There is no Homo Gene by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I hope he was saying that they may both have genetic causal factors, and not that they are equally desirable or repugnant.

LOL... that's exactly right Anthony. Just putting it out there as a compare and contrast thing, based also upon sociatial definitions of what is right and wrong. Look at the Middle East and see how much they believe is right that we would believe is wrong. I believe it's Discovery channel that has a show about stuff that goes on in other cultures everyday that would be considered the most taboo thing ever here....

Hope that answers your last question Mal4Prez....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Hope that answers your last question Mal4Prez....

Sorry, not so much.

OK, let me sum up. You've said the following:

"...not seeing much of a difference here, except for how society judges the three differently today." --- implying that the only difference between gays, peds, and beasties is some random opinion of fickle society.

"I'm just saying that it's funny that we can somehow justify homosexuality today with genetic code but we can't justify the others with it." --- implying that the only justification of homosexuality is genetics. And, obliquely, that the only way to be against pedophilia and beastiality is to be against homosexuality.

"I bet it won't be long before we're justifying pedophilism and beastiality by blaming them on genetics too, just like homosexuality and obesity." --- implying that all of us are so stupid that we only accept gays because of genetics, and so we'll blindly do the same with the other two.

"Just like people argue in favor of homosexuality, today, they argue against beastiality, today. But it wasn't 30 or 40 years ago where nobody stood up for homosexuality and it was treated exactly as beastiality today is concerned." --- implying that if we accept homosexuals, we are in essence accepting beastiality.

And your tone throughout has clearly classed homosexuality as a deviance equivalent to fucking sheep or children, and you've assumed that gays are inherently deserving of blame and should be held responsible for some kind of wrong-doing.

So, are you still saying all this, or has the consent argument gotten through to you at all? I'm still waiting for a reply on that, btw. My question was:

Homosexuality -> consent is given -> everyone involved has freedom of choice -> A-OK!
Pedophila -> no consent is possible -> child has no freedom of choice -> Bad!
Beastiality -> no consent is possible -> animal has no freedom of choice -> Bad!

Do you disagree with this? If so, can you explain without changing the subject?

(I'm noting that this post has a bit of a confrontational tone. Sorry. I don't mean it! Just trying to get to business, as, whether you meant to or not, you've side-stepped the whole consent argument.)

[edited for clarity. Do I really need to say this?]

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 10:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To drag the argument back to the beginning.... 6ix, what you're really going on about is "predeterminism". Because youd like to think that we're really free in some basic fundamental way... free to determine what we do, who we like etc. (And therefore, if we choose badly we should be "punished".)

But yanno, we're ALL limited by our biology.

Much as I would like to be way smarter than I am, I'm no Einstein and I'll never be. I can't see magnetic force fields like some birds or ultraviolet like bees. Nor can I breathe water. My daughter? Poor dear, she has many more limitations. Some people are bipolar and some are chronically depressed. And YOU? You're hooked by nicotine because at least ONE of your genes creates nicotine-sensitive receptors. So people are all on a continuum and while none of us are ubermen, some of us are more constrained than others.

I used to think, for example, that pedophiles should be able to just lead sexless lives even if they could never "learn" to be attracted to adults. And then I ran into a few cases where some pedophiles appeared to have true compulsions... to the point where they committed suicide rather than go on. That's not to say that I find pedophilia "acceptable" or "uncontrollable". But because people ARE on a continuum it's usually not a clearcut case of "biochemical" OR "willpower" .... it's often both.

The only way to figure out how much is under a person's control (willpower) and how much is biochemically-based is to try different therapies and see which one "works", for what percentage of people, and whether there are any markers or indicators that tell you which therapy to apply.

But AFA "homosexuality" is concerned, since I find no harm in it... as long as it meets what I would consider to be "responsible sex" between ANY people (ie. consenting, careful about not spreading diseases etc>) then I wonder why anyone would want to "treat" it.

PS: 6ix, do you want to prove to us how much we "can" control? Then quit smoking today.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 10:52 AM

STORYMARK

After reading through this entire thread - and I know others are trying to be diplomatic about this, but 6ix, on this subject at least, is a blithering, self-righteos buffoon.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 10:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW speaking of rapists, pedophiles etc --- a thought crossed my mind. You know how they've tried releasing a few male sex offenders with madatory chemical castration ? It turns out it doesn't work - b/c they still report sexual fantasies and erections, and those who can't have errections can go on to rape using objects.

Why don't they try Prozac ?? Considering it eliminates most interest in sex ...

