🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.112ff8f8d...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <Bubx2.1614$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
> tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > Regardless of the "rose tinted spectacle" view of justice, the burden of
> > > proof on the prosecution does not remove the burden of defence for the
> > > defendant. Without defence, the prosecution would have a much easier time
> > > "proving" their case.
> > 
> > Yes but you only need to present your alibi, not have to prove it.
> 
> So why are alibis "checked"? 

Yes, but it's still not such a burden on the suspect since some alibis
are "uncheckable", and other times friends or family will vouch for him
or her whether the alibi is true or not.

> > > > > But a group capable of the original crime are unlikely to give up
>  after a 
> > > > > "warning". 
> > > > It has not been said that they were capable of the crime.  They weren't
> > > > prosecuted for bombing the labs, and they shouldn't be punished as such.
> > > A number of the group have already committed terrorist activities such as 
> > > clinic bombings so they seem capable enough to me. 
> > If that's the case, then that's what the suit should have been about.
> 
> No prison terms have been served by some of them for these and other 
> activities in the past. The doctor threat is a different issue so that is 
> what this case was about.

I assume you mean "No, prison terms" rather than "No prison terms".
Anyway, people who have served prison terms are allowed to express
their thoughts and feelings just like anyone else.

> > > > > The bible does not account for the changing role of women in society.
>  It 
> > > > > denounces murder in one breath and advocates the removal of members of
>  
> > > > > society deemed abhorrent to God - e.g. Homosexuals. Society has moved 
> > > > > beyond the prejudices of 2000 years ago. The bible has not.
> > > > 
> > > > You may very well call it a prejudice.  Bestiality is still a crime
> > > > here, isn't that the same prejudice?  How far do you think we really
> > > > have come?
> > > 
> > > Further than the bible.
> > 
> > It's really a step backwards for man to accept them
> 
> What, changing roles of women? The fight against racism? These are steps 
> backwards? How?

Accepting homosexuality is a step backwards (esp. for the government)
because doing so has made them total hypocrites.

> Before you respond, how about
> 
> Leviticus:15:19: And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh 
> be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her 
> shall be unclean until the even.
> 
> Do you really agree that we should isolate a woman once a month for an 
> entire week over a purely natural process. 

That's the Old Testament.  You'll find that a lot of the New Testament
actually *replaces* parts of the Old Testament.  The "uncleanlinesses"
are some of those parts.

> > , but tossing our
> > opinions back and forth isn't really going to accomplish anything so
> > I digress.
> 
> But isn't that all we have been doing all along? 

Yes, but including facts to support them.  Tossing "bare metal" opinions
around is pointless.

> > > > > BTW, isn't masturbation banned under Catholic religion. Another area 
> > > > > where the bible governs and act once deemed abhorrent and now accepted
>  by 
> > > > > society and even encouraged. 
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, that's one of the things that Jesus announced was okay.
> > > > Before that, the Jews did have it banned.
> > > 
> > > You must refer me to the chapter on that one ;)
> > 
> > Actually, it's interesting because I found some articles that say
> > masturbation was never even mentioned at all =\
> 
> So is ...
> 
> Leviticus:15:16: And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, 
> then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 
> 
> Leviticus:15:17: And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed 
> of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.
> 
> .... referring to masturbation or intercourse?

Again, the "uncleanlinesses" are the parts that were removed.

> > > > I still maintain that the Bible is not outdated as it does not
> > > > require updating.
> > > 
> > > You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe we should still stone people to 
> > > death or burn them alive as is dictated by your bible that requires no 
> > > updates.
> > 
> > That's another of the things that Jesus said to stop doing.  He preached
> > love towards even your enemies, (turning the extra cheek) so it's
> > reasonable to assume that includes not burning/torching your enemies.
> 
> And this from the one who in this thread so very recently spent a great 
> deal of time telling me how we *should* be carrying out God's wish of 
> putting to death people of a certain persuasion!

Actually, I said I'd rather they be cured than killed.  And there *is*
psychiatric treatment they can receive, it's been done before and it
can still be done.

