[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: it aint REALLY successful until someone loses his temper <g>
>In-Response-To: Atilla T. Hun <[email protected]>
Well, I see that you could'nt leave well enough alone... :-)
Since Snow decided to jump into your face on this one, I might as well
throw my $0.02 on the table as well. Funny how my trashcan stays very empty
these days now that cypherpunks is in my bit bucket...
Frankly, it does not surprise me that homosexuality is yet another
pointless off-topic to be discussed on the list.
My comments appear below in Snow's exchange...
At 08:07 AM 1/26/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> it aint successful until someone loses his temper <g>
>
> well, I do need to admit my slam was a bit hard; but
> homosexuality is an abomination before God.
>
> ...but I did make one impression: Snow does not wish to be on
> the "sharp" end of gun with me....
>
> I think I sent you a copy of my original slam; if not, it's
> worth reading and I will resend;
>
> scores of comments and sub topics have been generated, some
> nitpicking over carrier #1, etc. --but this is the first flame
> which surprises me on a list with so many known faggots --you tell
> the boys from the girls in SF by grabbing their crotch.
>
> accutally, I thought my original post was rather 'sympathetic.'
>
> ------
> forwarded by Attila T. Hun <[email protected]>
> original sender was snow <[email protected]>
> ------
>
> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:23:18 -0600 (CST)
> From: snow <[email protected]>
> To: "Attila T. Hun" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Sort this directly to Flames, was Re: Homosexuals
> Sender: [email protected]
>
>> In <[email protected]>, on 01/24/97
>> at 07:17 AM, "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <[email protected]> said:
>> +Anything? My good friend TRRCJ3 reports from San Francisco that the
>> +city is much nicer now that so many homosexuals are 6 feet under.
>> +Thank God for AIDS.
>
> attila:
>> when AIDS was relatively obscure, I always dismissed AIDS as
>> God's response to homosexuality (and other crimes against nature);
>> i.e. -settlement by a just God.
>
> I almost threw a dumb ass redneck of a ship in the middle of the ocean
>for a comment like this.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. By stating the above, what he accuses
you of, he is just as guilty of in reverse. Frankly, having grown up in a
red neck crowd, and then coming to grips with the offbeat communities in
So. Cal. was a real eye opener. One can choose to fight it outloud and
create havoc whereever they go, or realize that what others do in the
privacy of their own domain is their business and doesn't affect your
manhood one way or another.
This politically correct bullshit response is just symptomatic of someone
who is uncomfortable with the position taken for expediency's sake and is
trying to justify to himself the course taken.
>
> I've read a lot of your rantings on this list, and I agree with some of
>them, but statements like this prove that you are a bigoted idiot. You may
>have some areas where you know what you are talking about, and I wouldn't
want
>to be on the sharp end of a gun you were holding, but your head is
definately
>stuck firmly up your ass.
Ok, we throw down the gauntlet here in true USENET style, and in keeping
with that, have nothing of value to say (just name calling).
>
>> Unfortunately, some of these boy-girls could not keep it among
>> themselves, and the closet queens brought it home. AIDS replicates
>
> Let's not forget the Hemophilliacs(spelling) and IV drug users.
He does bring up a point, which does in some ways support your poistion here.
>
>> asexually, knowing no boundaries.
>
> It was purely by accident that HIV was first noticed in the Homosexual
>population in this country.
>
Not true. Aids has been here for many years. They have historically traced
it back to Africa where they have records delineating the disease amongst
the Eurpoeans and those not indiginous to the area. Interesting that the
WHO and other medical groups are studying tribes in Zaire and Congo right
now that have a natural immunity to the bug. Considering they have lived in
the areas for countless years, it would make sense that natural genetic
selection would propogate those who would be resistent and live long enough
to have children. Also of interest, is the fact that the living population
under study does not practice homosexual behavoir, as it is by virtue of
the practice, pointless to the continuance of the tribe.
As to the "discovery" of AIDS in the gay population in the US. There was no
discovery, as it was a health problem that started spinning out of control
within the community. Ofcourse the Murdock press loved the setup as it
introduced the proper shock value needed to sell subscriptions - much like
the macabre sense of curiosity at viewing a terrible auto accident. Human
nature... it never changes.
> Viruses don't know anything about a persons sexual preference, and any
>so called "god" that would use such a non-selective weapon is not a god
>intelligent people should worship. Such a god would be a blind ignorant god.
Now Snow is dictating his view of God onto yours. Bad form. No justifiable
position to defend. but we do it with vim and vigor... :-)
>
>> I would not wish the disease upon anyone, but if you play, you
>> just might pay --as in "...reap what thy hath sown."
>
> Tell that to some 1 month old whose mother infected him/her. Tell that
>to a 5 year old who got it from a blood transfusion.
Someone ought to teach him about the difference between agency and
responsibility - nah, he'd use his agency to deny it anyay... :-)
>
>> To be strongly opposed to homosexuality has nothing to do with
>> bigotry, political correctness, or aberrationist apologists; it is
>> an exposition of the natural order among the species.
>
> Answer me 2 questions:
>
> 1) If homosexuality is a "choice", why would anyone choose that
lifestyle
>where the averge life expectancy is in the 40's, that causes so much pain
>among ones family, and so much conflict with the rest of society.
>
> 2) If it is not a choice, why would "god" punish those who had no
choice?
>
These two points deny the existence of agency in it's basic form, and deny
God by denying his omniscience, and omnipoitence; two basic characteristics
of the office. If God were fallable, or human (fallable), then logic would
dictate a being of higher plane and that our explict trust in him would be
subject to condition, thus invalidating the purpose and scope of religion
from a immutable definite to a maybe.
Again, a position impossible to defend. Purely opinion.
>> and for those who deny God, read Darwin as to the relative
>> rate of survival for deviant and/or abnormal species.
>
> Then how do you explain homosexual behavior in several other species
>that seem to be doing quite well?
>
Donald Woomer answered that question, by pointing out that in the Ag
business, it has been observed that ~10% of livestock of many breeds
exhibit homosexual tendencies. It doesn't matter the sex of the animal,
it's genes do not get passed on to the next generation as it refuses to
propogate with the opposite sex in many instances. This does not mean the
livestock population is threatened in toto. Infact, the population will
continue to thrive. It is when a large percentage of a given herd shows
this tendency that the herd declines, dissolves or is taken over by a
healthy herd to promulgate the species. The instict for self-preservation
is strong, and it is falacious to assume that we has humans can attribute
human attributes to such as cattle or sheep.
Given the the above claim by Snow, does this mean that man kind is nothing
more than livestock? Again, this denies agency and denies the greater
intellect that humans enjoy. To wit: when was the last time you saw a cow
expressing a global concern about politics on USENET? :-)
> The answer is you can't. You adopt a knee-jerk position that reinforces
>your deliberate isolationism. Anything that may cause you to question your
>worldview gets sorted to /dev/evil and you plow ahead like some pig ignorant
>dough boy killing as ordered for king and country.
Who's the ignorant one here? The name caller or the recipient. My vote goes
to the name caller, as he assumes this to be a debate of fact, when in
essence he's expressed only his opinion on the matter and not bothered to
show teacher his homework (the dog ate it - so give me an "A" anyway 'cause
I deserve it). ;->
...Paul