***************************************************************
Willpower isn't what it's cracked up to be. And biochemicals can have unexpected effects.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To drag the argument back to the beginning.... 6ix, what you're really going on about is "predeterminism". Because youd like to think that we're really free in some basic fundamental way... free to determine what we do, who we like etc. (And therefore, if we choose badly we should be "punished".)

Punishment was never part of the equation. I wouldn't want a homo punished anymore than I am being punished for smoking. Just last week they eliminated our smoking lounge, so now I get to smoke outside in the 10 degree Wisconsin December weather, next month, anytime I go back home to Illinois and go out to a bar with my friends I will be unable to smoke there by law and on January 1st in Wisconsin, I get the privelage of paying $1.00 more per pack to help the communists in this state meet their bloated budget.

I'm just saying I don't want to hear somebody cop out why they do something. I'm a smoker. I made the decision to smoke years ago and now I'm addicted to it. (What the non-smokers don't seem to get is that I do get enjoyment out of it, nonetheless).

Mal4Prez - On a personal level, I will admit that I find all three acts to be on a plane of repugnancy, although to varying degrees, but I realize that people aren't going to be into what I'm into either and so I don't force feed it to everyone. Like my Uncle said, let the gays fuck on the steps of City Hall for all I care, just don't make me have to hear about them all the time.

Give them the right to a civil union and the tax benefits therin, don't burn crosses on their lawns or wrongfully imprison or terminate their jobs based on their preferences and then maybe, just maybe.... they will shut the fuck up one day and I won't ever have to waste another second hearing or thinking about poopy dick.

I apologize for my confrontational posts.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:26 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
All this is just asking for someone to call "naturalistic fallacy."
People want to dismiss homosexuality as wrong because it's unnatural, so whether it's natural or not is a central theme.

No, no; that's not the point of the naturalistic fallacy. Basically, it's fallacious to say that any supposed "natural" trait (for instance, genetic disposition, or physical pleasure, or some such) is identical with the good. For that to be the case, it would have to be true that some natural property that is identical to the good. The trouble is, no matter which one you pick, it's going to turn out to be an open question whether it really is identical with the good (and most can be dismissed by recourse to simple counter-examples). So it very well might be true that people are genetically predisposed to homosexual desires, but if so, that mere fact doesn't entail any ethical conclusions about such behavior, one way or the other--pro or con.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 5:31 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Are we honestly debating the merits and flaws of bestiality?

Aren't you glad we have a RWED where such things can be discussed?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 14, 2007 7:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Are we honestly debating the merits and flaws of bestiality?

Aren't you glad we have a RWED where such things can be discussed?

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

Well,

I'm glad we're not censored, if that's what you mean.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
No, no; that's not the point of the naturalistic fallacy. Basically, it's fallacious to say that any supposed "natural" trait (for instance, genetic disposition, or physical pleasure, or some such) is identical with the good. For that to be the case, it would have to be true that some natural property that is identical to the good. The trouble is, no matter which one you pick, it's going to turn out to be an open question whether it really is identical with the good (and most can be dismissed by recourse to simple counter-examples). So it very well might be true that people are genetically predisposed to homosexual desires, but if so, that mere fact doesn't entail any ethical conclusions about such behavior, one way or the other--pro or con.

Yeah I know, I was in a rather poorly stated way, indicating that people weren't necessarily saying it's good because it's natural, but saying it is natural to refute the assertion that it is unnatural, and bad because it is unnatural. I tend to hold the stance that anything natural is neutral, and it's how it is used that makes the difference. Nature has no morality (morality neutral, not immoral).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:13 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Punishment was never part of the equation. I wouldn't want a homo punished anymore than I am being punished for smoking.

Okay, punishment aside, do you understand my point that it's not a case of "either- or" but "both"? Most people have a certain degree of "freedom of choice" but SOME people have compulsions. But even if we were to take those people who have an average amount of internal freedom.... whatever amount that is.... they are STILL constrained by biology in ways that we're just beginning to understand. Capice?

Quote:
Just last week they eliminated our smoking lounge, so now I get to smoke outside in the 10 degree Wisconsin December weather, next month, anytime I go back home to Illinois and go out to a bar with my friends I will be unable to smoke there by law and on January 1st in Wisconsin

On a purely personal note, I'm non-smoker who grew up with 2 pack-a-day smoking parents. My lungs, forty years on, STILL show the effects of their smoking.... smoking I was forced to do in their presence. If you can find some technological way of smoking around non-smokers w/o impacting them with your poopy dick... I mean cigarettes... then feel free to smoke in my presence. Otherwise take your filthy habit where I won't have to see it, smell it, breathe it too.

Quote:
I get the privelage of paying $1.00 more per pack to help the communists in this state meet their bloated budget.

Different argument entirely. I don't disagree with you on this one.

