whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:32:12 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

The fishing club here have an inbuilt hatred of Eastern Europeans
based on the belief that they take caught fish to eat.

I would have thought that was the point of fishing!

In practice most prefer to torture the fish by sticking
a barbed hook in their mouth, yanking them out of
the water, putting their foot on them while getting
the hook out and then putting them back in the water.

I've not seen proper fisherman put their feet on the fish.
There's no evidence fish feel pain but they do feel discomfort.


Wonder why those who hate seeing foxes chased
by a horde of hooray henrys on horses with dogs
don't give a damn about the torture of fish.

Most do, but they can't prove that the fish feel pain which makes it
difficult to ban fishing.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808123719.htm


Fish do not feel pain the way humans do, according to a team of
neurobiologists, behavioral ecologists and fishery scientists. The
researchers conclude that fish do not have the neuro-physiological
capacity for a conscious awareness of pain.

Up until 20 years ago the same brand of religious prejudice combined
with unjustified but dogmatic scientific speculation led to exactly the
same conclusion being declared about newborn babies; so surgical
procedures were done on them without anaesthetic. Since babies cry
anyway, it was not obviously evil to the people doing it. Now we don't
believe that; the evidence is unchanged.

Bottom line, the idea that fish don't feel pain is convenient but
speculative.


--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 14:19:42 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:32:12 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:

In practice most prefer to torture the fish by sticking
a barbed hook in their mouth, yanking them out of
the water, putting their foot on them while getting
the hook out and then putting them back in the water.

I've not seen proper fisherman put their feet on the fish.
There's no evidence fish feel pain but they do feel discomfort.


Wonder why those who hate seeing foxes chased
by a horde of hooray henrys on horses with dogs
don't give a damn about the torture of fish.

Most do, but they can't prove that the fish feel pain which makes it
difficult to ban fishing.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808123719.htm


Fish do not feel pain the way humans do, according to a team of
neurobiologists, behavioral ecologists and fishery scientists. The
researchers conclude that fish do not have the neuro-physiological
capacity for a conscious awareness of pain.

Up until 20 years ago the same brand of religious prejudice combined
with unjustified but dogmatic scientific speculation led to exactly the
same conclusion being declared about newborn babies; so surgical
procedures were done on them without anaesthetic. Since babies cry
anyway, it was not obviously evil to the people doing it. Now we don't
believe that; the evidence is unchanged.

Bottom line, the idea that fish don't feel pain is convenient but
speculative.

and a tad unrealistic


NT

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 14:19:42 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 18:32:12 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

The fishing club here have an inbuilt hatred of Eastern Europeans
based on the belief that they take caught fish to eat.

I would have thought that was the point of fishing!

In practice most prefer to torture the fish by sticking
a barbed hook in their mouth, yanking them out of
the water, putting their foot on them while getting
the hook out and then putting them back in the water.

I've not seen proper fisherman put their feet on the fish.
There's no evidence fish feel pain but they do feel discomfort.


Wonder why those who hate seeing foxes chased
by a horde of hooray henrys on horses with dogs
don't give a damn about the torture of fish.

Most do, but they can't prove that the fish feel pain which makes it
difficult to ban fishing.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0808123719.htm


Fish do not feel pain the way humans do, according to a team of
neurobiologists, behavioral ecologists and fishery scientists. The
researchers conclude that fish do not have the neuro-physiological
capacity for a conscious awareness of pain.

Up until 20 years ago the same brand of religious prejudice combined
with unjustified but dogmatic scientific speculation led to exactly the
same conclusion being declared about newborn babies;

No it wasn't it was teh opposite they believed they felt pain more than adults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

Pain in babies, and whether babies feel pain, has been the subject of debate within the medical profession for centuries. Prior to the late nineteenth century it was generally considered that babies hurt more easily than adults.


so surgical
procedures were done on them without anaesthetic. Since babies cry
anyway, it was not obviously evil to the people doing it. Now we don't
believe that; the evidence is unchanged.

No, we know more now.

Why would they slap a baby on teh bum in order to make it cry if it didn't feel pain ?



Bottom line, the idea that fish don't feel pain is convenient but
speculative.

Still very little evidence that fish feel pain the same way humans do.

