apology to those that thought that the term "sick view" was an insult and not a pun about the comment "sick laws". Second, an apology to those that think that 'shit' is profanity by wouldn't hesitate to say "Oh God." The latter is truly profanity and the first never is. Look it up in any dictionary. Third, laws are NEVER bad because of rationalizations like "I can do it because everyone else does". Fourth, laws are bad if they interfere with individual rights more than they benefit society as a whole. The main object of civilizations is to codify social behavior. The codes include laws, bibles, etc. If you don't like a code, then you may be one of the legislators or saviors of tomorrow. Personally, I am a voter. The vote is mightier than the complaint on net news.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett) (11/09/84)
> > It seems to me that a law which is broken so much of the time is in > > some fundamental way sick, and should be re-thought. Just a thought... > **** **** > From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh > > You have a very sick and short sighted view of society. It is human > nature to push the limits. We feel we need to show our independence. > But we still need safeguards to protect the rights and safety of > our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. If you don't give a > shit about them, who do you care for. Perhaps you don't care and > there is no law against that but it tends to reduce the number of > friends, neighbors, and loved ones. I see. So any law that has ever existed should always exist, because to reverse that law would make us lawless, brutal, insensitive barbarians? I am sickened by your short-sighted understanding of law. Sick, sick, sick .... -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!gam [ This is just me talking. ]
ems@amdahl.UUCP (Edward Michael Smith) (11/09/84)
> > You have a very sick and short sighted view of society. It is human > > nature to push the limits. We feel we need to show our independence. > > But we still need safeguards to protect the rights and safety of > > our friends, our neighbors, and our loved ones. If you don't give a > > I see. So any law that has ever existed should always exist, because > to reverse that law would make us lawless, brutal, insensitive > barbarians? I am the first to admit to a heavy foot and no respect for 55, but I think that the point being made was not that all laws forever are sacred. Looked to me more like a statement that even if *most* people want to break a law, it still might be a good law *if* it protects a minority population. (Such as discrimination laws...) There are some people on the road (who have as much right to use it as I do) who are scared out of there wits by the way most people (I ?) drive. The question this brings up for me is: What percentage of laws can be held in low respect by what percentage of the population before *all* laws will be held in low respect by most people? Is it worth training break the 55 limit regularly? When will I generalize this (admitedly) anti social behaviour to drugs, paying bills, tax forms, murder? At what point should a law be removed to preserve respect for most laws? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily those of anyone. (How can a company have an opinion, anyway...)
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/12/84)
> The main object of civilization is to codify social behavior.
As Joe Pyne used to say, could I have a copy of that so that
I can have it laminated for my wallet?!bt@bnl.UUCP (William M. Tatun @ Brookhaven National Labs) (11/12/84)
> > > It seems to me that a law which is broken so much of the time is in > > > some fundamental way sick, and should be re-thought. Just a thought... > > **** **** > > From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh > > I feel that someone along the line has gone wrong. When a law is made a law that means that it has gone through enought people that think it is needed. Now just because 'society' says they aren't going to enforce that law, is another story. I feel sorry for the ones that make this happen. To me a law is a law, and if it is there, it should be followed and obeyed. -- William M. Tatun ---------------- UUCP: ...!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!bt ARPA: bt@bnl DDD: 516-475-6255 MAILING ADDRESS: 197 Schoenfeld Blvd. Patchogue, New York 11772
traite@wivax.UUCP (Paul Traite) (11/15/84)
> > > It seems to me that a law which is broken so much of the time ... > > > **** **** > > > From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh > > > > > **** > .... To me > a law is a law, and if it is there, it > should be followed and obeyed. > William M. Tatun Do you every go above 55mph? Do you jaywalk? Do you report to the police all your friends who jaywalk or speed? (accessory after the fact, witness to a crime). Paul Traite * This is not necessarily anyone else's opinion but my own, if that *
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/15/84)
Just because a law is passed does not mean either that it has been well considered, or that it is best for the people. It merely means the legislature passed it and the executive signed it. Quite often this is due to the pressure of lobbyists and special interest groups. For example, in Pennsylvania, and probably some other states, it is against the law to sell milk at any price LOWER than what is set by the milk board. Everyone except the few dairy farmers in the state agrees that this law is against the public interest. However, since the majority of state legislators come from rural counties, where opposing the milk board would cause them some political trouble, and the dairy lobby is a lucrative source of campaign funds, the people have to put up with this unjust law. This is a very negative feature of representative government that extends to numerous areas, not just milk, and not just at the state level. In addition, there are laws that infringe unjustly on individual rights, such as those involving victimless crimes. An example is the law that prevents a person from knitting in their own home and then selling the piece for profit, recently featured on 60 minutes. The unions who supported this wonderful piece of legislation made no bones about the fact that they would like to see the concept extended to the realm of COMPUTING at home, for obvious reasons. Not only do we have no moral obligation to obey such tyranny, but in many cases, such as Nazi Germany (don't forget, the majority of the society WANTED Hitler, and approved of his policies), we have the moral obligation to break the laws. So, I would advocate, don't always equate the bozos in the legislature with right, they may have the might, but not always the right.