Quote:
I'm just saying I don't want to hear somebody cop out why they do something. I'm a smoker. I made the decision to smoke years ago and now I'm addicted to it. (What the non-smokers don't seem to get is that I do get enjoyment out of it, nonetheless).On a personal level, I will admit that I find all three acts to be on a plane of repugnancy, although to varying degrees, but I realize that people aren't going to be into what I'm into either and so I don't force feed it to everyone. Like my Uncle said, let the gays fuck on the steps of City Hall for all I care, just don't make me have to hear about them all the time. Give them the right to a civil union and the tax benefits therin, don't burn crosses on their lawns or wrongfully imprison or terminate their jobs based on their preferences and then maybe, just maybe.... they will shut the fuck up one day and I won't ever have to waste another second hearing or thinking about poopy dick.

Sounds to me that you want freedom to impose YOUR habit on others, but not the reverse.

AFA people "copping out".... what does it gain to have someone who is homosexual say "I made the decision to be attracted to the same sex"? Aside from the fact that it prolly isn't true.... if everyone "owns up" to their behavior.... the OCD person admits they decide to wash their hands 500 times a day, the brain damaged person admits its their choice to be disabled .... what's the advantage? Do you think this promotes their "recovery" by placing responsibility and therefore control in their hands? If that's not the point, what is?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
No, no; that's not the point of the naturalistic fallacy. Basically, it's fallacious to say that any supposed "natural" trait (for instance, genetic disposition, or physical pleasure, or some such) is identical with the good. For that to be the case, it would have to be true that some natural property that is identical to the good. The trouble is, no matter which one you pick, it's going to turn out to be an open question whether it really is identical with the good (and most can be dismissed by recourse to simple counter-examples). So it very well might be true that people are genetically predisposed to homosexual desires, but if so, that mere fact doesn't entail any ethical conclusions about such behavior, one way or the other--pro or con.
Yeah I know, I was in a rather poorly stated way, indicating that people weren't necessarily saying it's good because it's natural, but saying it is natural to refute the assertion that it is unnatural, and bad because it is unnatural. I tend to hold the stance that anything natural is neutral, and it's how it is used that makes the difference. Nature has no morality (morality neutral, not immoral).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

Hello,

I couldn't help but think that if a cat eats her children, she's being natural, and therefore neutral.

But if a human eats their children, suddenly it's a big deal. ;-)

Does the ability to apply a moral code to something make it unnatural and then evil or wrong? Without a moral judgement, philosophy, or imperative, isn't everything natural and neutral? I mean, naturally, whatever it is, it happened. If it happened, then naturally, it can't be unnatural.

It seems to me that only humans (and God, if you believe) have the power to name acts 'unnatural' or 'wrong.' This is based on a moral code, very similar to 'do no harm,' in most cases, and may bear no correlation to the naturalness of something.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Mal4Prez - On a personal level, I will admit that I find all three acts to be on a plane of repugnancy, although to varying degrees, but I realize that people aren't going to be into what I'm into either and so I don't force feed it to everyone.

And yet, you're still avoiding my question.

My impression: you seem fully ensconced in your emotional reaction to homosexuality, so much so that you can't consider the issue rationally. You can't seem to discuss the questions that I and other posters have raised, you just continue to push your repugnance on us, over and over, as if that means anything in the larger debate.

Which brings me back to the my first post on this thread: congratulations on that bible belt mentality. You've got it down my friend.

I don't say this to insult you, I'm merely sad. I see the good in you, grasshopper. I see the desire to fix what's broken in our world. But you're not going to be able to change anything until you break through the barrier of emotion-driven self-absorption that binds you up. Stretch your brain a little, Jack. Come into the light of open-mindedness and empathy!

Um, yeah...

So, anyway, is there any way I'll ever get you to that homosexuality involves no victim? It wouldn't make you a fag to say it, if that's what frightens you. It wouldn't make you weak. Wouldn't involve any poopy dicks all over you. In fact, pretend I'm only referring to lesbians, if that's less threatening...

But I suppose not. *sigh*

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I couldn't help but think that if a cat eats her children, she's being natural, and therefore neutral.

But if a human eats their children, suddenly it's a big deal. ;-)

I wasn't aware Cats ate they're kittens, unless you're talking about Big Cats like Lions that will kill a rivals cubs, but that's rather a different thing. Though it does go to my original point that nature is morality neutral. If a Cat were to eat it's offspring, it's likely a natural response, because Cats aren't conscious in the way we are, and act on instinct. Humans doing the same thing would be unnatural if eating offspring wasn't instinctual. Humans are one of the few Animals that can do things we weren't programmed to do, we're one of the few creatures that can be unnatural, but morality is a separate issue.

