Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:03 pm
Someone has "known" some sheep, huh? 
saludos,
Tulio
saludos,
Tulio
Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:10 pm
A2C wrote:don't like it but I agree it is a genetic predisposition (in some cases), but then so is a predisposition to violent crime (in some cases)
Is bestiality?
I'm sure you can change if you really really want to
Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:28 pm
I'm sure you can change if you really really want to
According to the other guys it would not be a matter of will or choice. So the guys on the farm that abuse sheep must be born with it, it has nothing to do w/ self control, nah, that can't be right..
Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:57 pm
A2C wrote:According to the other guys it would not be a matter of will or choice. So the guys on the farm that abuse sheep must be born with it, it has nothing to do w/ self control, nah, that can't be right..
It doesn't matter, humans (of legal age) are currently the only species on this planet able to provide consent. Other laws protect minors, the infirm and animals.
Maybe you should have used number of partners instead of different species as your example. There are groups waiting for the outcome of this current debate so they can continue it to encompass their belief's. And their belief's are more common and more accepted in other parts of the world, and history, than the original debate of this thread
Legally, in all forms of this debate, it comes down to contracts. People are deciding who can, and who cannot, enter into them.
And, y'all aren't changing each others minds.
Geeze, give it a rest. I want to know more about this specific incident.
Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:03 pm
Mod post: Dear Chris,
If you can't debate it on the level the rest are prepared to, then maybe you should leave it.
It's not hard to accept other people may have other views which work for them. It's not hard to accept that other places and communities have other rules and customs which work for them - sometimes you can take some of those ideas home and benefit from them.
Coming up with ridiculous comparisons in an attempt to condemn another group is past old now.
Try some of the self control you've just mentioned.
Thank you.
If you can't debate it on the level the rest are prepared to, then maybe you should leave it.
It's not hard to accept other people may have other views which work for them. It's not hard to accept that other places and communities have other rules and customs which work for them - sometimes you can take some of those ideas home and benefit from them.
Coming up with ridiculous comparisons in an attempt to condemn another group is past old now.
Try some of the self control you've just mentioned.
Thank you.
Sat Jun 06, 2009 6:39 am
Cosmo, I too would be interested in hearing more how this case plays out. No bets it's not about sexual orientation...
This interesting article was sent to me by ex- poster Westfront:
'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm
Such 'social bonding' is well documented in ancient military systems and semi-sexual behaviours (in denial of, or relating to homosexual) bonding through sexual behaviour are well documented as occurring into at least recent militaries (like some college fraternities etc.)
However calling Alexander the Great 'homosexual' or 'gay' is projecting modern ideas onto a completely different culture.
Effective soldier though. Few in his league.
This interesting article was sent to me by ex- poster Westfront:
'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm
...
Homosexual behaviour is well documented in many different animals, but it is not understood in detail, says Professor Stuart West, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford.
Professor West says it has been suggested that homosexual activity could serve various purposes - for instance, it may relate to social bonding and establishment of dominance among bonobo chimps, while in some bird species, females may come together to rear young.
Other animals may simply exhibit a "drive to mate", while others may, like humans, enjoy non-procreative sexual activity.
Such 'social bonding' is well documented in ancient military systems and semi-sexual behaviours (in denial of, or relating to homosexual) bonding through sexual behaviour are well documented as occurring into at least recent militaries (like some college fraternities etc.)
However calling Alexander the Great 'homosexual' or 'gay' is projecting modern ideas onto a completely different culture.
Effective soldier though. Few in his league.
Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:10 am
JDK wrote:Cosmo, I too would be interested in hearing more how this case plays out. No bets it's not about sexual orientation...
This interesting article was sent to me by ex- poster Westfront:
'Gay penguins' rear adopted chick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8081829.stm...
Homosexual behaviour is well documented in many different animals, but it is not understood in detail, says Professor Stuart West, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford.
Professor West says it has been suggested that homosexual activity could serve various purposes - for instance, it may relate to social bonding and establishment of dominance among bonobo chimps, while in some bird species, females may come together to rear young.
Other animals may simply exhibit a "drive to mate", while others may, like humans, enjoy non-procreative sexual activity.
Such 'social bonding' is well documented in ancient military systems and semi-sexual behaviours (in denial of, or relating to homosexual) bonding through sexual behaviour are well documented as occurring into at least recent militaries (like some college fraternities etc.)
However calling Alexander the Great 'homosexual' or 'gay' is projecting modern ideas onto a completely different culture.
Effective soldier though. Few in his league.
May I suggest JDK, that you stop trying to bring reasoning and common sense to this discussion?
Minds will not be changed, opinions will be self-reinforced, and the original theme has been lost.
Saludos,
Tulio
Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:29 am
Very interesting (both from Huffington Post):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/0 ... 12501.html
Yet...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/0 ... 12534.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/0 ... 12501.html
Yet...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/0 ... 12534.html
Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:23 pm
I don't understand your qualifier for the second story.
The first story recognizes the changing attitudes towards those who serve. Though, by not including the internals of the poll, Gallup makes following the trend more difficult. They also left out what those most affected by the policy think. Looks like the poll was more concerned with politics than policy.
The second story came to the correct result. If the courts took an active roll in setting policy, it would polarize views and possibly reverse gains that have been shown by the first story. We all know what problems the court caused by reversing accepted, though polarizing, law last time.
Even the supporters in the story got it right about how it should be changed. Except for the plaintiff.
The comments at the link reminded me why I stay away from that site though. They are more interested in agendas and their own perceived superiority than law and how it should be changed.
They blame the courts (that in itself is interesting since they usually take the position that the courts are smarter and courageous enough to make the laws that politicians are afraid to change) and the opposition when the the guy they trumpet could do it with a stroke of a pen. And IIRC, he said he would.
The first story recognizes the changing attitudes towards those who serve. Though, by not including the internals of the poll, Gallup makes following the trend more difficult. They also left out what those most affected by the policy think. Looks like the poll was more concerned with politics than policy.
The second story came to the correct result. If the courts took an active roll in setting policy, it would polarize views and possibly reverse gains that have been shown by the first story. We all know what problems the court caused by reversing accepted, though polarizing, law last time.
Even the supporters in the story got it right about how it should be changed. Except for the plaintiff.
The comments at the link reminded me why I stay away from that site though. They are more interested in agendas and their own perceived superiority than law and how it should be changed.
They blame the courts (that in itself is interesting since they usually take the position that the courts are smarter and courageous enough to make the laws that politicians are afraid to change) and the opposition when the the guy they trumpet could do it with a stroke of a pen. And IIRC, he said he would.