🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.11313886b...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> In article <PCxx2.1761$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
> 
> "not such a" != "not at all"
> 
> You seem to get my point now. :) 

Yeah, I guess you're right.  Being a suspect can be a bitch (whether
you're innocent or not).

> > > 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".
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > Anyway, people who have served prison terms are allowed to express
> > their thoughts and feelings just like anyone else.
> 
> And they should also be punished for future wrong doings. As they have 
> been.

It doesn't mean that everything they say from now on becomes worse.

> > > 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.
> 
> In what way do they become hypocrites?

Saying "No one should discriminate based on sexual preference, it's
really not fair since they can't help it and even though there's no
actual scientific evidence, I'm positive a gene is somehow responsible
for it.  But bestiality is illegal" is hypocrital.  I don't see how
anyone can think becoming a hypocrite is advancing.

> > > 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.
> 
> ROFL.

Like it or not, it's been done.

> > that the Bible is *not* outdated.
> 
> So you have to all live by an old moral code while we await other 
> societies to catch us up. Ridiculous. So when they catch up, what then?

The Bible was written for old societies and new.  It doesn't matter
whether they are all new or not.  Besides, new ones will spring up.

> > > 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.
> 
> Only if you are paranoid.
> 
> > If they corss my name off the list and leave me alone, then there is
> > *nothing* to worry about.
> 
> When you name is crosse off, it means you have been successfully killed. 
> I think that is bad news.

Er...  removed from the list.

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

Maybe, but if you really thought they were capable of it, then *that's*
where the paranoia is.  

> > Anyway, my will to live
> > has not been "forced" out of me under the choice I have made.
> 
> survive != live.

Yes, your choice == survival, mine == really living

> > > > 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.  
> 
> So why *do* we fight terrorism then? 

I always thought we fought terrorism to save lives.

> > 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?
> 
> Because most times fighting back is merely calling their bluff. No risk 
> whatsoever. Standing up to face possible danger is brave. 

But if they really were capable of it (as you have said), then they're
not really bluffing.

> > > > > 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".
> 
> Huh? 

Afraid of those who commit bestiality.

> > > > 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.
> 
> So it is not acceptable to society. So what? Neither are pedophiles.
> 
> How this relates to the fact that the bible is out of date WRT today's 
> society is beyond me. Or are you trying to say that because a very very 
> small percentage of the bible contains morals which we still hold today, 
> it is all relevant. 

I'm saying that some of our "advancemants" that the Bible lacks are mere
hypocrisies.

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