Quote:
Does the ability to apply a moral code to something make it unnatural and then evil or wrong? Without a moral judgement, philosophy, or imperative, isn't everything natural and neutral? I mean, naturally, whatever it is, it happened. If it happened, then naturally, it can't be unnatural.

Huh? Natural, as in occurs in nature, unnatural as in it doesn't?

Quote:
It seems to me that only humans (and God, if you believe) have the power to name acts 'unnatural' or 'wrong.' This is based on a moral code, very similar to 'do no harm,' in most cases, and may bear no correlation to the naturalness of something.

Isn't this what I said? Nature has no morality?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:21 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
It seems to me that only humans (and God, if you believe) have the power to name acts 'unnatural' or 'wrong.' This is based on a moral code, very similar to 'do no harm,' in most cases, and may bear no correlation to the naturalness of something.
Isn't this what I said? Nature has no morality?

So then the questions is, "In virtue of what (if anything) are some acts morally blameworthy?" I know that's not on topic, but it's what interests me!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So then the questions is, "In virtue of what (if anything) are some acts morally blameworthy?" I know that's not on topic, but it's what interests me!

Cit, Causal, good discussion. I agree that morality has no place in nature.

Causal, moral blameworthiness in my eyes is like I posted above:

"everyone is free to do as they will as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's rights."

Which of course, is not always cut and dried. Doing as I will could involve torturing houseflies. Do houseflies have rights? Or it may be my will to get married in a particular church. Does my will trump that church's will to not pander to godless heathens?

But I think the idea provides a basis for morality. And actually, much smarter people than me have put it much better, saying that each of us has inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Behavior that hinders that is legally, and I believe morally, wrong.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:36 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

So then the questions is, "In virtue of what (if anything) are some acts morally blameworthy?" I know that's not on topic, but it's what interests me!

Performing an act on a being you would not want performed on you.

That was easy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So then the questions is, "In virtue of what (if anything) are some acts morally blameworthy?" I know that's not on topic, but it's what interests me!

Morality is a rather subjective position, one reason why it's hard to quantify. Human morality, I'd classify as (in the most cases) good furthers the survival of the species, bad hinders it.

Asimov came up with a fairly neat definition for morality if you're a robot in his three laws. They're not completely transferable to Humans though, but then what's morally good for one species isn't for another.

It's 'good' to eat Chicken, it furthers your survival and via that the survival of the species, but it's best not to ask a Chicken what it thinks about the whole deal.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well, first of all, we need to stop divorcing the human race from nature. We are natural. The things we do that are 'unnatural' acts are merely in someone's nature.

Animals murder, commit cannibalism, perform acts of racism, rape, etc.

It's all natural.

And then humans do it.

It's still 'natural.' Under Citizen's definition, it's 'morally neutral.' Except it's not, all of a sudden, when the animal in question is a human being.

The reason we suddenly see 'natural' things as 'wrong' in the human world is because we are one of the few creatures on this planet that can analyze and criticise our own behavior. We can see that there are benefits to being 'unnatural' and so we assign moral blame to natural actions.

As near as I can tell, the only 'unnatural' act human beings perform is to apply morality to their actions.

And as far as that goes, I agree with Chris.

Do what you like, so long as you do no harm to another.

But nature doesn't work on that principle.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 7:08 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

And as far as that goes, I agree with Chris.

Do what you like, so long as you do no harm to another.

Problem there, is that some who inflict pain want it done to them too- that doesn't fit in too well with the bigger picture....

Eat Hannibal! Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It's still 'natural.' Under Citizen's definition, it's 'morally neutral.' Except it's not, all of a sudden, when the animal in question is a human being.

Except you missed the part where I explained why. Humans are one of the few animals that can do things outside of their natural behaviours, unless you think building and operating computers is 'natural'. We do things under the dictates of intelligence, that are unnatural. Most animals act purely on instinct, Humans don't.

Neither is it "all of a sudden". I clearly stated that Morality is subjective, it's just a construct we created ourselves (or was handed down to us from God, if your so inclined).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:10 AM

Anthony, you claim to live by a certain principe (the same exact one as me, btw) and then you say "nature doesn't work on that principle." Can you see that this is exactly why humans beings are divorced from nature? We have created our morality. Or maybe it evolved for "natural" reasons. Whatever - point is, morality is ours alone, and not universal.

I mean, if you want to be completely anal, then plastic is natural because it is a result of nature: nature made us, we made plastic. All natural! Ditto with concrete and Big Macs and jet planes and everything else.

Perhaps what we really need here are mutually agreed upon definitions of natural and unnatural?

