Discuss!! Question #1

Fred Fredburger

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> I was having difficulty understanding what point you
> were making. Until I tried reading your post out loud in
> the voice of Eric Cartman.

Oh. You're right, That works really well.

Bob Schwartz

ST wrote:
> Have you ever been accused of taking steroids?

Not everyone that has man-tits is taking steroids.
I guess some people don't know that.

Bob Schwartz

Fabrizio Mazzoleni

"Bob Schwartz" <bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVE.global.net> wrote in message
news:QSHOj.7591$GE1.6749@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> ST wrote:
>> I do not give an iota of shit what you want to post about me. If you do NOT
>> answer the question you are all nothing but bags of global warming hot air..
>
> Well, finally you are on topic.
>
> Just in case anyone cares, Eurosport is streaming live video
> from the only Pro Tour race named after beer.
>

I'm going to watch it as soon as cycling.tv gets it on the
video on demand link.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Apr 19, 5:46*pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> OK......... I am going out on a limb here with one of my deep-thought
> philosophical questions..
>
> If Gays are BORN that way, no chance of changing desires or thought patterns
> regarding relationship preferences then WHY does (mostly from the same left
> -leaning group that agrees with the above statement) the liberal-leaning
> crowd ALSO disagree with complete incarceration of, what we call, pedophiles
> and related perpetrators instead calling for, at great cost, treatment with
> psycho therapists and doctors and allowing these (our legal term) pedophiles
> 2nd and 3rd chances at out innocent citizens/children??
>
> What is worse than going from a sometimes 50/50 chance of actually being
> right predicting weather on the TV news to actually predicting Global
> Warming caused by man and we are gonna all die in 50 years??
>
> How about.......... Being elitist enough to know what behaviors are
> INGRAINED and a genetic predisposition for then knowing exactly what
> behaviors, regarding sexual preference, *that can be CURED and deserve
> multiple chances by the same elite group?
>
> Are you smartasses that smart enough to know where the line is?? And IF some
> of you are gonna come back and say "It is all good UNLESS someone is
> hurt/injured/violated!" I am still going to want to know where is the line,
> regarding ANY sexual preference, between being born that way versus
> individual decision? (free will)

If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
"good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
nonsense you're hoping for.

Fred Fredburger

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
> "good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
> nonsense you're hoping for.
>


Have you surrendered your Libertarian principals in favor of "Cut taxes,
Increase Spending!" Republican pragmatism?

Your former emphasis on the size and intrusiveness of government has
gone recently, along with your complaints about government spending. So
it sounds like you're falling into line. I know Rush Limbaugh will, but
I'm surprised that you beat him to it.

SLAVE of THE STATE

On Apr 20, 3:02*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
> > "good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
> > nonsense you're hoping for.
>
> Have you surrendered your Libertarian principals in favor of "Cut taxes,
> Increase Spending!" Republican pragmatism?
>
> Your former emphasis on the size and intrusiveness of government has
> gone recently, along with your complaints about government spending. So
> it sounds like you're falling into line. I know Rush Limbaugh will, but
> I'm surprised that you beat him to it.

There would be a tangential irony if I asked you to explain your
misunderstandings in an understandable way.

ST

On 4/20/08 8:01 AM, in article
vVIOj.1067$ix6.572@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net, "Bob Schwartz"
<bob.schwartz@sbcREMOVE.global.net> wrote:

> ST wrote:
>> Have you ever been accused of taking steroids?
>
> Not everyone that has man-tits is taking steroids.
> I guess some people don't know that.
>
> Bob Schwartz

I do not have man-tits. I do weights but rarely do bench press as I lift at
home when I have time. Quit acting like you know exactly what I am thinking
when I type something then acting like a stupid idiot and cannot read and
understand simple English in the question. Pretty hypocritical and actually
a stupid act.

