Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 1999 23:21:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.MISSOURI.EDUantispam
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
Carbon 60 wrote:
>
> 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.
The point of walking is clearly to get from one place to another for
some purpose...not just idle movement.
> > 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.
The reason that sex feels good is because the organisms for which that
was true, procreated, and the others died out. The (usual) reason
people have sex is because it feels good. I don't think natural is a
very good term here.
> > 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.
Hunh?
> > 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.
First, I want to emphasize, that you are without historical clue.
Second, by the exact logic that you use to label homosexual acts
unnatural, (hetero) sex after vasectomy or hysterectomy is also
unnatural. Do you have a problem with those acts?
Third, what exactly do you mean by your last statement in that chunk,
and can you support it even slightly?
> > 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.
I agree. So? Are you suggesting that societal acceptance of
homosexuality (such as it exists) has caused euthanasia? And, there's
nothing wrong with euthanasia. Dr. Kervorkian (sp?) should receive the
Nobel prize for peace.
> > 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.
What if heterosexuality is natural for you, but not others? How would
you ever know what it felt like to have sexual urges where men were the
objects of your lust? Without knowing this, why would you condemn it?
What would you personally do if you started feeling sexual attraction
toward men?
> > 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).
Meaning, that you have a weak founding in logic? Most people that I
know (without getting into the nitty gritty of epistemology) who are
familiar with logic don't believe that you and I _can_ have different
logical thinking due to our cultural differences. What are you getting
at with the Christian background thing?
> > > 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?
I started to write "If considering homosexuality a lifestyle choice for
you makes things too complicated, then don't. For people who are open
to more options, why not let them?" and then I decided that this whole
thing must be a troll. Since there is no such thing as thinking too
much, the opposite is rather the problem, I guess I've put too much
effort into your argument. Sorry.
> > > 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.
How is that possible?
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