BTW, I don't necessarily equate "unnatural" and "wrong," because it is subjective. Too often people will label something they don't like as unnatural, just so that they can say it's wrong.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 12:28 PM

And still no reply from Jack...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:01 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

In fact I do think the human invention of the computer, and other tools, is completely natural. Clearly we are a tool using species.

Natural, of course, doesn't equate with beneficial. A Beaver may build a dam to serve his needs (whatever those are) but that dam may not be of benefit to creatures downstream.

In fact, I think you're right in that we probably need to come up with a definition as to what natural is.

If natural means, 'not of man' then everything mankind does is unnatural. If natural means, 'anything that animals don't do' and we exclude 'human' from the list of animals, then I maintain our only unnatural act is self-analysis. (Which leads to morality, philosophy, etc.)

Animals build and use tools, though on a much simpler scale. Some animals solve problems. I've even seen animals use deception and advanced planning to achieve their ends.

We do what animals do, only better. And the one thing we do that animals don't do, is examine ourselves.

(Of course, I'm open to learning about other things we do that animals don't do, at least on some scale.)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If natural means, 'not of man' then everything mankind does is unnatural. If natural means, 'anything that animals don't do' and we exclude 'human' from the list of animals, then I maintain our only unnatural act is self-analysis. (Which leads to morality, philosophy, etc.)

But our ability to self-analyze developed naturally, as part of our ability to survive. It's no different than other mental abilities we have - being able to build computers, cultivate land, practice medicine, throw a shrimp on the BarB. I mean, just because animals don't have self-awareness to the degree we do, doesn't mean ours came from some other source than nature. (Or do you believe it did? Is that your basis?)

Really, "natural" as you define it seems a bit useless to me, because it includes every damned thing LOL!

Anyway, on to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

NATURAL

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.

I took the liberty of underlining the ones I find pertinent: definitions 1, 5, and 6 indicate that natural means things seperate from or untouched by humans.

Definition 15 I just find interesting. So... innate morals are considered natural, as in all of us have the same ones, and they are unquestionable. Set in stone. It certainly is a concept that's been big throughout human history, but I don't agree!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:16 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

No, I can't agree that morals are innate to all human beings, either. We can usually agree on some of them, but we can never seem to agree on all of them.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:36 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"Really, "natural" as you define it seems a bit useless to me, because it includes every damned thing LOL!"

Hello,

I wanted to comment on this, because it was rather my point. The terms 'natural' and 'unnatural' feel meaningless to me in the context of 'right' and 'wrong.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On a purely personal note, I'm non-smoker who grew up with 2 pack-a-day smoking parents. My lungs, forty years on, STILL show the effects of their smoking.... smoking I was forced to do in their presence. If you can find some technological way of smoking around non-smokers w/o impacting them with your poopy dick... I mean cigarettes... then feel free to smoke in my presence. Otherwise take your filthy habit where I won't have to see it, smell it, breathe it too.

I don't disagree with you here on the workplace thing. I don't have a problem with there not being an indoor smoking lounge, and in fact I posted so on the company bulliten board. I have offered a great deal of my personal money to construct an outdoor smoking lounge and suprisingly 90% of the replies I have so far are from non smokers and ex-smokers. I've also got 5 or 6 people so far who are willing to contribute, again, non smokers.

(EDITED TO ADD: This however, does not go for bars, resturants or strip clubs where the atmosphere lends itself to smoking. In these cases, particularly if they are not a chain and they are owned by individuals, I believe the free market should decide and there would one day be somewhere around an equal amount of smoking and non-smoking extablishments. I know this stripper who thinks it's rediculous that she can't smoke at work anymore. Guys (and girls) go there all the time and drink enough to damage the liver and pay for lap dances and happy endings in the back, but they can't enjoy a drag. I wouldn't want to be forced to smoke outside at work if I was wearing a thong and two postage stamps.)

I would appreciate it at the same time if there didn't have to be so much gay everywhere in the media because it makes me ill. I'm sure most gay people aren't of the school of thought that gaydom needs to be shoved down the throats of the general populace too. (All puns intended).

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:08 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
On a purely personal note, I'm non-smoker who grew up with 2 pack-a-day smoking parents. My lungs, forty years on, STILL show the effects of their smoking.... smoking I was forced to do in their presence. If you can find some technological way of smoking around non-smokers w/o impacting them with your poopy dick... I mean cigarettes... then feel free to smoke in my presence. Otherwise take your filthy habit where I won't have to see it, smell it, breathe it too.