> > > > > Difference is, I back my "perceptions" of fact with reasons not just 
> > > > > expect them to be taken at face value.
> > > > 
> > > > So did I.  You say the Bible outdated, I say it isn't - we are both
>  backing
> > > > our perceptions with actual facts, and yet mine requires an IMHO for
>  some 
> > > > reason?
> > > 
> > > I have yet to see any backing to your comments. Backing normally follows 
> > > a week or so of discussion requesting fact or backup and receiving 
> > > argument back until you eventually relent by either cutting the point or 
> > > mentioning something useful.
> > 
> > Fact - the Bible has rules which apply to the various societies throughout
> > time in our world that serve as guidelines for staying out of Hell.
> 
> Only those societies which follow Christianity in some form. This, if 
> nothing else suggests that given the inconsistencies between world 
> religions, there is little gain to be had but choosing Christianity over 
> some other religion.
> 
> All religion is merely a way for people to try to come to terms with 
> death and loss and trade with the unlikely promise that it all had a 
> point and we end up more than mere worm food. Comforting to those willing 
> to have "faith" in such things. Ridiculous to others. 

Again, just "bare metal" opinions.

> The bible contains a moral code dating to a time more than 2000 years 
> ago. Society has evolved a great deal from that time. The bible enforces 
> strictures which no longer apply. Therefore: Fact - The bible *is* an 
> outdated moral code. 

There are more societies than the high-tech ones you and I have.
Lots of third world countries and the like.  Therefore it is a fact
that the Bible is *not* outdated.

> Would you consider a book describing the way one should act at a social 
> occasion written in Victorian times to be applicable today? I think not. 
> A book only 100 years or so old is so completely out of date it would be 
> ludicrous to consider it applicable today. A book more than 2000 years 
> old is surely subject to these same rules.
> 
> As for one area which needs updating - God's view on drugs. Do they get 
> you sent to hell or not?

Who's to say?  I *believe* that the way you act on drugs *can* get you
sent to Hell, but taking them and then not doing anything won't.
Remember that drugs are as natural as plants and that even though it's
a good law that people in our societies not take them, (as Alex pointed
out) there are some societies of monks and such that have learned to
take them responsibly.  I really don't see how God would care one way
or another.  I think Matthew 22:21 fits here:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
God the things that are God's."

> > > > Actually this implied a successful one - that's why the "terrorists"
> > > > would come back for revenge.
> > > 
> > > This is a possibility. In the mean time, the victims can continue with 
> > > their lives the way they choose to and deal with any subsequent threat as 
> > > and when. This is called "life".
> > 
> > If I really believed thought they were terrorists, I would keep
> > worrying about their next move for practically rest of my days -
> > this is not called "life".
> 
> If the "terrorists" have been adequately dealt with there is nothing to 
> fear. If they haven't there is. Therefore no action means the threat 
> remains forever.

Wrong, if the "terrorists" have been dealt with, then I have to worry
forever about them getting revenge.  There is something to worry about.
If they corss my name off the list and leave me alone, then there is
*nothing* to worry about.

> > > The immediate problem has been removed. They will be somewhat more 
> > > confident with one successful prosecution under their belts that 
> > > subsequent threats can be similarly removed.
> > 
> > Yes, but it's not just "threats" they have to worry about now.
> 
> Now that sounds threatening ;) Pop in a name and address and get out your 
> wallet ;)
> 
> What do they have to worry about now then?

If the "terrorists" truly did bomb the abortion labs, and have access
to the adresses of the doctors' houses, I think it's obvious.

> > > > > Besides, even giving in will not change the fact that you will remain 
> > > > > under threat unless you keep to your path chosen by the "bully". The 
> > > > > threat will always be there unless you fight it. 
> > > > 
> > > > Other people on the list would've fought the "threat" - so I would
> > > > simply not be threatened by them until the point where they get sued
> > > > and lost, then not have anything to worry about for the rest of my
> > > 
> > > But if they are as you say going to come back anyway, what is the 
> > > advantage in hiding "under the sheets". 
> > 
> > Because when they come back, it won't be at me - it will be at the ones
> > who have hurt them *personally*.
> 
> They still have their original gripe with you. You do not get of the hook 
> that easily. 

I have stopped giving abortions - what I have done *pales* in comparison
to what the other doctors did to them personally.  You know why?  Because
I used to give abortions, where the other doctors are *still giving*
abortions in addition to the fact that they have hurt the "terrorists"
financially for at least 7 years.

> > > > life.  They wouldn't be mad at me, since I was not the one that sued
> > > 
> > > If they were mad at you in the first place, they still are.
> > 
> > Not as mad as they are at the other doctors, (who would be their target)
> > and they might not even be as mad at me as they were before.
> 
> If they are less mad then they really have no point. What is the point in 
> striking out for a cause only to forget it about and replace it with 
> revenge? 

I think you'll find that's how revenge is.  Suppose there were some gangs
nearby you picked random houses to loot through.  Now a neighbourhood
watch would most likely start.  It would fight against *all* forms of
theft in their neighborhood.  Now, supposing one gang in particular
ransacked one of the neighbourhood watch's member's houses (and for
some silly reason left their 'calling card' behind).  Don't you think
the neighbourhood watch will fight esepcially hard against that one
gang and not fight so hard against the rest?  