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/16/84)
X From: bt@bnl.UUCP (William M. Tatun @ Brookhaven National Labs)
X I feel that someone along the line has
X gone wrong. When a law is made a law
X that means that it has gone through
X enought people that think it is needed.
What is "enough" to ensure that a law will always benefit
society, and be worth the effort of enforcing?
X Now just because 'society' says they
X aren't going to enforce that law, is
X another story. I feel sorry for the
X ones that make this happen. To me
X a law is a law, and if it is there, it
X should be followed and obeyed.
You should be careful about spitting off of streetcars
on Sundays in obscure small towns.
(heard of "blue laws" ?)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/18/84)
================
... To me
a law is a law, and if it is there, it
should be followed and obeyed.
William M. Tatun
================
I wonder how many laws you have broken today that you did not know
existed? Laws become obsolete and are seldom repealed. They are
just not enforced unless the authorities need an excuse to get at
somebody they can't hang anything else onto. I forget what the
occasion was, but a few years ago we had a small flurry because the
police started using a law last enforced in around 1820 or so (date
could be a few centuries wrong) because they couldn't find any other
reason to stop the undesirable activity. (Wish I could remember
what it was).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/18/84)
================
...
at home, for obvious reasons. Not only do we have no moral
obligation to obey such tyranny, but in many cases, such as
Nazi Germany (don't forget, the majority of the society WANTED
Hitler, and approved of his policies), we have the moral obligation
to break the laws. So, I would advocate, don't always equate
the bozos in the legislature with right, they may have the might,
but not always the right.
================
The Nazi party never won a majority of the votes in Germany. They may
have taken the most seats in the Reichstag, but they lost seats in the
election before Hitler was asked to become Chancellor. Hitler was
asked because the Right-wing business party thought they could control
him, and the alternatives from their general ideological stream had
no real backing. If they had not taken Hitler, the next election might
well have resulted in a Socialist Chancellor, and they didn't want that.
Only after Hitler was Chancellor did they find that he was neither
controllable nor on their side. After it became suicidally dangerous
to criticize Hitler and the Nazis, who knows how the mass of people
really felt?
What happened with Hitler could happen in almost any country. "The price
of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtgeb@cadre.UUCP (11/21/84)
My point about Nazi Germany was not that the Germans were somehow specially evil, as some seemed to have believed, but that indeed they are not special, and that what happened there could happen in the US, Great Britain, Israel, etc. (and maybe it does to a lesser degree). Some have disputed whether or not the majority of Germans wanted Hitler. It is true that he didn't get elected fair and square, but I think most Germans did want him by 1937. Of course, if they didn't want him they couldn't have gotten rid of him very easily by then, or later during the war when they certainly didn't want him any more, but he was riding quite high when he first pulled Germany out of the depression, and built it up militarily and economically. I happen to believe that many of the bloodiest dictators have been personally popular enough to win election were one to be held once they were established in power. I think that in a fair election Castro, Stalin, Hitler, and Franco could have been elected with a large plurality. Certainly the populace of Rome went right along with establishing Augustus and later his sucessors as a dictator and giving up their republic. Of course, later when they had bad ones like Caligula (very popular when he was first named emperor) it was too late to go back. My point is still valid: just because something is law doesn't make it right. There are circumstances in which it is immoral NOT to break the law rather than follow it. This was to rebut the naive view that once a society has decided on making something the law our thinking has been done for us and we should all follow like good little sheep. As Emiliano Zapata said: Great people need no leaders.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/25/84)
In article <87@cadre.UUCP> geb@cadre.UUCP writes: >My point about Nazi Germany was not that the Germans >were somehow specially evil, as some seemed to have >believed, but that indeed they are not special, and >that what happened there could happen in the US, >Great Britain, Israel, etc.... On the contrary, the Nazis really were special! They had no monopoly on genocide or totalitariansism, but what other genodicers did these things: - Made lampshades out of the skins of people they killed. - Performed sadistic "medical" experiments on a fairly large scale, on their victims. - Strangest of all: diverted ag reat deal of resources needed to win WW II, in order to more efficiently hound and kill their Jewish captive populations? Evil totalitarian governments could sneak up on any country that is not watching for them, but I doubt we shall ever see nazi Germany's like again. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison
geb@cadre.UUCP (11/27/84)
What made the Nazis special was not their bent for perversity. Many, many times in history have masters as cruel as Hitler reigned. Just ask anyone who knows the history of the middle east or Russia about the Mongols, the Huns, the Turks, the Crusaders, etc. The difference was that with the Nazis, modern technology was applied in an effort to commit genocide against a group of people whose numbers included leaders of world culture (the Jews). When the Turks genocided the Armenians in 1915, the outcry wasn't nearly as great. It is believed that Stalin starved and executed more people than Hitler, and until Solzenitzen started writing, no one realized it. Films of the death camps and modern means of communications plus the fact that the Jews are intellectual leaders in most countries assured that the world was not allowed to conveniently ignore or forget Hitler's atrocities. Other atrocities in the past have seemed more remote and didn't carry the emotional impact. The logistics of exterminating 6 million people were so great it took all the effort of the German industrial state to effect it (Zyklon B gas, etc.). But I believe that the scale of the massacre was because of the methods available, not because of a lack of desire on the part of past demonic rulers. And, it could happen again, and probably will, if we don't blow ourselves up first.
