If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#381
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
linda > wrote: > i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still > say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. > ;-) Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the Duke's defense." There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes] > however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the usenet newbie. |
Ads |
#382
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
linda > wrote: > i stand corrected only on my mistake "esteem vs image"... but i still > say it was cute the way you and many others came to THE DUKE's defense. > ;-) Jesus christ on a pogo stick lady, not one person "came to the Duke's defense." There -were- [however] numerous questions as to the accuracy of the claims that you had made. Somehow you managed to morph that into coming to the DUKE's defense. [rolls eyes] > however, i only have my opinion and not website to refer to ... Then why don't you do the right thing and learn to trim your replies instead of leaving a boatload of irrelevant text attached to your posts. That way you won't come across as -quite- the usenet newbie. |
#383
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: > > >>>Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted. >> >>Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. > > > Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you > are. > > >>You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the >>criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both >>parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a >>marriage must be between one man and one woman. > > > It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but > that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are > not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do > not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by > trees, rocks or dogs. So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting it with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only to anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria than what you arbitrarily decide on. >>I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your >>very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own >>religious beliefs) on others. > > > I call your bluff: How? You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. >>Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on >>others? > > > No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you > about the concept of "consenting adults"? Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an arbitrary criteria. >>One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical >>reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not >>brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical >>problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship" >>(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true >>marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually" >>discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro >>and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. >> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis >>"marriage". > > > Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured > hypotheticals. Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - it is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the messenger. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#384
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: > > >>>Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is noted. >> >>Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. > > > Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; you > are. > > >>You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point that the >>criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two *humans*, both >>parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than the criteria that a >>marriage must be between one man and one woman. > > > It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but > that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and dogs are > not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, rocks and dogs do > not write laws. Religious and political beliefs are held by humans, not by > trees, rocks or dogs. So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting it with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only to anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria than what you arbitrarily decide on. >>I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose your >>very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call them your own >>religious beliefs) on others. > > > I call your bluff: How? You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. >>Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view on >>others? > > > No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for you > about the concept of "consenting adults"? Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an arbitrary criteria. >>One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for medical >>reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So why not >>brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - no medical >>problem there since no children can be produced by that "relationship" >>(we'll overlook for the moment one of the main purposes of true >>marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would be "sexually" >>discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro and bro but not bro >>and sis - clearly a case of sexual discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. >> So by liberal/ACLU-think, you'd then have to allow sis and sis >>"marriage". > > > Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your tortured > hypotheticals. Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - it is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the messenger. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#385
|
|||
|
|||
Linda wrote:
<snip> Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. TIA |
#386
|
|||
|
|||
Linda wrote:
<snip> Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. TIA |
#387
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is >>>> noted. >>> >>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. >> >> >> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; >> you are. >> >> >>> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point >>> that the criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two >>> *humans*, both parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than >>> the criteria that a marriage must be between one man and one woman. >> >> >> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but >> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and >> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, >> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs >> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs. > > So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting > it > with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think > your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you > deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only > to > anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you > have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - > simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses > rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria > than what you arbitrarily decide on. > >>> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose >>> your very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call >>> them your own religious beliefs) on others. >> >> >> I call your bluff: How? > > You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all > I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two > humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. > >>> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view >>> on others? >> >> >> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for >> you about the concept of "consenting adults"? > > Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an > arbitrary criteria. > >>> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for >>> medical reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So >>> why not brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - >>> no medical problem there since no children can be produced by that >>> "relationship" (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main >>> purposes of true marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would >>> be "sexually" discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro >>> and bro but not bro and sis - clearly a case of sexual >>> discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. So by liberal/ACLU-think, >>> you'd then have to allow sis and sis "marriage". >> >> >> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your >> tortured hypotheticals. > > Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - > it > is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the > messenger. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet > News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the > World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total > Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#388
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Putney wrote:
> Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Bill Putney wrote: >> >> >>>> Your comparison of homosexual people to dogs, trees and rocks is >>>> noted. >>> >>> Nice try, Daniel, but dishonest. >> >> >> Not particularly, Bill. I'm not the one who lumped 'em all together; >> you are. >> >> >>> You're trying to divert attention away from my very valid point >>> that the criteria that you imply for "marriage" (i.e., must be two >>> *humans*, both parties must be sentient) are no less arbitrary than >>> the criteria that a marriage must be between one man and one woman. >> >> >> It's "very valid" in your mind, of course, for it's your opinion, but >> that's all it is. Society is made up of humans. Trees, rocks and >> dogs are not part of society. Laws are written by humans. Trees, >> rocks and dogs do not write laws. Religious and political beliefs >> are held by humans, not by trees, rocks or dogs. > > So, once again, you are applying arbitrary criteria. Your limiting > it > with your word "society". Someone else could arbitrarily say "I think > your criteria that both parties have to belong to 'society' as you > deifne it is much to narrow. I choose to say that it is limited only > to > anything on the planet earth". Remember - your standard is that you > have no standard but someone's opinion. Not my choice, but yours - > simply holding you to it and not allowing you to step on someone elses > rights who wants to arbitrarily boundary things by some other criteria > than what you arbitrarily decide on. > >>> I claim, although, tongue in cheek, that you are trying to impose >>> your very narrow and chauvinistic beliefs (what the hell - call >>> them your own religious beliefs) on others. >> >> >> I call your bluff: How? > > You can't be this lacking of mental capacity. Just one example is all > I'm gonna waste time on for you: Cirteria of it has to be between two > humans. As arbitrary as any other criteria. > >>> Same thing with age. If you say that a minor can't consent, with no >>> other standard to go on, aren't you imposing your own adultist view >>> on others? >> >> >> No standard other than consent is needed. What is so difficult for >> you about the concept of "consenting adults"? > > Not a thing. What you pretend not to understand is that that is an > arbitrary criteria. > >>> One other thing - the taboo on brother and sister marrying (for >>> medical reasons) - that presents another dilemma for liberals: So >>> why not brother "marrying" brother, or sister "marrying" sister - >>> no medical problem there since no children can be produced by that >>> "relationship" (we'll overlook for the moment one of the main >>> purposes of true marriage)? The liberal dilemma is that that would >>> be "sexually" discriminatory because - hey - you're allowing bro >>> and bro but not bro and sis - clearly a case of sexual >>> discrimination in liberal/ACLU-think. So by liberal/ACLU-think, >>> you'd then have to allow sis and sis "marriage". >> >> >> Has anyone actually argued this? It sounds like anothr of your >> tortured hypotheticals. > > Nope - just trying to think like an ACLU/liberal, but, you're right - > it > is tortured and painful, but that's the way they are - don't shoot the > messenger. > > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > adddress with the letter 'x') > > > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet > News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the > World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total > Privacy via Encryption =--- |
#389
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA |
#390
|
|||
|
|||
Sparky wrote:
> Linda wrote: > > <snip> > > Please watch your snipping & quoting - I did not post "KNOTHEAD". > Actually, I didn't see anything I posted in your quoted text. > > TIA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |