Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 May 1999 04:23:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Denscombe writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> > But you are not going anywhere. Therefore you are not fulfilling the
> > purpose of walking.
>
> But you are moving - the purpose of walking.
OK, I thought we'd hashed this out, but apparantly I underestimated your
capacity for obstinence. Walking is moving. Your statement above is the
logical equivalent of saying the purpose of carrot is vegtable.
> > People throughout the ages have been. Check your ancient history.
>
> Precisely - why are people dredging out ancient history. Lets go back
> to Roman times and get ourselves killed - back to the past!
Actually, until it started to go corrupt, it was arguably a more tolerant and
"civilized" country than most in the western world.
Besides, you were the first person to bring it up.
> > "it" gets into their head. Care to clarify that?
>
> The intial thought of homosexuality - if no-one knew it existed no-one
> would ever have those feelings in the first place - the power of the
> mind.
Then, do tell, where did it come from? If it exists in the mind of man, as it
clearly does, it must have come from somewhere - either we have always had it,
or it was put there by some outside agency. Which is your prefered theory?
> > How is euthanasia even remotely relevant? Stick to the topic, please.
> You said it was about having 2 consenting adults - this was a
> counter-example.
It's only a counter-example in your opinion - I also happen to think euthanasia
is just fine, so it didn't advance your position one iota. I have no desire to
die old and senile, having caused years of emotional and financial hardship to
the people I love.
> > That is not sufficient grounds for your argument. Using the same premise,
> > people who cook are ill, because they go against their natural diet.
> There is no natural diet - only food which makes the person survive -
> otherwise they will become ill.
Go read some biology texts. Every living creature has an optimum diet. Ours
is not in fact cooked. Our society dictates that we eat cooked food, not our
biology.
> > As I have mentioned before, provide some medical proof, please.
> Why don't you prove it isn't?
The DSMIII-R, which is the guide used by psychologists and psychiatrists to
determine what is and is not a mental disorder or disease, does not have an
entry for homosexuality.
Your turn.
> > Who determines normal?
> Who determines deviance?
That sentence has the identical logical meaning. By rephrasing it and throwing
it back at me, I assume you don't have an answer?
> > 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.
>
> OK, I'll let you do a concluding statement then in response to this one
> - make it quite short and we'll leave it at that - no-one is going to
> win methinks.
>
> The opinion I have expressed here states that:
>
> Homosexuality is an illness or false illness created by the power of the
> mind.
No, it is not. It is a choice.
> Simple sexual mechanics dictate that it is unnatural.
By "natural", I will take you to mean something the body is meant to do. Homo
Sapiens are not (or rather, are no longer) biologically amphibious. If this is
the grounds you are using, then swimming is unnatural. No more trips to the
lake, eh?
> The point of a serious relationship is to eventually procreate (some
> couples will decide not to but there is the potential)
The point of a serious relationship is whatever the people in said relationship
want it to be.
> It creates social problems that don't need to exist.
Homosexuality does not, in and of itself, create social problems. Intolerance
and ignorance of homosexuality cause social problems.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) Except for the slavery bit. Slavery is evil. But when we're comparing "kinds", early Roman slavery was a bit better than some. Still evil, but it did have the following positive merits: - slaves were captured as a side effect of war, not via (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| On Wed, 19 May 1999 13:17:11 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) ^^^^^^^^ (...) The context defines, but I cannot find a definition in my dictionary. If anyone could be bothered, please? (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:21:03 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) Thanks for the link. I do read offline to reduce costs, so firing up the connection for a definition is prohibitive, cost-wise. It is also indicative of a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
