Celebrity advice (was: Advice to a Junior in High School?)

[Colin J. Williams]

Terry Reedy wrote:
>  "Tim Churches" <tchur at optushome.com.au> writes:
> 
> 
>>Cameron Laird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
>>>first to mention him in this thread.  It appears that you
>>>regard his output as particularly hazardous.
>>
>>See the first few paragraphs of
>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
> 
> 
> I did.  'Few' means at least three.  The second and last sentence of
> the third paragraph reads
> 
> " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
> how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
> makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
> at any time."
> 
> Do you disagree (with what seems to me like an obviously true
> statement)?  Or are you one who doesn't the 'people' to notice the
> elitist hypocrisy of being 'anti-gun' while supporting the bearing
> *and use* of guns by 'govern-men' the elitists hope to control?  (I
> think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.)
> 
> Well back to Python.
> 
> Terry J. Reedy

We seem to be straying from Python and/or advice to a your person, but 
the third paragraph is clearly nonsense.

To give an example.  In Canada, over the next year or more, the Members 
of Parliament and the Senators will have to make a choice as to whether 
gay marriage is to continue in this country.  No threat of force exists.
A decision will be made and the populace will accept it as being more or 
less democratic.

Colin W.