🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AWcy2.807$pE6...@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...
> > 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.

It does account for it. When deciding a fine income etc are taken into 
account. This *is* defined in law. 

> > > 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.

Not the same situation with you if you are referring to homosexuality. 
Just look back over your comments from the last few months. 

> > Also some regard for animals.
> 
> Right, it's okay to kill them and not fuck them.  We're really looking
> out for them.

Huh?

> > > 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.

Wrong.

> > 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.

But then going onto to say that abnormal characteristics should not be 
accepted and were not acceptable to God.

> > 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).

Some != All.

> > > 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.

Oh I am sure ... <sarcasm - used to agree with your point before pointing 
out the obvious flaw>. You have followed this principle in discussions 
before so I assumed you would follow this one.

> > But what if they failed to take care of it for you?
> 
> That didn't happen, now did it?  

Read the question. What ***if***?

> If I were one of the doctors on the
> list, and I chose not to fight, then the other doctors still would
> have.

Maybe they would have all shared your cowardly approach. Then what?

Besides, it was not the Doctors that instigated the case. Someone else 
did and rang each listed victim to inform them of the threat and ask for 
their support in the trial.

> > > [irrelevant discussion about terrorism]
> > 
> > Why irrelevant?
> 
> Because I don't think you can call them terrorists.

Then look up it's definition.

> > > 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?

Confused actually. You do seem to have developed a little back bone but 
why wait?

> > > > 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.

Yet you always quote Leviticus. Maybe you could update your sources and 
then we will reconsider the issue.

> > > > 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.

What I originally said was ...

"Seriously though, there are some sexual activities I would never get 
into [...] I also would never even consider sex with a man or an animal. 
All of this is personal preference.
 
I have not been told not to, I decided I did not want to. Other people 
feel differently. As long as both partners are willing so be it. 

So what if someone wants to lick an animals balls and comes back to tell 
the tale. As long as it does not affect me or mine I do not care. I think 
it is sick, but without getting into all that again, it does exhibit 
itself in the animal kingdom as a whole."

OK!

> > 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.

Huh? When did I say that?

And you accuse me of putting words in you mouth. Twice in this response 
you have told me that I have said something which I have not. The first 
was simple to disprove. This, I would have no idea where to start. Nor am 
I completely clear what you are talking about.

I never suggested jail terms for homosexuals. The closest I ever said was 
that it used to be an imprisonable offence and then the world grew up a 
little.

I await your retraction.