🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6fHx2.1827$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > > 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.

Interesting statement. Think back on our discussion of letting a murderer 
be your baby sitter. Your point, not mine :)

Besides, consider this. The guy that delivers milk threatens to kill you. 
The same day, a convicted multiple murderer threatens to kill you. Which 
represents the bigger threat? 

Murder is only difficult the first time.

> > > > 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.

Inter-species and Intra-species relationships are not comparable. 

Men have relationships with other men. Women have relationships with 
other women. And the two have relationships with each other. The 
relationship can be very slight e.g. the guy at the gas station. Or more 
involved, e.g. colleagues at work,. Or more intimate, e.g. friends. Or 
completely intimate I.e. sexual e.g. lovers. 

All animals have the same relationships. Obviously slightly different due 
to sociological differences between species, but to all intents and 
purposes, the same. 

Now, bring in an inter-species relationship causes problems. They are 
different. 

Friendship and dependence on other species is common in many animal 
species including Man. But, going beyond that to a pure intimate and 
sexual level is considered abhorrent by our society. It is also unnatural 
since any "off-spring" would be vastly gentically mutated. 

Since we consider ourselves to be "higher beings" we do not condone sex 
with "lower beings". This is another example of the human arrogance we 
have discussed at length previously. Personally I find it abhorrent and 
am happy for the laws restricting it to remain in force. I do not agree 
with any laws to constrain relationships between people be they proper 
laws or some opinion listed in the Bible. 

I have tried to demonstrate that homosexuality is not "unnatural" since 
it is a genetic "fault" in the individual. Look at any animal species and 
you will see homosexuality is rampant and not looked "down" on by the 
species. It is only us with our "morality" and feeling of "superiority" 
that make such rules.

> > > > 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.

Proof should be here or you should keep such ridiculous remarks to 
yourself.

> > > 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.

Huh? We will not have stone age man appear in the USA. We will not have 
the iron age all over again in Europe.

New societies would develop from existing societies so would be 
advancement not new creations. They would undoubtably have their own God 
or progress to the point where they need *no* supreme being governing 
their thoughts.

Christianity is a relatively "new" invention. There are many religions 
that have been around for longer and believed by more people than 
Christianity. 

> > > > 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.

Have you seen the defence to this case. Apparently they were merely 
collecting names for a never to come judgement day when abortion became 
illegal so that they could prosecute all on the list for crimes in times 
past. How would stopping now remove you from this list? 

Remember WW2. There are still "war crimes" being tried today. The 
defendants have obviously stopped what they are doing now, but that does 
not protect them. 

> > > 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.  

If a guy who has bombed clinics and committed other crimes and has 
publicly declared a sniper responsible for the death of a colleague as a 
hero, states that he would like to se me dead, I would see him as capable 
if not of carrying out the act of making it happen. This is not paranoia. 
This is simple deduction. 

If the guy at the coffee house made the same remark, I would not consider 
it to carry the same weight. 

This is not paranoia. It is common sense. Paranoia would be looking for a 
threat where none exists. E.g. remove the threat and still feeling under 
threat is paranoia. Constantly looking for a possible threat is paranoia. 

Live for today, because tomorrow may never come.

> > > 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

My choice = *live* the *life* that *I* choose the way *I* choose it.

Your choice = give into threat,. Live a life of *somebody else's* 
choosing. Live that "life" under *constant threat* should I *not* want 
this "new" *forced* lifestyle. Open myself up to possible threat from 
anyone wanting to take advantage of me. 

> > > > > 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.

The fight against terrorism is the fight for freedom. Choice. Saving 
lives is an added bonus. Lives are used as bargaining chips by 
terrorists. Giving in puts everybody's life at risk from becoming a 
bargaining chip and the lifestyle that we choose. 

> > > 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.

It is the choice of less risk then. No action may or may not lead to the 
threat becoming reality. Giving in means losing your free will and 
remaining under the threat until they day you die and opening yourself up 
to further threat. Fighting means that the terrorist will be brought to 
justice one way or another. The risk is minimal since you have the common 
sense to pick the correct path and with the knowledge of the threat can 
take preventative measures. The lack of risk has nothing to do with the 
bravado aspect. You perceive a threat therefore fighting it is facing a 
perceived risk. 

You will never convince me that giving in has any advantage whatsoever 
for me or anyone else. 

Twist my words as you will. I don't give a fuck. You are obviously blind 
to the losses incurred by your "cowardly" giving in approach so do as you 
will. You say you value life but you obviously do not. The ability to 
wake up in the morning is common to everyone. The ability to wake up your 
own man is common only to those that choose their own path without 
external interference and do not allow themselves to be forced into 
decisions they would not make freely. 

> > > > > > 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.

I was not questioning the interpretation of your made up word. I was 
questioning the relevance. Sorry that it was not clear.

> > > > > 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.

Such as? Name more than homosexuality since your views on this seem 
clear. Since you are a homophobic I cannot really take this as a valid 
argument. You are using the "outdated" bible to back your weightless 
arguments against the practice so please choose some alternatives.

Also try to suggest a variety of areas rather than limiting the bible as 
you are. Picking one issue here and there is not adding weight to your 
argument. It is proving how little of the bible is even slightly 
relevant. 
You yourself have basically written off much of the Old Testament as 
being superseded by the New Testament, yet with no mention of Book, 
Chapter. 

-- 
Mark