Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 22:20:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
992 times
|
| |
|
|
James Brown wrote:
> Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this:
> both walking and sex are activities that can be undertaken for their original
> purpose, or for other purposes, or some combination thereof. Arbitrarily
> declaring that people who choose to do one activity for a secondary purpose are
> ill, and people who do so with a different activity are not, strikes me as
> mildly hypocritical.
What other purposes of walking can u think of? One foot in front of the
other causes a displacement away from where you was standing, enjoyment
of it is irrelevant - you are still walking therefore moving.
> > No, the purpose of walking is to move - when people walk for enjoyment
> > they are still moving - are they not?
> No it isn't. That's simply restating it. That is the equivalent of saying
> that the purpose of (sexual) intercourse is copulation. Walking is a specific
> type of movement, that is fairly efficient for most needs.
Well it is isn't it - the natural purpose of sex is for reproduction -
it's just that humans have decided to mess around with nature.
> In general, movement (in an evolutionary sense) is to go somewhere - to acheive
> an objective (go to shelter, get food, get away from the predator, etc). The
> treadmill from the other post is an excellent example: movement without going
> anywhere.
But you are still moving relative to the tread otherwise you would shoot
of it.
> It does not acheive the >original< purpose of walking, just as sex
> for pleasure (heterosexual or homosexual) does not acheive the >original<
> purpose of walking.
Well heterosexual is natural homosexual is not - otherwise people
through all the ages would have been, the only reason why people are
homosexual these days is that it gets into their head and messes with
their mind.
> Hmm. I will again grant that this is valid - in that there are some (not many)
> illnesses where the subject is unaware that they are ill, and actively resists
> attempts to convince them otherwise, however, the quote you used to express
> that is logically unsound, and didn't (to me) accurately convey your concept.
The quote I used was dubious but I could not think of anything
different.
> I think you're taking a huge leap here, and it doesn't follow, not that I can
> see. How does societal acceptance of an activity that occurs between two
> consenting adults, in privacy, lead to societal acceptance of various
> destructive activities that are all either blatant abuses of power or violation
> of basic freedoms? (or both)
What about euthansia - that can be two consenting adults but it's still
killing.
> The main question I have for you, is this: On what basis do you refer to
> homosexuality as an illness?
People going against their natural heterosexuality - penis goes into
vagina - simple.
> Ok. It was perhaps phrased poorly. As to what formed my beliefs about
> homosexuality, they are based on a combination of a number of factors,
> primarily discussion (rarely heated), reading, logical cosideration, and
> societal and religious influences/pressures. My personal sexual preference
> does not have a bearing on my beliefs about homosexuality, excepting that it(my
> sexual preference) is a part of my basic psychological makeup.
Acknowledged. Unfortunately since we come from different backgrounds
and cultures our logical thinking is different. Was you brought up in a
Christian background? I say this because a lot of USA-people mention
God a lot (maybe it's a stereotype but anyway).
> > What do you consider it to be then?
> I consider it to be (and forgive the p.c. speak) a lifestyle choice. It is no
> more to be condemned or remarked upon than, say, the city someone chooses to
> live in.
I don't think you can dumb it down to lifestyle - it's deadly serious -
the whole thing is making life too complicated - complications make
people think too much and get upset - why won't people just live their
lives and be normal?
> > BTW, this is a opinion expressed here not necessarily my own.
> Ok, but, since you asked first, what is your opinion?
I think that my opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) <snipped most of the back and forth about 'what is walking'> (...) But you are not going anywhere. Therefore you are not fulfilling the purpose of walking. (...) People throughout the ages have been. Check your ancient history. (...) "it" gets (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) I have stayed out of this debate until now, but this needs a response. First off, have you been living in a cave?? I am serious, didn't you ever study history? Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of man. If it wasn't, why was (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) The point of walking is clearly to get from one place to another for some purpose...not just idle movement. (...) The reason that sex feels good is because the organisms for which that was true, procreated, and the others died out. The (usual) (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) No problem - it's just easier to follow if I don't have to hunt back down the thread to figure out if I'm remembering something correctly. (...) Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this: both walking and sex (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