Of course PETA claim that they feel pain but then they claim a lot of things.

On 21/12/2017 06:36, Richard wrote:
On 20/12/17 23:53, Bill Findlay wrote:
pamela wrote:

I'm all for tolerating minorities and leaving them to do what they
want but I can't see why minority beliefs need to be paraded as
normal.

Being a member of an ethnic or sexual minority is not a belief.
Your idiotic and bigoted ideas are, though.

So you supported the white minorities in Africa?

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Bill

On 21/12/2017 in message Bill Wright wrote:

So you supported the white minorities in Africa?

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

What about Scotland, same principles :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
(Bill Gates, 1981)

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does that make
those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was only for
producing offspring. As some religious nutters would have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Your idiotic and bigoted ideas are, though.

How about the idiotic and bigoted ideas of Islamic minorities though?

How about the idiotic and bigoted ideas of Christian minorities though?

How about the idiotic and bigoted ideas of Turnip?

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Rather like the EU does to the UK?

--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 14:48:53 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 06:36, Richard wrote:
On 20/12/17 23:53, Bill Findlay wrote:
pamela wrote:

I'm all for tolerating minorities and leaving them to do what they
want but I can't see why minority beliefs need to be paraded as
normal.

Being a member of an ethnic or sexual minority is not a belief.
Your idiotic and bigoted ideas are, though.

So you supported the white minorities in Africa?

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

It's a good idea but you're suggesting replacing their culture with our own which can and has caused problems in the past. It's not something you can rush it may take the 3 or 4 hundred years it took the UK to achive such things.



Bill

On 21/12/2017 14:49, whisky-dave wrote:

Why would they slap a baby on teh bum in order to make it cry if it didn't feel pain ?


Why do babies cry at all? And has it only started happening since they
were slapped on the bottom?

In the past a crying baby would have identified to a predator an easy
meal (of both the baby and its companions)




--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 15:45:55 UTC, alan_m wrote:
On 21/12/2017 14:49, whisky-dave wrote:

Why would they slap a baby on teh bum in order to make it cry if it didn't feel pain ?


Why do babies cry at all?

I've no idea why anyone crys whether sad or happy .

And has it only started happening since they
were slapped on the bottom?

No idea , never trained as a midwife perhaps they know.


In the past a crying baby would have identified to a predator an easy
meal (of both the baby and its companions)

I'm not sure man or the 'apes' at the time had many predators.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions.

So the only time you ever had sex was when trying for a child?

If the answer to that is no, you are perverted. As is the vast majority of
the population.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

Morally acceptable? Think there are rather more things to worry about on
that front first...

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to.

Good grief. Absolutely no one sets out or decides to become homosexual.
Anymore than they can choose the colour of their eyes. Apart from the odd
prostitute.


Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

You cannot ask an animal what it truly thinks.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

Sexual relations between an adult and child cannot be justified ever.
Unless we assume a child is capable of making all important decisions for
themselves. Which no society ever has.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 06:36, Richard wrote:
On 20/12/17 23:53, Bill Findlay wrote:
pamela wrote:

I'm all for tolerating minorities and leaving them to do what they
want but I can't see why minority beliefs need to be paraded as
normal.

Being a member of an ethnic or sexual minority is not a belief.
Your idiotic and bigoted ideas are, though.

So you supported the white minorities in Africa?

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Bill
Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.


--

Roger Hayter

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does that make
those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was only for
producing offspring. As some religious nutters would have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 15:51:07 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 15:45:55 UTC, alan_m wrote:

Why do babies cry at all?

I've no idea why anyone crys whether sad or happy .

And has it only started happening since they
were slapped on the bottom?

No idea , never trained as a midwife perhaps they know.


In the past a crying baby would have identified to a predator an easy
meal (of both the baby and its companions)

I'm not sure man or the 'apes' at the time had many predators.

Quite right, big cats and packs of dogs didn't exist then. Nor did very large birds of prey or any other large and dangerous animal you'd prefer to entirely forget about when sozzled.


NT

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 16:16:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Sexual relations between an adult and child cannot be justified ever.
Unless we assume a child is capable of making all important decisions for
themselves. Which no society ever has.

