🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.113188755...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I see your point.  However there is still no official law about
this.  This was pretty much the discussion from the beginning, if you
don't actually break the law you shouldn't get punished for it.  It's
also unfair how some people are punished more harshly than others
with no law documenting it.  (Remember the "Bill Gates stealing a loaf
of read" example?)

> > > 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.

You pretty much made my point for me.  "But, going beyond that to a
pure intimate and sexual level is considered abhorrent by our
society."  Does that mean society has a phobia?  And what if it was
discovered that this (bestiality) was caused by DNA and so forth
(making it another of nature's ways to limit our species' numbers).
Would that make it okay?

> > > > > 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.

Okay, proof - http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/dallas.html
Happy?

> > > > 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.

There are still some islands out there (around Tibet mostly) that we
believe are still uninhabited.  There are still socieities already
that look down on electricity and the like.

> > > > > 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? 

I think an official apology might do the trick.  I'm not the
"terrorists" though so, no, I can't say for sure.

> 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. 

Have they remorsed?  Have they apologised?

> > > > 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. 

The "threat" hasn't been removed.  He still has his opinions despite the
fact that he was ordered to take them down.  So feeling under threat when
the threat has not been removed is paranoia how?

> > > > 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 == wake up dead possibly the next day.  Spend the rest
of your life worrying about when your neighourhood will be blown to
bits.

> 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. 

My choice == Let someone else take care of the "threat", not have to
worry about getting bombed, kick back + relax, etc.

The choice is obvious.

[irrelevant discussion about terrorism]

> > > > 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. 

The "minimal" risk in *your* choice is still more risky than *my* choice.

> > > > > > 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. 

That's the only one (except maybe abortion).

> Since you are a homophobic I cannot really take this as a valid
> argument. 

You know that's not any more true than saying you're a zoophobe.

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