🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8QBc2.2361$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > > Sounds like something you said about 
> > > psychologists a long time ago, hmm?
> > I think I missed that, care to expand? :)
> 
> Alex said something a while ago about psychologists...  how they structure 
> evidence to meet the desired conclusion, then when they reach that conclusion, 
> they "prove" how they were right.

That sounds cool ;)

> > > Maybe it is caused by genes sometimes, maybe a hormone imbalance, or a 
> > > horrible childhood incident, or any combination.  I think it's different in 
> > > each case.  
> >
> > And you base this evidence on?
> 
> Prisons.

Huh? WTF are you talking about now?

> 
> > > Supposing though that it was caused by nature rather than nurture - does
> >  that 
> > > legitamize it?  If they found out that most killers and rapists have a 
> > > defective gene, would that make it right?  Would it be OK for them to do as 
> > > they do?
> > 
> > There are a number of "illnesses" passed on genetically. Obesity is one 
> > such example. Should we outlaw obesity because some people have a fucked 
> > up gene? It does not hurt anyone. How about disability? Some disabilities 
> > are caused by genetic defects. Should we outlaw this?
> 
> No.  If you're fat you're fat.  If you're dumb, you're dumb.  Homosexuality 
> isn't just a trait - it's a behaviour.  

I hope you realise that behavioral patterns are built into our genetic 
makeup. Also consider this. Every single person begins with the very high 
chance of being female. Males are harder to produce. For a baby to be 
male requires the presence of an *extra* chromosome. Since we are all 
originally female, it is no surprise that any fault in the male genetic 
makeup would result in fucked up behavioral patterns including attraction 
to their own sex! (Note this is very oversimplified since I am sure none 
of us want to go into low level biology :) )

> It's an act.  If bestiality were 
> caused by a gene, should it be legalized?  Should marriages to animals be 
> legal too, and condoned by the Church?  Otherwise they'd be hypocrites, 
> discriminating solely on sexual preference.

Actually I think we should drop marriage altogether. It is an outdated 
contract forced upon us by the Church. Gays only want to marry because 
straight people can. If you want to fix the problem get rid of marriage.

> 
> > Why can you not live and let live?
> 
> After you laced into me like that about my religion :P  (Don't worry, you 
> weren't really that bad).  
:)

> You know what, Alex could be asking that same 
> question about us and drug users.  

I hope he does, I have an answer all lined up ;)

Besides, I cam happy for drug users to so what they do as long as it does 
not affect me or others. I do not agree with legalising it. 

> LdyMagic33 (the pigfucker) could be
> asking the same thing about him and barnyard animals.  In fact if he were 
> smart enough, he could use those other arguements you mentioned too - "If I'm 
> no better than an animal, why can I not lick it's balls?"

LdyMagic33 is not on my list of reading partners. I know nothing of his 
sexual persuasion but how do you know :P 

Seriously though, there are some sexual activities I would never get 
into. I would never like to be involved in sex where shit comes into play 
and have no desire for "water sports" either. I also would never even 
consider sex with a man or an animal. All of this is personal preference. 
I have not been told not to, I decided I did not want to. Other people 
feel differently. As long as both partners are willing so be it. 

So what if someone wants to lick an animals balls and comes back to tell 
the tale. As long as it does not affect me or mine I do not care. I think 
it is sick, but without getting into all that again, it does exhibit 
itself in the animal kingdom as a whole. 

> > > OK, that was a bad example.  But still, emotions are not decisions - the 
> > > choice is how you react to them.  No one, no matter how they try, can
> >  control 
> > > their emotions.
> > Actually you can control your emotions. How often do you suppress anger 
> > or personal suffering in the company of others? It is also possible to 
> > change your state of mind from a depressive one to a more happy one. All 
> > of this is control of emotion. Have you never lied? This is a great 
> > example of emotion control. Without it the lie is obvious!
> 
> If you could control your emotions, you wouldn't *have* to supress your anger. 
> Rather, your emotions control you - forcing you to either lash out or do your 
> damndest to hold it all in.

