In article <62lggvot3u8pu80erh3h3i9t4ta02jqdq5[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:24:34 +0200, C Lund
><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>I used to think homosexuality was wrong. Then I asked myself why
>>homosexuality was wrong. I came to the conclusion that there was
>>nothing wrong with it at all. It just wasn't to my taste.
>I suspect you believe many things are OK that many Christians would
>find wrong. There's nothing new here.

That's because I don't need a book to tell me the diffeence between
right and wrong.

>>>>> Anyone who points out the error of their ways is being 'bigoted
>>>>>and evil'. Its not much different from the way little kids have a fit
>>>>>when their parents correct them.
>>>>Claimiing that homosexuality is wrong "because the bible says so"
>>>>isn't pointing out the errors of so-and-so's ways, it's being bigoted.
>>>So now having standards is being 'bigoted'?
>>When those standards are without logic and have a negative effect on
>>other people's lives, then yes, it is being bigoted.
>They're without logic to you, but you aren't being asked to certify
>the behavior.

So what? They're detrimental to society (some of these biblical rules,
that is), and so they affect me - directly or indirectly. That gives
me the right to say those rules are worse than worthless.

>>> Would it be bigoted to say
>>>that child molesters are wrong?
>>And once more a bigot compares the actions of concenting adults to the
>>rape of children.
>>Sicko.
>Nothing directly to do with this, but just out of curiousity, what's
>the age of consent in Sweden/Norway?

Not sure, really. 16 or 18 I think.

>>> How about animal molesters? Is it
>>>bigoted to think that there's something wrong with them?

>>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
>>abise or not. Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
>>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
>>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).

>So if it's not animal abuse it's OK?

If it's ok with the animal then what's wrong with it? Live and let
live, you know.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:21:53 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:

>In article <62lggvot3u8pu80erh3h3i9t4ta02jqdq5[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:24:34 +0200, C Lund
>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>>I used to think homosexuality was wrong. Then I asked myself why
>>>homosexuality was wrong. I came to the conclusion that there was
>>>nothing wrong with it at all. It just wasn't to my taste.
>>I suspect you believe many things are OK that many Christians would
>>find wrong. There's nothing new here.
>
>That's because I don't need a book to tell me the diffeence between
>right and wrong.

OK - so what do you use?

>>>> Would it be bigoted to say
>>>>that child molesters are wrong?
>>>And once more a bigot compares the actions of concenting adults to the
>>>rape of children.
>>>Sicko.
>>Nothing directly to do with this, but just out of curiousity, what's
>>the age of consent in Sweden/Norway?
>
>Not sure, really. 16 or 18 I think.

16/15.

>>>> How about animal molesters? Is it
>>>>bigoted to think that there's something wrong with them?
>
>>>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
>>>abise or not. Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
>>>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
>>>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).
>
>>So if it's not animal abuse it's OK?
>
>If it's ok with the animal then what's wrong with it? Live and let
>live, you know.

And here we have it, folks - "Christian" Lund saying it's OK to sleep
with animals. Situational morality at its best. No harm unless it
hurts someone else....

In article <br0jgvccktvatj9v8ntbhet341671fg5ge[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> >>>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
> >>>abise or not. Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
> >>>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
> >>>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).
> >
> >>So if it's not animal abuse it's OK?
> >
> >If it's ok with the animal then what's wrong with it? Live and let
> >live, you know.
>
> And here we have it, folks - "Christian" Lund saying it's OK to sleep
> with animals. Situational morality at its best. No harm unless it
> hurts someone else....

Foo, you have just set a new low standard for acceptable debate tactics
here. So tell us; how long ago did you stop beating your wife?

--
Woofbert, Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
Woofbert's Law on Learning Linux: When attempting to learn Linux,
study it thoroughly before you begin.

In article <br0jgvccktvatj9v8ntbhet341671fg5ge[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>>>>> Would it be bigoted to say
>>>>>that child molesters are wrong?
>>>>And once more a bigot compares the actions of concenting adults to the
>>>>rape of children.
>>>>Sicko.
>>>Nothing directly to do with this, but just out of curiousity, what's
>>>the age of consent in Sweden/Norway?
>>Not sure, really. 16 or 18 I think.
>16/15.

Very well... *shrug*

So why did you ask?

>>>>> How about animal molesters? Is it
>>>>>bigoted to think that there's something wrong with them?
>>>>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
>>>>abise or not. Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
>>>>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
>>>>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).
>>>So if it's not animal abuse it's OK?
>>If it's ok with the animal then what's wrong with it? Live and let
>>live, you know.
>And here we have it, folks - "Christian" Lund saying it's OK to sleep

"Christian"?

>with animals. Situational morality at its best. No harm unless it
>hurts someone else....

Exactly. No harm unless it causes harm.

Now your turn; explain what's wrong with bestiality (provided all
parties involved are willing participants) without referring to the
bible.

