🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <367323...@damnspaz.com>, ]{0MBAT 
<tabmok99....@damnspaz.com> says...
> Mark wrote:
> > 
> > > > > 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?
> 
> Remind me to avoid one word sentences :)  In prison, there's tons of gay
> sex going on, and almost none of them have "the gene".  Therefore, it is
> an awful experience (not just an isolated incident) that causes them to
> act the way they do.  Is this any clearer?

But it is not by gay men! Most prison "gay" sex is purely a release 
brought on by sexual frustration. Confinement is unnatural for any animal 
including Man. Gay rape in prison is also common and again it is about 
power! Most men who experience gay sex in prison are the subject of rape 
rather than willing participants!

> > 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 :) )
> 
> That's very oversimplifies all right, but a very compelling argument.
> But it still has yet to be proven what the cause for it really is.
> I persionally think it's different each time and is usually a
> combination, but to me it doesn't even matter what the cause is.

So assuming the "theory" to be correct, why does homosexuality differ 
from any other genetic defect in your eyes?

> > 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 It is an outdated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.
> 
> It's not forced upon you.  

It *is* forced upon society. It is part of our upbringing. And where does 
it originate?

> I think now I see why you're so damn
> aggresive towards the religious people now ;-)  

Don't ever jump to conclusions from my comments. Maybe you want to 
describe your new found wisdom of my feelings. Personally I think they 
will be wrong, but I want to hear them.

> Marriage is optional,
> it's forced upon you in India maybe but not by the Church.

No in India marriage is arranged. Your partner is forced upon you not the 
marriage itself! The Church *forces* marriage upon their followers. They 
do not condone "living in sin" as the bible puts it. Therefore to "be" a 
"true" Christian you *must* marry! 

As for society beyond the Church, it is still freeing itself from the 
shackles of past religious following so marriage is seen as the *right* 
thing regardless of religious belief. 

> > > > Why can you not live and let live?
> > >
> > > 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 ;)
> 
> Maybe you could give it to me, so I could in turn use it on you :)

No :)

> Probably wouldn't work for this situation though  :(

No it wouldn't. ;)

> > > 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. 
> 
> Wrong...
> 
> > Emotion invokes a reaction. 
> 
> Right!  It's the *reaction* you can control.
> The emotion is there, like it or not.

No, suppression of the reaction normally leads to suppression of the 
originating emotion. Eventually practice will make this process so swift 
that full emotional control is feasible.

> > Suppression of the reaction is control. 
> 
> Well I guess we're agreed then...  except upon the definition of controlling
> the emotion :)  But Alex is alone on his opinion about being able to choose
> your emotions, right?  I want to be in the majority on this one ;)

I'd like to say yes ... but ... no!

I seem to be somewhere in the middle here and you seem to be coming more 
closely to my understanding of it, so it looks like you'll soon be 
agreeing with me more than I with Alex, but beyond that I cannot see a 
majority win. :)

> > Also you can actually predict an emotional situation
> > and take steps to limit the impact thereby controlling your emotions.
> 
> Hadn't even though of that...  you can control your emotions *somewhat*
> by stopping them before they start.

So you are shifting opinion :). Even some control is definitely different 
to no control ;)

> 
> > 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.
> 
> I guess you and your emotions control each other - am I right or an I
> right?

No. Your emotions and yourself are intrinsically linked. The extent of 
emotion is controllable. The "murder" of an emotion is possible. The way 
you deal with and react to emotions is also controllable.

> 
> > > True, it would be better to put them to sleep in a humane fashion.
> > 
> > It would be *even* better to just leave them be! :)
> 
> Not if it can save the species.

Which species, the one we are murdering?

> > > 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?
> 
> To animals.  Maybe if we can set a good example for them, it will make
> those idiots smarter ;)

Maybe Alex has sent you some drugs to try ;)

> Seriously though, we owe it to each other to act human and not like
> (other) animals.  If we all acted like (other) animals - attacking
> out of fear rather than reasoning - we'd be acting no better than them.

Well done you have successfully described what is wrong with the human 
race. We *do* attack out of fear rather than reasoning. Using your 
comment .... There fore we *are* acting no better than them. Full Stop. 
Period. 

> > <from here> (it will make sense in a minute... :) )
> 
> I hope this clears things up.
> 
> > > 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".
> 
> I mean superior - it's not better for the anyone if we blow the world
> up.  But it shows that we have come a lot farther than animals and we
> must be smarter if we can do these things.

Yes - because it *is* very *smart* to blow the world 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), 

Apes do not always eat with their hands. They may not have fashioned 
tools from base metals but the will use wooden implements that they will 
hand make into a useable extraction and/or eating tool for say honey.

> > > 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),

Otters are very good plumbers!

> > > 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>
> 
> Kinda confusing...  I wish you had marked it some other way.  I think I
Best way I could think of given the rather limited options in text 
messaging ;) It is based around the recognised <joke> ... </joke> so I 
hoped it would work.

> left it in for the most part.  But your right, I meant better in a
> superior way, so advanced would fit the bill perfectly.  But, "you cant
> have one without the other."

No. Advanced and superior are sufficiently different in definition to 
render the words non-interchangeable. Hence my choice of advanced. 
Superior is as obtuse as your original word "better". They both need 
qualifying. Advanced implies no sense of superiority and the context 
usually provides the qualifier. Your argument now sort of reads "we are 
better/superior because we are more advanced". 

But then again, your implication that the use of tableware makes us 
superior is somewhat pointless. In our eyes it makes us more civilised. 
We are desperate as a race to distinguish ourselves from our animal 
cousins and concepts such as civilised behaviour are enough to invoke our 
arrogant assumption of superiority. 

Had we progressed beyond petty squabbling and fighting etc, I would be 
more inclined to consider us superior. For now, I do not. I consider ants 
and bees to be more organised, more sociologically advanced and therefore 
"superior" to other animals including ourselves. 

> 
> > 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...
> 
> Killing - ending life.  Murdering - ending life when the victim has done
> nothing to deserve it.  Killing a homosexual is killing someone who *has*
> done something to deserve it, therefore it isn't murder.

Then your definition of murder is incorrect. It is illegal to commit 
murder since it is defined as the unlawful taking of a person's life. 
There are no get out clauses for prejudice.

> I still don't think the bible commands you to kill them though - I think
> they're just saying they desere it.  Another subtle difference.

So WTF does "put to death" mean. 

> > 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".
> 
> I know, a witch can mean...  well, a bitch.  Again, the English language
> at fault.  Something was lost in the translation from Hebrew and Greek
> and all the other languages it was written in.

A witch can also be one who entrances with her beauty! I guess super 
models and actresses are next on the hit list ;)

I suggest you look up the definition, it means so much more than you 
think. Reading the passages relating to witches show that nothing was 
lost in the translation since the term is enhanced by further discussion 
of witches and witchcraft.

> I still don't know where the Bible says to do that, I do know that
> people have carried out the sentence hundreds of years after the Bible
> was written.

You are thinking of the infamous witch hunts. I am sure witches were put 
to death for many years previously but in less high profile. Famous name 
time "Joan of Arc". 

> 
> > > Show me where it says
> > > that, but I think something was lost during translation.
> > 
> > Yeah cos I can remember ;) I'll try to find it though.
> 
> OK, you do that.
> 

Here goes :)

Exodus:22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

(Not bad I wrote shall not shalt!)

There are also a number of other references to witches and witchcraft 
within the old and new testaments.

And I am the unbeliever! :P

-- 
Mark