I did not say you could switch them off, They are an essential part of 
life. Succeeding in "doing your damndest to hold it all in" is 
controlling that emotion. Emotion invokes a reaction. Suppress ion of the 
reaction is control. Also you can actually predict an emotional situation 
and take steps to limit the impact thereby controlling your emotions. 
People who cannot control emotions are described by doctors as 
hysterical. This is not the common sense of the word as in "hysterics" 
but the wider term meaning to be controlled by ones emotions.

> 
> > > Well, sometimes they need to thin out their numbers.  I guess it's
> >  acceptable 
> > > then too.
> > 
> > Culling of animals is very often the defence a hunter will use. 
> > Personally I do not see how whales and baby seals require culling. Most 
> > hunting is for fun pure and simple. It is a cruel sport and in the 
> > unlikely event that culling was deemed necessary, there are more humane 
> > ways to cull animals than to hunt them.
> 
> True, it would be better to put them to sleep in a humane fashion.

It would be *even* better to just leave them be! :)

> 
> > This "responsibility" is just another example of human arrogance. We 
> > claim to be "better" than other animals. 
> > 
> > Amongst our great achievements are the wiping out of a number of other 
> > animal species purely for sport or to adorn our fragile bodies or our 
> > homes with their dead skin. We did not even have the respect to hunt the 
> > animal for food and use it's then useless carcass for furnishing, we just 
> > killed it and took what we wanted. 
> 
> So we don't akways act better, that doesn't rid us of our responsibility and 
> doesn't justify some of the things we do.

You keep saying responsibility. To who?

<from here> (it will make sense in a minute... :) )
> > Or how about the mass destruction of parts of the world both through war 
> > and for raw materials. We have cut down so much rain forest and created 
> > many other imbalances in the atmosphere thet we are changing the very 
> > nature of the planet. Our research into nuclear reactions is still having 
> > long term side effects. 
> 
> Just the fact that we can take matters into bigger situations than animals 
> could is evidence that we are better.  And how about the fact that we can 
> understand concepts like DNA, evolution, and all that - animals would never 
> figure this stuff out and even though we figured it out we couldn't make them 
> understand.

Please define your use of the word "better". 

> > So far I see no responsibility and nothing that says we are "better". No, 
> > wait a minute we are better ... at fucking up.
> 
> We fuck up just as much as animals, but in a bigger and better way.  Just 
> about every possible thing other animals do, we do better.  Examples, eating 
> (we use silverware), cleansing (we built all these pipes that go into our 
> homes and can control when the water comes in for us to shoer or bathe in), 
> killing (we built guns, and while this isn't better *morally* it is more 
> effective *physically*), and prety much anything animals do, we do better.
<to here>

I think for "better" you should be using "advanced". It is a different 
word with a different meaning but make make you point mean something. 
I'll await your definition requested above before replying to this so in 
any reply please retain these sections as is that I highlighted with 
<from here> ... to <here>

> > Ob boy. All this murder was carried out in God's name and was often based 
> > on the very passages you have been quoting. Please read below...
> > 
> > > non Christians, not God.  God in fact said to do the opposite (Thou shalt
> >  not 
> > > do murder)
> > 
> > So how are we supposed to carry out his will with regard homosexuals!
> > 
> > I quote from a previous message ...
> > 
> > "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of
> > them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death;"
> >                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > Please, define murder and then define the killing of a homosexual in the 
> > above quote and explain the difference. I see none. 
> 
> You mean killing.  "Kill" and "murder" have subtle differences.

I asked that you define your interpretation not suggest obvious 
differences between words!

AIUI:

Kill - deprive of life or vitality; put to death; cause the death of.

Murder - The unlawful premeditated *killing* of a human being by another; 

Therefore, to "kill" a homosexual is "murder".

Your turn...

> 
> > Interestingly it seems very similar to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to 
> > live" (Did I get that right? :) ) Yet you claim that the witch hunts were 
> > instigated by the people and not the God that spoke those very words.
> 
> I think that's a mistranslation
And no-one thought to correct it in the last few thousand years?
> , witches are fictional.  
ROTFL. 

Tell that to all the women *murdered* throughout the world having been 
accused of witchcraft. Also look up what a witch is. It is not just some 
old hag on a broomstick. Now come back and tell me they are "fictional".

> Show me where it says 
> that, but I think something was lost during translation.

Yeah cost I can remember ;) I'll try to find it though.

-- 
Mark