I don't disagree with you here on the workplace thing. I don't have a problem with there not being an indoor smoking lounge, and in fact I posted so on the company bulliten board. I have offered a great deal of my personal money to construct an outdoor smoking lounge and suprisingly 90% of the replies I have so far are from non smokers and ex-smokers. I've also got 5 or 6 people so far who are willing to contribute, again, non smokers.

(EDITED TO ADD: This however, does not go for bars, resturants or strip clubs where the atmosphere lends itself to smoking. In these cases, particularly if they are not a chain and they are owned by individuals, I believe the free market should decide and there would one day be somewhere around an equal amount of smoking and non-smoking extablishments. I know this stripper who thinks it's rediculous that she can't smoke at work anymore. Guys (and girls) go there all the time and drink enough to damage the liver and pay for lap dances and happy endings in the back, but they can't enjoy a drag. I wouldn't want to be forced to smoke outside at work if I was wearing a thong and two postage stamps.)

I would appreciate it at the same time if there didn't have to be so much gay everywhere in the media because it makes me ill. I'm sure most gay people aren't of the school of thought that gaydom needs to be shoved down the throats of the general populace too. (All puns intended).

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

Hello,

I think it's a travesty that they make them wear the postage stamps.

In other news, there is a device that allows the channel on your television to be changed in response to excessive 'gayness.' There is a rumor that the same device allows gay people to avoid excessive 'straightness' when desired. Story at 11.

--Anthony

P.S. I agree that businesses should be allowed to decide which clientele they will cater to.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 16, 2007 8:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I've no comment on the threads original issue beyond my initial one, but as far as indoor smoking goes.

I think ALL businesses oughta have an effective and efficient air circulation and filtration system whether they allow it or no - only common sense, isn't it ?

I mean, what if there's a grease fire in the kitchen or something ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 12:35 AM

FLETCH2

I don't see that it matters. How someone comes to be gay has no impact on my sexuality, I'm pretty sure you cant catch "gayness" like the flu, so being around gays doesn't bother me either. Further a "gay marriage" does not make my marriage any less real or less important.

Put another way, who cares?

I mean apart from Jack....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 17, 2007 1:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I've no comment on the threads original issue beyond my initial one, but as far as indoor smoking goes.

Another point is air travel. There’s evidence to suggest deep vein thrombosis is caused by poor air quality, not cramped conditions on airplanes. The air in aircraft is of lower quality now, than when people were allowed to smoke, because the air isn't recirculated and refreshed as often. Why? Because without cigarette smoke it's not noticeable, and less air refreshing is cheaper...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:33 AM

>Enter society and it's stupid bullshit.

I could care less how 'society' or others view my decisions. If they aren't harmeful to others, I will do as I damn well please. Be that interracial dating or whatever else you can come up with that is typically taboo in society.

I haven't given enough thought, nor am I scientifically minded enough, to give an opinion on if homosexuality is encoded in our genes, if some are predisposed to it where others are not.

But, really, who cares? Some are gay, some are straight, some like to date within their race, some like to date outside of it. Who is it harming? Delicate sensibilities who don't like to see certain things on the street? Then look away.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:50 AM

>The gays are jumping all over that one and saying that it is their genetics that makes them that way.

Have you considered that people may not actually BELIEVE this, but if they can change lelgislation, they will get more of what they want, benefits, etc?

Just another pov.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 9:58 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
But, really, who cares?

A lot of people, a better question would be who SHOULD care and the answer is no one. The thing is that there are a lot of people who see homosexuality as "unnatural" and want it to be treated as such, but if it's genetic then they've got no leg to stand on with that argument.

Quote:
Who is it harming?

No one, but there is a perception that accepting gays harms society in some way, again there's nothing to back that up but some people still believe it.

Quote:
Delicate sensibilities who don't like to see certain things on the street? Then look away.

But why should 6ix have to turn his head? Shouldn't they be doing that in private so that he doesn't have to see it? It's their responsibility to not bother him not his responsibility to ignore them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:13 AM

>But why should 6ix have to turn his head? Shouldn't they be doing that in private so that he doesn't have to see it? It's their responsibility to not bother him not his responsibility to ignore them.

That's like saying heterosexual people should be handholding and kissing in private so that those who don't want to look at it (not necessarily just gay people) don't have to.

That's rediculous.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
That's like saying heterosexual people should be handholding and kissing in private so that those who don't want to look at it (not necessarily just gay people) don't have to.

Yeah, but they're unnatural and disgusting, so it's completely different.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:29 AM

>Yeah, but they're unnatural and disgusting, so it's completely different.

Only to the prejudiced.

"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
Only to the prejudiced.

Yeah but you're only sayin' that cause ya want me.