Just for argument's sake

In the 12th century, the Catholic Church allowed daughters over 12 and sons over 14 to marry without their parents' approval, even if their marriage was made clandestinely [1] and those ages continued in Scotland until 1929.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marria...ge#cite_note-6

Watching the Jeremy Kyle show (which I only ever do by accident, honest guv) makes me think that a lot of people are incapable of making a decision about marriage or sex at any age.

Owain

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

An interesting philosophical viewpoint.

Bill

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Bill
Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.

Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

Bill

In article ,
wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 16:16:45 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Sexual relations between an adult and child cannot be justified ever.
Unless we assume a child is capable of making all important decisions for
themselves. Which no society ever has.

Just for argument's sake

In the 12th century, the Catholic Church allowed daughters over 12 and
sons over 14 to marry without their parents' approval, even if their
marriage was made clandestinely [1] and those ages continued in Scotland
until 1929.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marria...ge#cite_note-6

But were they allowed to vote? Own property? Go to war etc? The emphasis a
society places on sexual matters varies enormously. And most of the laws
made by men.

Watching the Jeremy Kyle show (which I only ever do by accident, honest
guv) makes me think that a lot of people are incapable of making a
decision about marriage or sex at any age.

;-)

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:

I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

The fact is that adult homosexuality is regarded by most people as
morally acceptable. Personally I feel that as long as they don't
frighten the horses they can do as they like. The problem I have with
the BBC and others of that ilk is that they tell kids that such things
are not only acceptable but desirable. They never ever tell kids
anything about the disadvantages of a homosexual relationship or
lifestyle. They also encourage kids to disclose their sexuality far too
early. There's still a stigma attached to homosexuality in many people's
eyes. You can't get away from that; some people will always pick on a
minority. But it's a reality, and there's also straightforward
playground nastiness and bullying. I think by encouraging kids to
declare their sexuality when it is still fluid the BBC are putting these
kids in the firing line unnecessarily.


Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to.

Kids shouldn't be brainwashed into aspiring to any sexual identity, gay
straight or anything else. Why can't we let them grow up and assume
their sexual identity without pressure when the time is right?

Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately misinterpreted
by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Bill
Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.

Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

Bill

I always assumed they were clay pots. But this is mainly an oral
tradition. The records of torture and extra-judicial murder are
copious and written. Added to which is the public testimony of both
victims and perpetrators. I would hate to think that you were trying to
throw doubt on it.




--

Roger Hayter

Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

Bill
How can evolution have an intention. Sex evolved and we make us of it
how we like. You might as well say hands were intended for hanging
from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

An interesting philosophical viewpoint.

Bill
It is actually the only possible one if one is not religious.
Evolution *never* has a purpose. Traits that evolve have adaptive
value, but it may not always be obvious what it is, nor is there any
obvious moral imperative to keep practising the activity that seems to
be most obviously directed to procreation.

I am not sure whether you feel that perpetuating the species is a moral
good. Even if one does (and the reasons are not obvious to me) then a
very limited amount of sexual activity by many but not all people is
quite sufficient to achieve this.


--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 18:05:42 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

But don't they have a right not to be proselytised to, and it's a shame to waste the protein?

Owain

On Thursday, 21 December 2017 18:26:22 UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
... the disadvantages of a homosexual relationship or
lifestyle.

which are?

I haven't known many people in homosexual relationships but one couple had wonderful soft furnishings (a previous boyfriend had been a window-dresser in Harrods and took maximum advantage of staff discount and sun-faded / shop soiled items).

Now that dishwashers are so affordable the old argument of who washes and who dries needn't arise.

Owain

On 21/12/2017 18:06, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 16:46, Roger Hayter wrote:

They are the people who seem to be able to run a country in a civilised
manner after all. Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Depends how civilised you think arbitrary arrest and routine mass
torture is.

Not as bad as boiling missionaries in big iron pots. I know they do
that; I've seen it in Beano.

Yebbut if three missionaries and three cannibals must cross a river
using a boat which can carry at most two people and the missionaries
cannot be outnumbered by cannibals or the latter would eat the former)...

--
Max Demian

On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:
On 15:03 21 Dec 2017, Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does
that make those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was
only for producing offspring. As some religious nutters would
have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to. Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

Still OK in many US states...

