🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <v9Rx2.2114$PV4....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
[snip]
> 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

True, but the law *was* broken so punishment was warranted. 

> 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?)

That really depends. Think about punishment. Let's say someone is caught 
speeding. If that person is your average Joe then a modest fine would 
suffice. However applying the same fine to Bill Gates would not be 
punishment since he probably earned more than that on the drive to the 
court house. 

I understand what you are saying, but you do have to think about what 
punishment is. If it causes no "pain" to the defendant then it is not 
worth carrying out.

Besides, if Bill Gates got off with a $50 fine, how would you feel? ;)

> 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

Not fear, taste :P

Also some regard for animals.

> 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?

Not to today's society no. It would however offer explanation. 

> > > > > 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

I would not actually consider anything there as proof. But assuming you 
are referring to the comments that (not verbatim) "some success has been 
seen treating homosexuals" then I put this forward.

An alcoholic can be "cured". Not true. An alcoholic will retain the 
craving for alcohol for the rest of his/her life. They are not cured, 
they are taught to deal with the craving and not do it. The same is true 
for smokers. A smoker who has given up could return to the habit very 
easily and quickly. There is no cure just a different way of life.

I would imagine that the "success" indicated in the religious discussion 
you pointed me towards was of this principle and possibly one other. 
There is a saying, "if 100 people tell you you are dead, you lie down". 
It refers to an individual bowing to majority pressure. If a homosexual 
was constantly told it was wrong, or bad or whatever, he may give it up 
for a quiet life or may go "back into the closet". This is no cure.

Maybe you believe the shift in sexual preference backs your view of the 
practice. My response above covers this but in addition, homosexuals are 
a minority group and will likely appear heterosexual for some time before 
they admit to their true nature. This is peer pressure and fear. 

Personally, I stopped reading the article when I came across the passage 
regarding normality where the author highlights disabilities as 
abnormalities in the same sentence he decries homosexuality. This 
demonstrated extreme prejudice on his part and I hope he hasn't offended 
the many disabled people in the world. Not for grouping with 
homosexuality, but his implication of abnormality.

> Happy?

Got any more? 

Possibly someone more neutral so that it is a study of the topic.

> > > 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.

Societies that probably do not follow Christianity so I am afraid 
that your point remains irrelevant. 

> > 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.

Oh I am sure, they demand your death for performing abortion but a public 
apology absolves you completely. Think about it. 

> > 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?

Yes. Also, most of them are so old and decrepit they cannot even stand 
trial yet the punishment goes on. 

Besides, let's say someone kills your brother. Do you want justice? I 
would guess so. Now, the guy goes on TV and makes a public apology. Does 
that make it all OK? I think not.

> 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?

But from what you say, if your name is removed from the list then 
everything is OK. You would prefer to hide behind the sofa whilst 
offering an olive branch so that these people go unpunished but your name 
is removed from public display and you consider this removing the threat. 
So how is punishment and the removal of the name any different. 

> > 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.

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

But what if they failed to take care of it for you?

> The choice is obvious.

The choice is not to give in to terrorism.

> [irrelevant discussion about terrorism]

Why irrelevant?

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

Not as I see it.

Besides, let's say you email the site asking them politely to remove your 
name and they say no. What then? 

A leaflet campaign? T-Shirts with "web site threats - no thanks" 
emblazoned upon them. A campaign name "Committee for the Liberation of 
Life Threatening Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society" with 
the unfortunate acronym of CLITORIS.

> > Such as? Name more than homosexuality since your views on this seem 
> > clear. 
> 
> That's the only one (except maybe abortion).

So the only relevant portion of the bible is a few Old Testament lines 
about Homosexuality. Yet you constantly tell me that the New Testament 
overrides much of the Old. So maybe we should ignore this and ... wait we 
got rid of the bible ;)

> > 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.

No. Your feelings were made clear and in the same way you tried to force 
me into this little box.

IIRC both Alex and I absolved ourselves of any "zoo phobia" since we 
don't give a fuck. We may not find it to our taste but we do not demand 
death or cures. Sex with another Man is not to my taste either but I 
would never suggest that we "cure" it for those that do enjoy it. 

Live and let live.

My only real problem with bestiality is that the animal does not get a 
choice. I am pretty sure they would not be up for it so this is cruelty 
to animals since it is rape. 

-- 
Mark