🚀 go-pugleaf

This is in reference to <MPG.1132c78f1...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> 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.

Then the law should change so that it accounts for all that.

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

I don't know, even charging $1,000,000 dollars wouldn't be enough to
"hurt" him and much more than that would be an act of greed on the
part of the government.  Hard to say where to draw the line.

> > 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

Exactly the same situation with me!  Case closed.

> Also some regard for animals.

Right, it's okay to kill them and not fuck them.  We're really looking
out for them.

> > 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. 

The real explanation (for both of 'em) is that it's a mental illness.

> > > > > > 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.

[snip]

> 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.

You misread what he said, he was trying to say that those weren't a
normal characteristics for people to have.

> > > > 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. 

There are some (remember the Amish are still around).

> > > 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. 

You aren't them, so you're not sure no matter how sure you *think* you
are.

> > > 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.

Alright, good point - to some people, apologies don't mean a thing.
To others, an apology might actually make a difference.  Everybody's
different.

> > 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. 

If my name is removed from the list, *and* someone else gets him to take
down his page, then I have the best of both worlds and there's nothing
to worry about.

> > > 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?

That didn't happen, now did it?  If I were one of the doctors on the
list, and I chose not to fight, then the other doctors still would
have.

> > [irrelevant discussion about terrorism]
> 
> Why irrelevant?

Because I don't think you can call them terrorists.

> > 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? 

I'd keep trying for a little while, that way I could use their refusal
as evidence in the lawsuit.  Yes, I would take action then, happy?

> 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.

LOL.

> > > 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 ;)

No, there is still mentioning of it in the New Testament also.

> > > 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. 

Alex said he thought it was okay.  You did not.

> 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. 

You said you were happy with the fact that they were going to jail
for it.

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