ST

On 4/20/08 1:50 PM, in article
6ac8c045-e5ba-44aa-81da-ff4ce635b70...ooglegroups.com, "SLAVE of
THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 5:46*pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> OK......... I am going out on a limb here with one of my deep-thought
>> philosophical questions..
>>
>> If Gays are BORN that way, no chance of changing desires or thought patterns
>> regarding relationship preferences then WHY does (mostly from the same left
>> -leaning group that agrees with the above statement) the liberal-leaning
>> crowd ALSO disagree with complete incarceration of, what we call, pedophiles
>> and related perpetrators instead calling for, at great cost, treatment with
>> psycho therapists and doctors and allowing these (our legal term) pedophiles
>> 2nd and 3rd chances at out innocent citizens/children??
>>
>> What is worse than going from a sometimes 50/50 chance of actually being
>> right predicting weather on the TV news to actually predicting Global
>> Warming caused by man and we are gonna all die in 50 years??
>>
>> How about.......... Being elitist enough to know what behaviors are
>> INGRAINED and a genetic predisposition for then knowing exactly what
>> behaviors, regarding sexual preference, *that can be CURED and deserve
>> multiple chances by the same elite group?
>>
>> Are you smartasses that smart enough to know where the line is?? And IF some
>> of you are gonna come back and say "It is all good UNLESS someone is
>> hurt/injured/violated!" I am still going to want to know where is the line,
>> regarding ANY sexual preference, between being born that way versus
>> individual decision? (free will)
>
> If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
> "good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
> nonsense you're hoping for.
>

That is the first response at all that makes since. It is a pretty simple
question. Either they are all genetic or they are not.. Is there a line of
demarcation?? None of these assbags got the balls at all to address any part
of the question, not to mention are not at all, or will ever be, omniscient
enough to ever now.

ST

On 4/20/08 3:38 PM, in article
6deefb9b-eb11-40b3-ac89-69caba4bc53...ooglegroups.com, "SLAVE of
THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 3:02*pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>> If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
>>> "good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
>>> nonsense you're hoping for.
>>
>> Have you surrendered your Libertarian principals in favor of "Cut taxes,
>> Increase Spending!" Republican pragmatism?
>>
>> Your former emphasis on the size and intrusiveness of government has
>> gone recently, along with your complaints about government spending. So
>> it sounds like you're falling into line. I know Rush Limbaugh will, but
>> I'm surprised that you beat him to it.
>
> There would be a tangential irony if I asked you to explain your
> misunderstandings in an understandable way.


It is called spin........
They cannot understand my questions and cannot understand your response.

Fred Fredburger

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Apr 20, 3:02 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>> If you can think of a way to rephrase things in such a way that a
>>> "good" answer provides a way to raise taxes, then you'll get all the
>>> nonsense you're hoping for.
>> Have you surrendered your Libertarian principals in favor of "Cut taxes,
>> Increase Spending!" Republican pragmatism?
>>
>> Your former emphasis on the size and intrusiveness of government has
>> gone recently, along with your complaints about government spending. So
>> it sounds like you're falling into line. I know Rush Limbaugh will, but
>> I'm surprised that you beat him to it.
>
> There would be a tangential irony if I asked you to explain your
> misunderstandings in an understandable way.

You used to complain about the size of the Federal Government. Lately it
seems that your problem has changed to one of tax increases and cuts.

Why the change?

Fred Fredburger

ST wrote:

>
> It is called spin........
> They cannot understand my questions and cannot understand your response.
>

Self flattery is the most sincere.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Apr 19, 5:46*pm, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> OK......... I am going out on a limb here with one of my deep-thought
> philosophical questions..
>
> If Gays are BORN that way, no chance of changing desires or thought patterns
> regarding relationship preferences then WHY does (mostly from the same left
> -leaning group that agrees with the above statement) the liberal-leaning
> crowd ALSO disagree with complete incarceration of, what we call, pedophiles
> and related perpetrators instead calling for, at great cost, treatment with
> psycho therapists and doctors and allowing these (our legal term) pedophiles
> 2nd and 3rd chances at out innocent citizens/children??
>
> What is worse than going from a sometimes 50/50 chance of actually being
> right predicting weather on the TV news to actually predicting Global
> Warming caused by man and we are gonna all die in 50 years??
>
> How about.......... Being elitist enough to know what behaviors are
> INGRAINED and a genetic predisposition for then knowing exactly what
> behaviors, regarding sexual preference, *that can be CURED and deserve
> multiple chances by the same elite group?
>
> Are you smartasses that smart enough to know where the line is?? And IF some
> of you are gonna come back and say "It is all good UNLESS someone is
> hurt/injured/violated!" I am still going to want to know where is the line,
> regarding ANY sexual preference, between being born that way versus
> individual decision? (free will)