It should be noted that this and my last post are entirely sarcasm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 10:45 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It should be noted that this and my last post are entirely sarcasm

It should be noted that the last part of my post was also sarcasm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by Leiasky:
But, really, who cares?

A lot of people, a better question would be who SHOULD care and the answer is no one. The thing is that there are a lot of people who see homosexuality as "unnatural" and want it to be treated as such, but if it's genetic then they've got no leg to stand on with that argument.

Wrong. At least it's not the point here. The point of the thread is to make people accountable for their own actions. I wasn't judging homosexuality, as many people here have attacked me for. Sadly, I may have even sounded like it at some point, and I apologize for that if this is the case, but I was being attacked and many of my posts in here were written with not the coolest of heads.

I was simply saying in this thread that people should stay away from the belief that sexuality is pre-determinied by genetics just as they should stay away from the belief that our actions are pre-determined by God or some other higher power. It's rediculous to me, the notion that somebody would hate God or religion, or just resent their attack on desires that humans have, and yet they follow a very similar path under science.

What are you people? Robots? Are you not free to make choices for yourself? That ain't the world I live in. I want no part of it.

Quote:
Who is it harming?

No one, but there is a perception that accepting gays harms society in some way, again there's nothing to back that up but some people still believe it.

I do believe that I've made it very clear that I liken somebody's desire to engaging in homosexual behavior with another conscenting adult and even getting married to having the same rights smokers SHOULD have.... people in general, for that matter. I wouldn't deny them a civil union. On what basis would I be able to argue anytyhing that I've ever stood for in here if I were to?

I can only assume, of course, that you're not referring to me here and this was just a general statement thrown out there that you thought sounded good.

Quote:
Delicate sensibilities who don't like to see certain things on the street? Then look away.

But why should 6ix have to turn his head? Shouldn't they be doing that in private so that he doesn't have to see it? It's their responsibility to not bother him not his responsibility to ignore them.

Wow... What a double standard we have here. The very same people who say that I should have to see it everywhere I turn tell me that I can't smoke unless it's under a blanket in my closet. And not unless I'm taxed very, very heavily for it as well.

Even the gays had bars to gay around in years before gay rights became cool.

So what's happened here? All the homosexuals have come out of the closets and now folk like you are intent to fill them back up with all the smokers?

(NOTE: Don't think I haven't noticed that it's not homosexuals doing this, but self-righteous shit heads)

I hope the homosexuals feel my pain. I sure have a good taste of what they've went through. I'm happy for them that they're at the end of their persecution while I, on the other hand, am just trudging through the beginning of mine.

Nazis

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:20 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I was simply saying in this thread that people should stay away from the belief that sexuality is pre-determinied by genetics just as they should stay away from the belief that our actions are pre-determined by God or some other higher power. It's rediculous to me, the notion that somebody would hate God or religion, and yet follow a very similar path under science.

Uh...6ix...the thing is: you are (intentionally?) confusing the choice to act on one's sexual orientation (clearly a choice) and the "choice" to have a particular sexual orientation (really not a conscious choice at all).

No one's acts of will are determined by their sexual orientation, but a lot of sexual response (arousal, hormonal secretion, other stuff, ask Rue) is involuntary, not chosen, and does not respond well at all to being reassigned. Criminy, have you met any "ex-gays?" If sexual orientation were just a choice, these guys wouldn't be the miserable frauds they are.

Furthermore, some of the things that arouse us are biologically determined and some of them are socially manufactured and some are out-and-out malfunctions. Who decides which is which? Well, that's something we're all working on understanding. You don't help matters with your oversimplifications.

You might find the book The Descent of Woman pretty interesting and perhaps enlightening. The author, Elaine Morgan, has some fascinating (and not a little disturbing) theories about why human sexuality is so damn complicated compared to all the rest of the critters on the planet. I really wonder what you'd make of it.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:36 PM

We are the sum of our experiences as well. There is no evidence out there that proves that this is any more a genetic thing than an enviornemental thing.

Why did I begin smoking when I've heard a million times growing up that it would kill me?

That question becomes even more of a mystery when you find out just how old I was when I began smoking.

I wasn't some dumb 13 year old kid that was seduced into smoking by looking at too many subliminal images of Joe Camel's big beautiful cock-nose.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 5:41 AM

HKCAVALIER

So how old were you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:05 AM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Wrong. At least it's not the point here. The point of the thread is to make people accountable for their own actions.

Which makes no sense to me considering reality. In the real world there are plenty of people with a wide variety of compulsions that they can't control, denying this is simply denying reality. If the research in the original post pans out for a variety of species (and it probably will) then that means that people don't get to choose who they are attracted to which means making them "accountable" for a compulsion that harms no one and can't be controlled is simply pointless and stupid.

