Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
21-04.-2008, 09:06 PM
|
#31 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On 4/20/08 9:17 PM, in article
072c1e6e-c598-4741-9e1d-0ed4536f6de...ooglegroups.com, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> 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) > > 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 > > At least you made an effort. OT? Inflammatory? I se it all the time here and it does not stop you guys from voicing an opinion OR flaming the poster.. |
|
|
21-04.-2008, 09:17 PM
|
#32 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On 4/20/08 11:46 PM, in article
YOURhoward-1A4734.23460220042008@newsgroups.comcast.net, "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote: > 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. You guys are picking the easy answer. Consensual versus not. There are relationships WE, as humans (even just Americans) consider perverted even though they agree as partners. I am not asking for an expanation of how we deal with the situation to make it work. Where is the line between a born pre-disposition and and an inert uncontrolled desire? When does it, supposedly go from genetic and uncontrollable to free will? |
|
|
|
21-04.-2008, 11:31 PM
|
#33 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
Donald Munro wrote:
> ST wrote: >>> It is called spin........ >>> They cannot understand my questions and cannot understand your response. > > Fred Fredburger wrote: >> Self flattery is the most sincere. > > I thought it was self abuse. > > OK, have it your way: Self abuse is the most sincere. Works that way too. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 01:40 AM
|
#34 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On Apr 21, 7:17*am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
When does it, supposedly go from genetic and > uncontrollable to free will? Stevie - What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? -rj P.S. Here is an interesting article: http://tinyurl.com/2zw2g4 P.P.S. I guarantee every dumbass on r.b.r. will examine the length of their fingers after alook at that article. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 02:09 AM
|
#35 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On Apr 20, 6:06*pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote: > 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? The federal [national] guvmint is way too gd big. "It's the spending, stupid." -- BF, 1759 Happy now? |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 03:16 AM
|
#36 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
Paul G. wrote:
> I'm leaning toward the theory of Lynne being the source of the lesbianism > in the Cheney household. But that begs the question- why would an > ultra-conservative like Dick Cheney marry a woman with lesbian leanings > who produces lesbian offspring? Isn't a guy marrying a manly woman kind > of gay? Or am I going out on a limb here with one of my deep-thought > philosophical questions.. ? -Paul It was a shotgun wedding. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 03:24 AM
|
#37 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On Apr 21, 9:40*am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com>
wrote: > On Apr 21, 7:17*am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote: > When does it, supposedly go from genetic and > > > uncontrollable to free will? > > Stevie - > > What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? Dumbass, I've never gotten any one in rbr to bite on that one. Good luck. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 03:32 AM
|
#38 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Self abuse is the most sincere. But it might become illegal <http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/purity/index.asp> |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 03:49 AM
|
#39 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>> What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: > I've never gotten any one in rbr to bite on that one. We need to develop more free won't to stop us responding to bots. Anyway its time for my daily EPR dose. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 04:43 AM
|
#40 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> On Apr 21, 7:17 am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote: >> When does it, supposedly go from genetic and >> >>> uncontrollable to free will? >> Stevie - >> >> What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? > > Dumbass, > > I've never gotten any one in rbr to bite on that one. > > Good luck. Consider the fish. |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 05:03 AM
|
#41 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
On Apr 21, 12:43*pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: > > > On Apr 21, 9:40 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 7:17 am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote: > >> When does it, supposedly go from genetic and > > >>> uncontrollable to free will? > >> Stevie - > > >> What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? > > > Dumbass, > > > I've never gotten any one in rbr to bite on that one. > > > Good luck. > > Consider the fish. Is this another red herring? |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 05:13 AM
|
#42 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Apr 21, 12:43 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: >> >>> On Apr 21, 9:40 am, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jerem...@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Apr 21, 7:17 am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote: >>>> When does it, supposedly go from genetic and >>>>> uncontrollable to free will? >>>> Stevie - >>>> What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? >>> Dumbass, >>> I've never gotten any one in rbr to bite on that one. >>> Good luck. >> Consider the fish. > > Is this another red herring? Stop being so bullheaded and quit carping. Bob Schwartz |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 07:23 AM
|
#43 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
In article <YOURhoward-1A4734.23460220042008@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote: > 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. First of all forget the word 'pedophile.' It is a word made up by rapists to dilute the enormity of their acts. Child rapers do not want to change; and they do not. -- Michael Press |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 07:31 AM
|
#44 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
In article
<617320f0-58bf-46a6-bc47-0300b32134ee@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, ronaldo_jeremiah <ronaldo_jeremiah@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 7:17*am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote: > When does it, supposedly go from genetic and > > uncontrollable to free will? > > Stevie - > > What makes you sure there is such a thing as free will? I will take up the gauntlet. Regardless of whether there is free will or not, we are obliged to act as if there is. The bitch is that in retrospect we often find that at a time when we thought we were acting freely, in fact there was a component of compulsion that we were not conscious of. SOS, say "Thank you, Michael." -- Michael Press |
|
|
|
22-04.-2008, 07:39 AM
|
#45 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Discuss!! Question #1
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> The federal [national] guvmint is way too gd big. > > "It's the spending, stupid." -- BF, 1759 > > Happy now? If you can find a way to make it smaller, I'd be happier. The reality is that alternatives are hard to find. Either: 1. Vote libertarian and have no influence. 2. Vote Republican and get 5% tax cuts and 5% spending increases every year. 3. Vote Democratic and get 5% spending increases and the occasional tax increase. I've heard the argument made that throwing in with the Republicans makes sense because there is at least SOME Republican constituency in favor of responsible government. It's not a crazy argument. |
|
|
Linear Mode