--
Max Demian

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
Tim Lamb wrote

The fishing club here have an inbuilt hatred of Eastern Europeans
based on the belief that they take caught fish to eat.

I would have thought that was the point of fishing!

In practice most prefer to torture the fish by sticking
a barbed hook in their mouth, yanking them out of
the water, putting their foot on them while getting
the hook out and then putting them back in the water.

There's no evidence fish feel pain

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

Wonder why those who hate seeing foxes chased
by a horde of hooray henrys on horses with dogs
dont give a damn about the torture of fish.

Most do, but they can't prove that the fish feel pain

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

which makes it difficult to ban fishing.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

On 21/12/2017 18:26, Bill Wright wrote:
On 21/12/2017 15:54, pamela wrote:

I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

Changes in moral norms harm the idea that morality is in some way
absolute rather than relative which most people find uncomfortable.

IOW, if it was OK for the Ancient Greeks, why isn't it OK for us? We
still accept Pythagoras' Theorem and Archimedes Principle.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

The fact is that adult homosexuality is regarded by most people as
morally acceptable. Personally I feel that as long as they don't
frighten the horses they can do as they like. The problem I have with
the BBC and others of that ilk is that they tell kids that such things
are not only acceptable but desirable. They never ever tell kids
anything about the disadvantages of a homosexual relationship or
lifestyle. They also encourage kids to disclose their sexuality far too
early. There's still a stigma attached to homosexuality in many people's
eyes. You can't get away from that; some people will always pick on a
minority. But it's a reality, and there's also straightforward
playground nastiness and bullying. I think by encouraging kids to
declare their sexuality when it is still fluid the BBC are putting these
kids in the firing line unnecessarily.

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to.

Kids shouldn't be brainwashed into aspiring to any sexual identity, gay
straight or anything else. Why can't we let them grow up and assume
their sexual identity without pressure when the time is right?

Â* Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal?Â* You know it's
wrong.

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately misinterpreted
by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Wherever have you seen that? I haven't heard any such notions since the
seventies.

Anyway, what is a child? And what is sex? And what about child/child sex?

--
Max Demian

On 21/12/2017 19:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
snip

I am not sure whether you feel that perpetuating the species is a moral
good. Even if one does (and the reasons are not obvious to me) then a
very limited amount of sexual activity by many but not all people is
quite sufficient to achieve this.


Indeed. And AIUI "very limited" could be "nil" given it's not just eggs
which can be extracted surgically for "in vitro" fertilisation. I do
not know what's involved in surgical extraction of semen. But there are
some here who I think could usefully give it a go



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 21/12/2017 16:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:

Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

You cannot ask an animal what it truly thinks.

Neither can another animal.

--
Max Demian

On 21/12/2017 16:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

Sexual relations between an adult and child cannot be justified ever.
Unless we assume a child is capable of making all important decisions for
themselves. Which no society ever has.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

"Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in
medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to
consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for
parental permission or knowledge."

--
Max Demian

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 14:04 21 Dec 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/12/17 06:05, Richard wrote:
On 20/12/17 22:55, pamela wrote:
On 18:17Â 20 Dec 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/12/17 11:59, Bill Wright wrote:
On 20/12/2017 11:53, Jethro_uk wrote:

Last week for two hours, the BBC News front page managed to
have absolutely nothing whatsoever about Brexit. Nothing. I
actually saved the page*. Not even a link.

I think it has become necessary to use a wide variety of
news sources and apply critical thought to everything. It's
terrible that we can't believe the BBC anymore.


in 1980 I emigtated to S afroca for three years, where the
staggering propagnada show of the SABC was so obviuous it
wasnt ven argued over.

Presumably you no longer consider yourself a true Brit after
completely abandoning the UK for several years.

Do you now have a South African passport?

Define "true Brit".


No dear, I do not have a south african passport, and your use of
perjorative language like 'abandoning the UK for three years'
shows the true depths of your bigotry.



So why did you abandon the UK for three years?

You don’t know that he did. For all you know,
he may have just been interested in how things
are in other than that soggy little frigid island.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Why should we not bring the benefits of our superior
culture to the stone age savages?

Rather like the EU does to the UK?

Like the holocaust ?

alan_m wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Why would they slap a baby on teh bum in order to make it cry if it
didn't feel pain ?