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (11/27/84)
The Nazis may be somewhat special but what they did to the Jews they
experimented on in concentration camps seems very similar to what the
Japanese did to many of their prisoners in Manchuria.
--
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deegjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/29/84)
> The Nazis may be somewhat special but what they did to the Jews they > experimented on in concentration camps seems very similar to what the > Japanese did to many of their prisoners in Manchuria. > -- > + Donald E. Eastlake, III > ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!dee Again, we are ignoring the number. The difference is not the kind of evil, but the scale. The Germans gassed 10 million. I doubt that the Japanese murdered even 500,000 P.O.W.'s. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Eureka!" -Archimedes
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (11/30/84)
I don't know how Hitler and the Jews made it to this category,
but I am foolish enough to respond anyway.
I believe that the genocide of the Jews in Europe is more publicized
than other cases. I see that someone (Greg Kuperberg) only thinks
that the Japanese only murdered 500,000 POWs. Maybe he is right.
However, I think that the 5 million Chinese should be included, too.
Consider, Idi Amin killed at least 1 million
Joe Stalin " " " 20 "
Mao Tse Tsung " " " 25 "
So, based on scale, Hitler is not the worst. Even on percentages
I don't think he would win this dubious distinction. Here in the
US, almost 100,000 (estimated) were killed in our Revolutionary War.
Quite astounding for the total overall population.
Mark
Reinamarie@harvard.ARPA (Marie Desjardins) (12/01/84)
> Again, we are ignoring the number. The difference is not the kind of evil, > but the scale. The Germans gassed 10 million. I doubt that the Japanese > murdered even 500,000 P.O.W.'s. > --- > Greg Kuperberg Oh, well, only 500,000, and they were just P.O.W.'s. Well, then, that's okay. Just because the Germans killed 10 million people (by the way they weren't all gassed but that's a different issue and much too gory to go into here), doesn't mean it's o.k. for the Japanese or anyone else to kill less. Marie desJardins marie@harvard
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/01/84)
> > Again, we are ignoring the number. The difference is not the kind of evil, > > but the scale. The Germans gassed 10 million. I doubt that the Japanese > > murdered even 500,000 P.O.W.'s. > > --- > > Greg Kuperberg > > Oh, well, only 500,000, and they were just P.O.W.'s. Well, then, that's > okay. Just because the Germans killed 10 million people (by the way > they weren't all gassed but that's a different issue and much too gory > to go into here), doesn't mean it's o.k. for the Japanese or anyone else > to kill less. > > Marie desJardins > marie@harvard You took my article out of context. I was replying to someone who compared Japan with Nazi Germany. Sure, what the Japanese did in WW II was atrocious, but the Germans are incomparable. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk
jhull@spp2.UUCP (12/04/84)
In article <143@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) writes: >Again, we are ignoring the number. The difference is not the kind of evil, >but the scale. The Germans gassed 10 million. I doubt that the Japanese >murdered even 500,000 P.O.W.'s. >--- > Greg Kuperberg And the Cambodians have killed over 4 million! AND NOBODY IS EVEN BITCHING ABOUT IT! -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (12/04/84)
> I don't know how Hitler and the Jews made it to this category, > but I am foolish enough to respond anyway. > > I believe that the genocide of the Jews in Europe is more publicized > than other cases. I see that someone (Greg Kuperberg) only thinks > that the Japanese only murdered 500,000 POWs. Maybe he is right. > However, I think that the 5 million Chinese should be included, too. > > Consider, Idi Amin killed at least 1 million > Joe Stalin " " " 20 " > Mao Tse Tsung " " " 25 " > > So, based on scale, Hitler is not the worst. Even on percentages > I don't think he would win this dubious distinction. Here in the > US, almost 100,000 (estimated) were killed in our Revolutionary War. > Quite astounding for the total overall population. > > Mark > Reina No, no, I didn't say that Hitler killed 10 million people, I said that he sent 10 million people (rough estimate. I am counting 6 million Jews plus several million Slavs, Catholics, Communists, etc.) to the death camps. If you want to count all war deaths, well, Poland alone lost 12 million, the Soviet Union 20 million (although some of those were with Stalin's help), and various other millions in European countries. Note that Poland had about 40 million people to start with... Now, the Japs may have shot, bombed, etc., quite a few people, but among the P.O.W.'s that they actually captured, I doubt that it exceeds 500,000. In any case, pushing around figures too much distances one from Real Life. Here is Real Life: Among the descendants of my father's four grandparents, two-thirds were sent to Auschwitz or Treblinka. Of course, there are no records, but this is probable. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Madam, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive." -Leonid Breshnev, speaking to Margaret Thatcher.