🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.10de24032...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <Z%Sc2.2527$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> > This is in reference to <MPG.10dd4275...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
>  which a
> > one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> > 
> > So taking it a step further, we can safely say gay people in our society
>  feel 
> > imprisoned.  
> 
> Only by bigots such as yourself. 

You're missing the point.  Re-read the post and try to think what I had in 
mind.

> > It doesn't.  Genetic defects that affect appearance, or mind, I have no 
> > problem with.  Ones that affect someone's behaviour patterns are different, 
> > and it's important that people get treatment for it.  (And important that 
> > someone find a treatment, if one doesn't exist.)
> 
> Why? Did you never hear of something called discrimination? It is when a 
> person or persons discriminate against one or more other persons. We have 
> it with race and with sex. There are also a multitude of other forms. 
> Basically by picking on one small characteristic of a person and calling 
> them unnatural is discrimination. If it is so unnatural how come there 
> are so many instances of it?

How come there are so many instances of drug abuse, rape, and murder?
Are these things okay also since there are so many instances of it?
It is also very annoying when someone puts homosexuality in the same
class as race and sex.

> > > > Marriage is optional,
> > > > it's forced upon you in India maybe but not by the Church.
> > > 
> > > 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! 
> > 
> > But if you're not a Christian, it doesn't really matter, now does it?
> 
> Yes it does!
> 
> > > 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. 
> > 
> > Marriage is a unity, and when you get married you're saying that you'll
> > spend the rest of your life with that person.  You can get married in a
> > Church if you like, or a synagogue (sp?), or a temple, or in a courtroom
> > if you have no religion.
> 
> Really, I always wondered how you did it :P

OK, but the option is there for you to get married in a courtroom by
signing a paper.

> > The only thing I really disagree with you upon is the "murder" (or more 
> > precisely, the "killing") of emotion.  I think if you try, you'll get what 
> > seen like new emotions, but are actually just the old one in a new form.
> > You need to accept your feelings and confront them, but even then they're
>  not 
> > gone *forever*.
> 
> Actually you will strengthen other emotions but more importantly your 
> ability to "control" them.

But they will still come back some other way to haunt you.  No one has total 
control.

> > Yeah.  "So you see, folks, we need to kill these animals or else they'll
> > die!"  (That's a South Park joke)  It has to do with evening out the
> > population of the species and the food so that there's enough to go around.
> 
> So we kill one species which puts another at risk so we fix it by killing 
> them? Where do you draw the line? What if the first one was at the bottom 
> of your personal favourite "the food chain" so we keep going all the way 
> up to us? Maybe we should just start with the root of the problem and 
> press the bloody button!

Can't argue with that.  You're right, let nature take care of it.  

> > We can reason for a reason!
> 
> No it is a combination of coincidental elements which caused us to reach 
> a stage of evolution where we could do so. 

I think God made us able to reason, and it's not just a dumb luck.

> > > > 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 haven't blown it up yet, so nyeh! :P  Just the fact that we could if
> 
> But we *have* blown up *parts* and tested blowing up others. 
> 
> > we wanted shows that we are better, because animals *can't* (unless they
> 
> No it is just everyone who can, knows they won't live to tell the tale. 
> It is fear that stops us launching not respect or brains.

Whatever it is that sops us, we are smart enough to get to that stage.

> > were taught to use something that we ourselves designed.)
> 
> Or maybe they had the respect and fore thought to not consider it!

Very unlikely.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Oh.  Well we still have beter silverware.
> 
> I am sure they would disagree. What good is an ornate fork for eating 
> from a honeycomb?

You missed the point again.  Their silverware is very crude and primitive.

> > > Otters are very good plumbers!
> > 
> > What?
> 
> You know the creatures that live in rivers and build damns. They can also 
> direct the water in such a way as to limit the potential of damage during 
> floods etc. 

Great, but could they build a system of pipes that goes into their homes
and release water with the turning of a knob?

> > > 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 look how much we have advanced in the relatively short time we have
> > spent on this planet - and look at how far, say, horses have come along.
> > They have been here *longer*.  The fact that we have advanced so far in
> > such a short amount of time shows that we are superior.  This doesn't
> 
> Or good at keeping others down. Look how far the aborigines had advanced 
> before the discovery of Australia. Look today at the tribes in the 
> deserts and jungles of the world. How advanced are they?

Those are a small percentage of the population when you look at the majority 
of humankind.
 
> > But ants and bees cannot think for themselves - except for the queen.
> 
> "Soldiers" will defend the nest without direction. It is their job. 
> Workers work without the overseeing of every single task by the fat slug 
> ruling them. They have enough free thought to carry out their task and 
> ensure the future of their species and the protection of their home. They 
> work together. 

They wrok together but they work as one - the queen bee is guiding them
every step of the way.

> > Whole colonies are just run by one "person".  Ants, it is believed, 
> 
> Whereas the US has the President! One person!

But the president can be overthrown, and that might happen again soon.

> So how about
> 
> "Leviticus:20:16: And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down 
> thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be 
> put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
> 
> What does "thou shalt *kill*" imply? And does this not qualify the term 
> put to death to mean kill?

But it doesn't mean murder.  There is a difference.

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|
_|    _|  _|