Why do babies cry at all?

To indicate that they need something done
that the can't do for themselves, like be fed etc.

And has it only started happening since they were slapped on the bottom?

Nope.

In the past a crying baby would have identified to a predator an easy meal
(of both the baby and its companions)

Doesnt explain why all mammal babys do cry etc when
they need something like food or just miss their mum etc.

Presumably they evolved like that because they are
much more likely to do if they just do nothing and
hope the food or mum etc will show up sometime.

On 21/12/2017 20:31, Max Demian wrote:

I think a more important boundary is the one surrounding child sexual
abuse. Any sexual activity with a child is abhorrent, but I fear that
the seeming 'anything goes' culture might be deliberately
misinterpreted by those wishing to legitimise their CSA activities.

Wherever have you seen that? I haven't heard any such notions since the
seventies.

Read up on PIE.


Anyway, what is a child?

Someone below the age of consent

And what is sex?

It's an old word for Saxon

And what about child/child sex?

Depends on the age and whether there was coercion.

Bill

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
pamela wrote:
I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's
sexuality as 'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with
words. What's classed as normal depends largely on the societal
norms prevalent at the time. The ancient Greeks regarded the
man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have
become unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being
mealy-mouthed as usual. If something has been perverted it has
simply been misused; used for something other than its intended
purpose. Since sex is intended for procreation, homosexual
activities are perversions. But so what? By the true definition
of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a perversion. Again,
so what?

The "so what" is.... the BBC should not foist these ideas on a young
generation to give them the impression that such aberrations are
morally acceptable.

Morally acceptable? Think there are rather more things to worry about on
that front first...

Although a liberal society tolerates such sexual deviants, their
behaviour is hardly something we should hold out for coming
generations to aspire to.

Good grief. Absolutely no one sets out or decides to become homosexual.
Anymore than they can choose the colour of their eyes. Apart from the odd
prostitute.


Otherwise what's next, bestiality as
acceptable if it doesn't cause harm to an animal? You know it's
wrong.

You cannot ask an animal what it truly thinks.

You don’t need to if you have a clue about animals.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

On 21/12/2017 11:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
pamela wrote:
For example, we all known homosexuality is not normal but we
generally tolerate the aberration.

Care to define normal? If brown eyes are the most common does that make
those with green not normal?

Defining sexuality as normal or not would be fine if sex was only for
producing offspring. As some religious nutters would have you believe.


I don't think it's important to categorise an individual's sexuality as
'normal' or 'abnormal'. It's just playing with words. What's classed as
normal depends largely on the societal norms prevalent at the time. The
ancient Greeks regarded the man-boy relationship as entirely normal.

It's interesting how the words 'pervert' and 'perversion' have become
unacceptable to the PC obsessives. They are just being mealy-mouthed as
usual. If something has been perverted it has simply been misused; used
for something other than its intended purpose. Since sex is intended for
procreation, homosexual activities are perversions. But so what? By the
true definition of 'perverted' the use of contraceptives is a
perversion. Again, so what?

How can evolution have an intention.

No one said it does.

Sex evolved and we make us of it how we like.

But you inevitably get some real quirks, like those
insects that eat the head of the ****er after the
****ing. Hard to say what evolutionary advantage
that’s has and if it has, why it isnt more common.

Same with pairing for life etc.

You might as well say hands were intended for
hanging from trees and manufacture is a perversion.

Not when all the animals that hang from trees also use tools.

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 15:51:07 UTC, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 21 December 2017 15:45:55 UTC, alan_m wrote:

Why do babies cry at all?

I've no idea why anyone crys whether sad or happy .

And has it only started happening since they
were slapped on the bottom?

No idea , never trained as a midwife perhaps they know.

In the past a crying baby would have identified to a predator
an easy meal (of both the baby and its companions)

I'm not sure man or the 'apes' at the time had many predators.

Quite right, big cats and packs of dogs didn't exist then.

They didnt in fact eat many human babys.

Nor did very large birds of prey

Those just hang around and feast on the corpses.

or any other large and dangerous animal

In fact it is other humans who are much more dangerous.

you'd prefer to entirely forget about when sozzled.

Blotto, actually.