--

C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 08:40:56 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <br0jgvccktvatj9v8ntbhet341671fg5ge[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
>> >>>abise or not. Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
>> >>>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
>> >>>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).
>> >
>> >>So if it's not animal abuse it's OK?
>> >
>> >If it's ok with the animal then what's wrong with it? Live and let
>> >live, you know.
>>
>> And here we have it, folks - "Christian" Lund saying it's OK to sleep
>> with animals. Situational morality at its best. No harm unless it
>> hurts someone else....
>
>Foo, you have just set a new low standard for acceptable debate tactics
>here.

How so? He explicitly said it was OK. I don't claim HE did it.

> So tell us; how long ago did you stop beating your wife?

Did I say I did? Did I say it was OK? No? Then there is no
similarity.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:48:12 GMT, Woofbert
<woofbert.spam[at]infernosoft.com> wrote:

>In article <t4ulgvooe7687k5bams3q6bcm3abkmg059[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:01:33 +0200, C Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>>
>> >>And here we have it, folks - "Christian" Lund saying it's OK to sleep
>> >
>> >"Christian"?
>> >
>> >>with animals. Situational morality at its best. No harm unless it
>> >>hurts someone else....
>> >
>> >Exactly. No harm unless it causes harm.
>> >
>> >Now your turn; explain what's wrong with bestiality (provided all
>> >parties involved are willing participants) without referring to the
>> >bible.
>>
>> Apparently even Woofbert disagrees with you - he's going nuts that I'd
>> "stoop to new lows" in this newsgroup pointing out what you plainly
>> believe.
>
>It's not quite plain what C. believes. It's plain you believe he's a
>bestialist.

Where did I say that? Christian is proud of his beliefs; why can't
you rejoyce for him? And if he *was* a besialist, why would that
bother you, as it so obviously does? He embraces one's right to do
it, so if he was, why would you have a problem with it?

Obviously you've got a big problem with bestiality - why? If nobody
gets hurt, where's the issue for you?

>> Anyway, we're 180 degrees from each other. Have fun with your animal
>> beliefs, and I'll have fun with my life beliefs.
>
>Interesting wording there. The context screams implications about what
>you think of C.'s beliefs.

Obviously. I don't think OK'ing bestiality is OK.

>And it's quite plain how you again evaded a straightforward question.

We disagree. He believes in situational morality.

In article <irdogvk2f4uis0e2m3pk7k6pc2qcodnagv[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:41:36 +0200, C Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >>>>>I used to think homosexuality was wrong. Then I asked myself why
> >>>>>homosexuality was wrong. I came to the conclusion that there was
> >>>>>nothing wrong with it at all. It just wasn't to my taste.
> >>>>I suspect you believe many things are OK that many Christians would
> >>>>find wrong. There's nothing new here.
> >>>That's because I don't need a book to tell me the diffeence between
> >>>right and wrong.
> >>Like most atheists you have no sense of right and wrong. You only
> >>worry about what will happen if you get caught.
> >Bullshit on both counts. I probably have a much stronger sense of
> >right and wrong than you do,
> Demonstrably false. I don't rejoice whenever a Jew dies for instance.

Neither do I. But unlike you I don't advocate ethnic cleansing, label
entire ethnic groups as "savages", or slur people with different sexual
orientations than my own. Nor do I lie they way you keep doing.

> > because unlike you - and other Xtians -
> >I've had to think about morality on my own. You've just accepted a
> >package from some preacher guy.
> I did? so all those memories that I have of reading the Bible, going
> to studt groups and debating the ins and outs are false? This is
> fascinating? Who implanted these false memories? Was it aliens? Do you
> believe that aliens gave me false memories, C?

Those bible groups were where you accepted the "package", faux.

> >>>>>>>> Anyone who points out the error of their ways is being 'bigoted
> >>>>>>>>and evil'. Its not much different from the way little kids have a fit
> >>>>>>>>when their parents correct them.
> >>>>>>>Claimiing that homosexuality is wrong "because the bible says so"
> >>>>>>>isn't pointing out the errors of so-and-so's ways, it's being bigoted.
> >>>>>>So now having standards is being 'bigoted'?
> >>>>>When those standards are without logic and have a negative effect on
> >>>>>other people's lives, then yes, it is being bigoted.
> >>>>They're without logic to you, but you aren't being asked to certify
> >>>>the behavior.
> >>>So what? They're detrimental to society (some of these biblical rules,
> >>>that is), and so they affect me - directly or indirectly. That gives
> >>>me the right to say those rules are worse than worthless.
> >>And what rules would those be?
> >Such as the rules that turned you into a gay-bashing bigot.
> So now having standards that recognize that homos are a self-selected
> group of perverts no different in merit than any other group of
> perverts is 'gay' bashing?

That's not what you're doing, faux.

> Perhaps you are going to be the one who can
> explain to me why homos are the Chosen Perverts?

Strawman.

--
C Lund

In article <lt9mgvksacgrtjnf180shokevhhapba89q[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> >And it's quite plain how you again evaded a straightforward question.
>
> We disagree. He believes in situational morality.

Meaning what, exactly?

--
C Lund