On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:46:50 -0400, Dionisio
puked:
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>> Your implication originally was a generalization.
>
>Really? Let's review:
>
>[Begin repost of relevant section of 7/12 post]
>
>lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
> > Who are the protectors of morality?
>
>You may recognize them by their own descriptions of themselves. Many are on TV, radio, and
>in print. Some operate right here in this newsgroup. Here in Ohio we have several
>notables, but I'll just mention the most colorful:
>
>Mr. Burress. Pro-DOMA, and on wife #3. (To name the most delicious of his many ironies.)
>
>Oh, and Erich Gliebe. He was a colorful one. National Alliance - Cleveland head from 1990
>to 2002. Idolized his dad, who fought for the Germans in WWII, and it seems he learned as
>much morality as the Pope.
>
>Oh, lookie! Say, didn't someone add in Limbaugh to the newsgroup distribution? Certainly
>he couldn't be considered immoral, could he? Why, I bet ya he defends morality quite
>strenuously; Lord knows he was doing it for years whilst "medicated."
>
>You've heard of Pat Robertson, no doubt. When he's not bankrupting people via pyramid
>schemes, or trying to profit from blood diamonds, or just plain lying, he's quite moral.
>
>Maybe you've heard of the "Doctress." The Schlessinger lady. She's a real Dr. But is that
>degree in Psychology? Nope. Try Physiology. Her thesis? Oh, she sliced and diced some
>testicles; But she's not one of those radical feminists.
>
>Those are just the so-called "protectors." There are more who are actually moral, but they
>don't have syndication, TV shows, nor have they written books. On the other hand, they
>don't tend to have rap sheets, scandal, nor hypocrisy dogging them. Funny that.
>
>[End]
>
>Now then, I see specifics; Specific people, specific actions, specific observations.
>
>Do be so kind as to point out any generalizations you might have perceived.
Starting with the statement, "many are on radio and television... and
ending with you mentioning a few. It was a generalization and you
gave a few specific examples. Unless you consider the list you gave
me conclusive and exhaustive, you are still generalizing about a large
group of unknown and unmentioned people.
>
>
>>>If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe there's a reason for that.
>>
>> Why would I be uncomfortable? I belong to neither of the two groups
>> we're discussing.
>
> So you're neither moral, nor immoral? Fascinating.
... or religious. I know you knew what I was speaking of...
>
>
>>> "We'd like a divorce, You Honor, because we're too compatible, we love each
>>>other too much; We're too faithful to one another." Show me one instance of that and
>>>I'll... Well, I'll think of something; Once this present absurdity stops causing the
>>>neurons to stop firing the "laughter" signal.
>>
>> Is it your contention that infidelity is the only, or main, reason for
>> divorce? You move the goal posts in your small part of this
>> discussion and think you make some monumental point.
>
>My dear fellow, when are you going to learn that I've been here for year after year, and
>I've heard most everything at least five times now; Even the obscure BS.
You might want to see how long I've been here under the same name.
And I'm on to folks that change the game in the middle of discussions
as well. Know why that's done? Senility? Remembering old
conversations? Losing at this one?
>"Moving the goal posts"? Pishaw! So, you want to debate divorce and the reasons thereof?
>Okay, let's.
>
>First, we've got adultery. What that could have to do with infidelity is probably a topic
>which only Nostradamus could shed light upon.
>
>Second, while more obscure, the failure to "consummate the marriage" is a valid reason in
>many jurisdictions. But that shouldn't be taken as infidelity, it's just someone saying "I
>don't want to . you." (Amazing, but true.)
>
>Third, bigamy. Seems it's a crime to be "polyfidelic." Ah well...
>
>Fourth, fraud. But being in it only for the money couldn't possibly be a measure of
>infidelity, so we should just let that pass. Yes?
>
>Fifth, the catch-all of "irreconcilable differences." I.E.: They'd be the poster children
>of fidelity, if only they could stand one another.
>
>Any other reasons you'd like to mention? Go ahead, knock yourself out.
>
Molesting the kids or putting them in danger?
My point is infidelity isn't the only measure of divorce...
>
>>>Now this is encouraging. You contend that those who note that there are certain
>>>inalienable human rights have the moral high ground. The Founding Fathers would be pleased.
>>
>> I clearly stated that 'the ones that CLAIM the moral high ground' were
>> the ones at issue, but since you distorted every comment I have made,
>> I wouldn't expect you to follow this one, either.
>
>Ah, wanting things both ways, eh?
No, there is a distinction between moral people and people that CLAIM
moral ground. They aren't necessarily the same thing.
>
>Or aren't folks supposed to note that you wanted examples of alleged "moral folks" and
>then objected when your wish was granted?
>
>Oh, how about the example of you wanting divorce to be about something other than
>infidelity; When it seems that it's TOTALLY about infidelity?
You're wrong about that. There are hundreds of reasons for divorce
and infidelity is only one.
>
>"Bisophical" are ya? QUICK! If you act now, you too could be on the ticket for Election
>'08! (Why *elect* someone who believes as you do, when you could *be* the person in
>charge? The credibility threshold has been lowered somewhat. You just might stand a chance.)
The fact that your reaction serves only to muddy the water to your
benefit proves you may be a more viable candidate...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Stupid humans... |