Since I can see you twisting things I'll also make the point that people who have compulsions that cause actual harm to others should be pitied but they shouldn't be let off the hook even if they can't control themselves.

Quote:
I was simply saying in this thread that people should stay away from the belief that sexuality is pre-determinied by genetics just as they should stay away from the belief that our actions are pre-determined by God or some other higher power.

Because you don't want to believe it's true, not because it isn't true, you are essentially saying that we should ignore evidence that we (or more rather you) disagree with, ignoring reality usually doesn't lead to good ends.

Quote:
It's rediculous to me, the notion that somebody would hate God or religion, or just resent their attack on desires that humans have, and yet they follow a very similar path under science.

?

I'm curious as to exactly what you mean by this, are you equating scientific evidence that sexuality is at least partially controlled genetics with the denial of sexuality practiced by Abrahamic religions?

Quote:
What are you people? Robots? Are you not free to make choices for yourself? That ain't the world I live in. I want no part of it.

Human, no (at least not last time I checked), yes. However our decisions are often influenced by factors outside our control, be they genetic factors or trained responses. Denying that simple fact is ludicrous.

Quote:
Quote:
Who is it harming?

No one, but there is a perception that accepting gays harms society in some way, again there's nothing to back that up but some people still believe it.

I can only assume, of course, that you're not referring to me here and this was just a general statement thrown out there that you thought sounded good.

You are correct, that statement was not directed at you. You are incorrect, I didn't say it just because it sounds good, I said it because there are people who actually believe it.

Quote:
Wow... What a double standard we have here. The very same people who say that I should have to see it everywhere I turn tell me that I can't smoke unless it's under a blanket in my closet.

There's a double standard that you missed, you seem feel that you should be able to smoke whenever and wherever you feel like but that gays should have to hide their feeling while in public. I also note for the record that I'M not the one who talks incessantly about freedom then does an about face when faced by something I don't like.

Additionally there's a slight difference in that smoking actually causes physical harm to everyone in addition to discomfort for many while gays being visibly gay merely causes discomfort for some.

I'd also like to note that while I support a ban on smoking in public places I don't support a ban on smoking in private establishments that decide to allow it.

Quote:
And not unles I'm taxed very, very heavily for it as well.

You choose to smoke you choose to pay the taxes, it's no different from casinos where you choose to lose your money.

Quote:
So what's happened here? All the homosexuals have come out of the closets and now folk like you are intent to fill them back up with all the smokers?

No, I for one just don't feel that your right to smoke trumps my right to breathe smoke-less air, again if a private institution feels that they want to allow smoking that's fine, I'll probably be avoiding them. I have to breathe, you don't have to smoke.

Quote:
I hope the homosexuals feel my pain. I sure have a good taste of what they've went through.

Bullshit, and I doubt that many of them will take kindly to your equating your problems to theirs.

Quote:
I'm happy for them that they're at the end of their persecution while I, on the other hand, am just trudging through the beginning of mine.

Nazis

Hear that tiny little violin playing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So how old were you?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

17 when I smoked my first cigarette...

19 when I started buying my own.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 11, 2008 5:30 PM

Hey fredgeblit,

I'm sure you would like it if I were to say to everyone that I should be able to smoke anywhere and anytime I damn well please, but I believe you have me mistaken for somebody else. I've never once said that before.

What I have said, is that I respect an organizations decision to allow or disallow smoking. I do not much appreciate Big Brother coming in and telling a business owner that they have to ban smoking under duress of fines and loss of their license for their establishment.

I feel we're in agreement here.

I don't want to put anybody out, and I do my part not to litter my butts or smoke in areas that I just know it's going to piss people off. I'm actually much more friendly in person than I am here, believe it or not. This is my venting ground. RWED is my Zoloft, so I don't kill motherf

, as Mike Tyson would say.

I don't see why it has to be BLACK or WHITE. But I dont' feel that I need to argue with you here because you said virtually the same thing yourself in the post above. We just wouldn't bump into each other at the pub ever, since you'd be at the smoke free ones and I'd be in the smoking ones.

Win-win for everybody.... so what's the real agenda behind the push to control everything and everyone?

As far as taxes raising astronomically on something you don't care about since you don't partake, I'll just say what I say to anyone else who says that shit so smugly. You'll get yours soon. Your self-righteous hypocracy will come back to bite you in the ass some day when it's something that you enjoy that you feel has no business being taxed at a rate 10 times what the product actually costs.

Maybe then you might know what it's like....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:45 AM

PIRATECAT

Yeh I knew a homo named Gene. He mentally raped me 10 times a day at work. You always lust for what you can't have.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:47 AM