Since you want another round... Just replace 'drinking' with 'underage sex' and see if your argument changes. If your argument changes simply by changing the circumstances, then you have not espoused a principle, but merely a generalisation which - as generalisations always do - is often right but also often wrong. It is a generalisation that abortion is supported more by the right than the centre and left. It is mostly true but not exclusively so.
So, do you feel you have a right to impose your view on underage sex on people and penalise it? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ricardo Aráoz Sent: Friday, 9 April 2010 10:11 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: Re: [OT] You picked a fine time to lead us... geoff wrote: > If you actually read what I say you will notice that I wasnt making it a > hard and fast rule. I was making it a general observation which means there > are exceptions and differences in the application of this observation as > well as times when it is absolutely true. You dont seem to see the > inconsistency in replacing one erroneous absolutism with another. In general > terms, that which we fail to restrict or penalize we give implicit licence > to. In your example you DO give licence to Communism and drinking while > personally supporting neither. Clear enough or do you want another round on > the pendatry merry-go-round? > Let's go another round. I don't support drinking, I discourage my daughter and anyone else to drink alcohol. I think drinking is a disgusting and unhealthy addiction and I don't give any implicit or explicit license to. Yet I have no right to impose my views on other people, so I don't think it should be penalized. Clear enough or do you want another round on the merry-go-round? (notice I'm exercising my christian forgiveness and not referring to pedantry, I'm not penalizing you for being uncharitable) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Ricardo Aráoz > Sent: Friday, 9 April 2010 9:12 AM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] You picked a fine time to lead us... > > geoff wrote: > >> || I'm not saying it's similar nor dissimilar, I'm saying the equation >> > "not > >> penalize = support" is really stupid.|| >> >> actually what YOU are saying is quite silly. In very general terms we DO >> support what we fail to restrict or penalise >> > > Really? Prove it! > > I don't support communism, but I don't think communism should be > penalized in my country. I don't support drinking, but I don't think > drinking should be penalized. > > Now, just prove both my assertions are false. > Christ, these people! > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
