Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 1999 23:36:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1213 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Denscombe writes:
> James Brown wrote: • <snipped most of the back and forth about 'what is walking'>
> > 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.
But you are not going anywhere. Therefore you are not fulfilling the purpose
of walking.
> > 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
People throughout the ages have been. Check your ancient history.
> homosexual these days is that it gets into their head and messes with
> their mind.
"it" gets into their head. Care to clarify that?
> > 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.
How is euthanasia even remotely relevant? Stick to the topic, please.
> > 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.
That is not sufficient grounds for your argument. Using the same premise,
people who cook are ill, because they go against their natural diet.
As I have mentioned before, provide some medical proof, please.
> > 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).
Irrelevant.
> > > 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?
Who determines 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.
Well, unless you're playing devil's advocate, I think I've got a pretty good
idea, and, to be honest, I don't see much point in continuing. You seem
unwilling to shift your position, state it clearly, or defend it.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) But you are moving - the purpose of walking. (...) Precisely - why are people dredging out ancient history. Lets go back to Roman times and get ourselves killed - back to the past! (...) The intial thought of homosexuality - if no-one knew it (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) 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. (...) Well it is isn't it - the (...) (26 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
|
|
|
|
