OT Is it me?
 

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Bill
Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.

Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

Bill

I always assumed they were clay pots. But this is mainly an oral
tradition. The records of torture and extra-judicial murder are
copious and written. Added to which is the public testimony of both
victims and perpetrators. I would hate to think that you were trying to
throw doubt on it.




--

Roger Hayter

OT Is it me?
 

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

An interesting philosophical viewpoint.

Bill
It is actually the only possible one if one is not religious.
Evolution *never* has a purpose. Traits that evolve have adaptive
value, but it may not always be obvious what it is, nor is there any
obvious moral imperative to keep practising the activity that seems to
be most obviously directed to procreation.

I am not sure whether you feel that perpetuating the species is a moral
good. Even if one does (and the reasons are not obvious to me) then a
very limited amount of sexual activity by many but not all people is
quite sufficient to achieve this.


--

Roger Hayter

OT Is it me?
 

On 21/12/2017 18:06, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.

Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

Yebbut if three missionaries and three cannibals must cross a river
using a boat which can carry at most two people and the missionaries
cannot be outnumbered by cannibals or the latter would eat the former)...

--
Max Demian

OT Is it me?
 

On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:
On 15:03 21 Dec 2017, Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does
that make those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was
only for producing offspring. As some religious nutters would
have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to. Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

Still OK in many US states...

--
Max Demian

OT Is it me?
 

On 21/12/2017 18:26, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:

I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

Changes in moral norms harm the idea that morality is in some way
absolute rather than relative which most people find uncomfortable.

IOW, if it was OK for the Ancient Greeks, why isn't it OK for us? We
still accept Pythagoras' Theorem and Archimedes Principle.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

The fact is that adult homosexuality is regarded by most people as
morally acceptable. Personally I feel that as long as they don't
frighten the horses they can do as they like. The problem I have with
the BBC and others of that ilk is that they tell kids that such things
are not only acceptable but desirable. They never ever tell kids
anything about the disadvantages of a homosexual relationship or
lifestyle. They also encourage kids to disclose their sexuality far too
early. There's still a stigma attached to homosexuality in many people's
eyes. You can't get away from that; some people will always pick on a
minority. But it's a reality, and there's also straightforward
playground nastiness and bullying. I think by encouraging kids to
declare their sexuality when it is still fluid the BBC are putting these
kids in the firing line unnecessarily.

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to.

Kids shouldn't be brainwashed into aspiring to any sexual identity, gay
straight or anything else. Why can't we let them grow up and assume
their sexual identity without pressure when the time is right?

Â* Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal?Â* You know it's
wrong.

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately misinterpreted
by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Wherever have you seen that? I haven't heard any such notions since the
seventies.

Anyway, what is a child? And what is sex? And what about child/child sex?

--
Max Demian

OT Is it me?
 

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:04 21 Dec 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/12/17 06:05, Richard wrote:
On 20/12/17 22:55, pamela wrote:
On 18:17Â 20 Dec 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/12/17 11:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 20/12/2017 11:53, Jethro_uk wrote:

Last week for two hours, the BBC News front page managed to
have absolutely nothing whatsoever about Brexit. Nothing. I
actually saved the page*. Not even a link.

I think it has become necessary to use a wide variety of
news sources and apply critical thought to everything. It's
terrible that we can't believe the BBC anymore.


in 1980 I emigtated to S afroca for three years, where the
staggering propagnada show of the SABC was so obviuous it
wasnt ven argued over.

Presumably you no longer consider yourself a true Brit after
completely abandoning the UK for several years.

Do you now have a South African passport?

Define "true Brit".


No dear, I do not have a south african passport, and your use of
perjorative language like 'abandoning the UK for three years'
shows the true depths of your bigotry.



So why did you abandon the UK for three years?

You don’t know that he did. For all you know,
he may have just been interested in how things
are in other than that soggy little frigid island.

OT Is it me?
 

On 21/12/2017 20:31, Max Demian wrote:

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately
misinterpreted by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Wherever have you seen that? I haven't heard any such notions since the
seventies.

Read up on PIE.


Anyway, what is a child?

Someone below the age of consent

And what is sex?

It's an old word for Saxon

And what about child/child sex?

Depends on the age and whether there was coercion.

Bill

OT Is it me?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does that make
those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was only for
producing offspring. As some religious nutters would have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

How can evolution have an intention.

No one said it does.

Sex evolved and we make us of it how we like.

But you inevitably get some real quirks, like those
insects that eat the head of the ****er after the
****ing. Hard to say what evolutionary advantage
that’s has and if it has, why it isnt more common.

Same with pairing for life etc.

You might as well say hands were intended for
hanging from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

Not when all the animals that hang from trees also use tools.

OT Is it me?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed
as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused;
used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended
for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By
the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

An interesting philosophical viewpoint.

It is actually the only possible one if one is not religious.
Evolution *never* has a purpose.

That’s not accurate, the purpose is survival of the species.

Traits that evolve have adaptive value,

Not always. It isnt at all obvious that the belief in some god
or other has any adaptive value. It may in fact just be an odd
side effect of a much better brain than there other animals have.

Same with psychopathy, schizophrenia etc.

but it may not always be obvious what it is,

And it many not have any adaptive value at all.

What's the adaptive value of going bald for example ?

nor is there any obvious moral imperative to keep practising the
activity that seems to be most obviously directed to procreation.

I am not sure whether you feel that perpetuating the species
is a moral good. Even if one does (and the reasons are not
obvious to me) then a very limited amount of sexual activity
by many but not all people is quite sufficient to achieve this.

OT Is it me?
 

On 21/12/2017 21:15, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 20:31, Max Demian wrote:

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately
misinterpreted by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Wherever have you seen that? I haven't heard any such notions since
the seventies.

Read up on PIE.

Long defunct.

Anyway, what is a child?

Someone below the age of consent

An arbitrary figure that has changed from time to time.

And what is sex?

It's an old word for Saxon

Â*And what about child/child sex?

Depends on the age and whether there was coercion.

Why?

(If teenagers, "Oo, we don't want our precious children to go on the
register!" If younger, "It's just childish curiosity, and not sexual at
all" - don't you believe it.)

Few adults remember what it was like being a child. Even the elementary
difference between to sexes was regarded as forbidden knowledge.

--
Max Demian