Steverino,

I'll be serious for a moment.
There's a whole lot of inflammatory stuff in your post,
which is why no one is taking you seriously, apart from
the fact that it's OT.
(For example, jumping straight from talking about gays to
talking about pedophiles, I think you are trying to
compare innateness of sexual desire, but this comparison
has such a long bad history that you can't expect to make
it and have people treat it as a dispassionate argument.)

There's two issues here, one is that we (society) have ideas
about right and wrong and hope that we can teach most people
to tell the difference. The second is separating desire from
_acting_ on that desire. Most people who aren't freaked out
by OMG GAY QUEERS! don't feel that we need to teach
young impressionable people that it's wrong to be gay
anymore.

We do still condemn pedophilia, and you may be right that
many adult pedophiles are incurable in the sense that we
can't change their desires. I think people who advise treating
them where possible instead of locking them all up hope to
change them enough not to _act_ on their desires. To make
another comparison, men think about sex all the time, but
most of them don't _act_ on it all the time. Well, except
wanking, but that doesn't count.

Sincerely,
Mr. Garrison

Kyle Legate

ST wrote:
>
>
> That is the first response at all that makes since. It is a pretty simple
> question. Either they are all genetic or they are not..
>
....or some gradation in between. Grownups see things in shades of gray.

Howard Kveck

In article <C42FE072.523A2%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> OK......... I am going out on a limb here with one of my deep-thought
> philosophical questions..
>
> If Gays are BORN that way, no chance of changing desires or thought patterns
> regarding relationship preferences then WHY does (mostly from the same left
> -leaning group that agrees with the above statement) the liberal-leaning
> crowd ALSO disagree with complete incarceration of, what we call, pedophiles
> and related perpetrators instead calling for, at great cost, treatment with
> psycho therapists and doctors and allowing these (our legal term) pedophiles
> 2nd and 3rd chances at out innocent citizens/children??
>
> What is worse than going from a sometimes 50/50 chance of actually being
> right predicting weather on the TV news to actually predicting Global
> Warming caused by man and we are gonna all die in 50 years??
>
> How about.......... Being elitist enough to know what behaviors are
> INGRAINED and a genetic predisposition for then knowing exactly what
> behaviors, regarding sexual preference, that can be CURED and deserve
> multiple chances by the same elite group?
>
> Are you smartasses that smart enough to know where the line is?? And IF some
> of you are gonna come back and say "It is all good UNLESS someone is
> hurt/injured/violated!" I am still going to want to know where is the line,
> regarding ANY sexual preference, between being born that way versus
> individual decision? (free will)

As has been pointed out to you several times, this (and the other DISCUS!!!! post)
is a logical fallacy. I'll expand a bit on Ben's answer. You're trying to compare two
very different things like they are the same. A pedophile is involved in a
*non-consensual* relationship with someone that will cause that person harm. A
homosexual relationship between adults is *consensensual* and will cause no more harm
to either party (or society) than an adult heterosexual relationship. I think the
consent part is the key.

Ben's right about it being important to teach pedophiles that acting on their
impulses/desires is bad. Obviously it doesn't always work, which is also the case for
any crime you can think of. Some people don't learn or can't overcome their impulses.
You for instance. You often post asshattery like this and get the same results (which
are never good for you). You "have [us] on the ropes" - dude, you aren't even in the
same city as the building with the ring. And Ronaldo J is right, your punctuation
style makes it easy to cap on you. Really easy.

Oh, by the way: more often than not, death penalty oponents don't drop that when
they're victimized.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?