Now, maybe after that one gang is caught, they will go back to to
fighting theft in general.

> > > > them.  And if they didn't come back (you seem to think they wouldn't)
> > > > then what have I to worry about now?  That I didn't get a few million
> > > > dollars?  I'm a doctor in this scenario, so I wouldn't really need the 
> > > > financial support.
> > > 
> > > So you prefer someone else to fight for you. Better than just giving in I 
> > > suppose but still very low in my opinion.
> > 
> > Possibly, but if I have other things in my life I need to worry about,
> > then I should tend to those instead.
> 
> I think you might prioritise a little. Threats tend to get moved quite 
> high up on the to do list.

Not if someone else chooses to take care of them for me.

> > > > > > > > Is emailing the sites nicely as I have said before risky???
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Actually it would probably help prove the threat should the site
> > >  refuse 
> > > > > > > to remove the information. Besides, one should not be forced to
>  email 
> > > > > > > polite messages to terrorists.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Terrorists?  No.  These people?  Maybe.  Force is not really an
>  issue
> > > > > > either as I said before it's what I would *choose* to do.
> > > > > 
> > > > > A choice made under duress is hardly a choice you have freely made. 
> > 
> > Either way, you're under duress and you're making a choice.
> 
> So giving into the threat is a choice made under duress. Not doing so is 
> *not* since you have not changed your course. You have not allowed your 
> will to be forced. 

*Both* of them are choices made under duress.  Anyway, my will to live
has not been "forced" out of me under the choice I have made.

> > > > > So you have spent ages standing up for yourself and wrongly so. It is 
> > > > > saddening that you would not have similar vigour in a real situation.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know what I would *really* do as I am not inc the situation.
> > > > I don't know what you would do either.  Have you ever been in a
> > > > life-or-death situation such as this one?
> > > 
> > > Not per se. But I do know that in a similar situation, I would not lie 
> > > back and take it. I would not want the threat hanging over me for the 
> > > rest of my life. 
> > 
> > And you still don't see why the threat wouldn't be hanging over me
> > in my decision?
> 
> Do you see why it would?

You just don't get it.  If they were terrorists, you would not fight
them and risk all.  You have implied it was a cowardly decision for me
to let others fight for me, remember?  

Now wouldn't that imply that fighting them is a brave decision?
Then what's so brave about it if there's no risk involved in fighting
them?

> > > and it affiliates itself with Christianity. 
> > 
> > Yes, this is what cults often do.
> 
> Does;t that kind of tell you something about Christianity ;P

Judging Christianity by cults would be like judging White people
by the KKK.

> > > If it is, your church is an example of homophobia let off the hook
> > > along with many other things.
> > 
> > Not really, since homophobia doesn't actually exist, and as I said
> 
> Course it does. We covered this earlier and it definitely exists. It is 
> as real as racism and sexism. I take it you do believe those exist :P

Saying someone is homophobic is just like saying the government's
"zoophobic".

> > before the governments of the world are "guilty" of the same thing.
> 
> Those same Governments who are allowing single sex marriage and 
> homosexuals into position within the military etc. I think not.

I meant in reguard to bestiality.

> > > I thought you were actually going to quote some cases there. Should have 
> > > known better.
> > 
> > Hey, I'm looking through the search engines here and can't find a damn
> 
> Why do you need to look? You said "I can offer multiple cases of 
> racism...". Obviously you cannot. 

I do remember a few but my memory is not what it used to be so I won't
state them in case they might be inaccurate.

> > thing :(  All I find is crap about how the KKK wanted to clean up the
> > highways or speak out against drugs or something, the government denied
> > letting them do it, then the KKK sued and won.  Not really what I'm
> 
> Ironic ;)
> 
> > looking for.  I know I heard something that I could use a long time ago
> > but I can't seem to find it at the moment.
> 
> So give me the gist of the case while you look.

Some people sued the KKK (can't remember if they were Black or White or
what) but the KKK won based on the First Amendment (free speech of
course).  Maybe it was someone else who was praising the KKK, as I said
my memory's not what it used to be.  

_|    _|  _|_|_|  Visit the Kombat Pavilion today.
_|  _|    _|  _|  http://come.to/the.kombat.pavilion
_|_|      _|_|_|
_|  _|    _|      Change "Geoshitties" to "Geocities"
_|    _|  _|      To reply via e-mail.