From: stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (x4604 (Hauskins))
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: More Child Molestors for Christ
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:18:32 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: orchid.ucsc.edu

In article <1992Dec22.055306.7609@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>In article <105448@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>    >>C. The anus is not designed for sexual intercourse.
>    >>
>    >How so? (Hint, I'm humoring you---this argumment has been
>    >trotted out many times by pinheads on alt.sex) Does sexual
>    >intercourse have only one purpose?
>
>Whooosh -- right over your head Brian. That's the whole point. For example,
>it is biologically built into us to fear and be wary of heights. They've
>shown this in babies barely old enough to crawl.
>

 I would like to see you document this study or studies, and therefore at
least give some credibility to this statement.  You are saying that the
fear of heights is built-in biologically?? Or is it that we simply have
an awareness of distances???  There may be 'no fear' involved at all.  Besides
it would be very difficult, at best, to prove that an infant has a fear
of heights.

>    >>I don't ask YOU why you are homosexual. I don't ask you why
>    >>you are "fucking the wrong sex"
>    >>
>    >Your implications of my hypocrisy would be believable were I
>    >actually asking why YOU are heterosexual, etc.
>    >
>    >You just don't understand. You think your prejudices are not
>    >to be questioned.
>
>What abigot. O.K. Brian, why are you so irrational against having
>hetereosexual sex? Huh, why? We evolved, and indeed can only propagate
>by sexual intercourse of the two sexes? Why do persist in performing
>irrational acts? Why, huh, why?

This is incorrect.  We can propogate by artifical insemination.  We inject
sperm into a willingly subject, therefore causing impregnation.  There is
no need for "sexual intercourse" to produce offspring.

And where is it that Brian is perfroming irrational acts? 

>
>That's the difference between us -- you want to be the way you are, and
>yet get all upset when some people don't like the way you are and want to
>have coercive laws to "force" their acceptance.

You have left out that their are people who want to generate coercive
laws to stop what gay people want to be.  Why?  Becuase they are irrational?
Because they are stupid?  You are against religion yes/no?  Isn't religion
the main culprit behind the attitudes of anti-gay sentiment?

>
>I want to be the way that I want to be, and realize that the "price" is that
>other people have the freedom to like or not like it, and that they can take
>action appropriately.
>
>They have as much right to be subjective in their life as I do mine.
>
>But I don't try to use force to "change" their minds.
>

Of course you use 'force' to try and change someone else's beliefs,
it is evident even in this message.  You think that all force is 
some type of physical leveraging, it is not.  To call people names
or attempt to bring about a change in their thinking is a type of
force, or coercion.  If I hold onto a mental concept and you come
all and attack it, in ways that are insulting or degrading, you are
essentially trying to apply a mental force to me to break or change
my concept or you are trying to cause others to align with your
way of thinking. In the end it is a type of coercive activity, that
is how ideological movements are started, by mental coerciveness.

>You state "I just don't want said landlord to believe that his
>irrational prejudices will go unchallenged via constant discourse.".
>
>That about sums it up -- you want to use force to change men's minds.

What??? I see nothing about coercive activity in Brian's statement, he
has said that he wants landlords to be aware that their irrational
prejudices will not go without notice via 'discourse' i.e. discussion.

>
>Bloody fascist. Just change you name to Roehm the secodn and have done with it.
>
>Intolerant scum -- just can't stand that people don't beleive the way you
>want them to, eh?
>

Yes back to old name calling stuff, eh???  That is why people don't take
you very seriously, these types of 'attacks' are not rational and therefore
have no place in mental discourse that aims to bring about compromise or
settlement of issues.

It will be  grand day when you can leave behind the name calling part
of your discussions and actually move into the arena of intelligent
discourse.