Hi Good Dad,
> ****ists have rights. You have an unalienable right to go ****d.
Only in segregated areas at present.
> Wearing no clothing is freedom of
> speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. It is just
> like wearing a Christian Cross, or a Jewish Star, a Nazi sign, or an
> Indian headdress. It is just like dressing like a Hari Krishna, or
> wearing the attire of the Ku Klux Klan.
Why do you want to associate ****ists with the likes of Nazis or the Ku
Klux
Klan? These groups and their legacies should be wiped from the planet's
history.
> We are more than ****ists, we are ***ualists.
> ***ualists are like ****ists, except while they believe in the freedom
> to go ****, they also believe in the freedom to have *** in public.
*You* might be a ***ualists, but the majority of ****ists are not like
that.
Most want *** and ***uality to be a special, private, intimate thing
unless
they are swingers who like to **** up as well.
> People who condemn ***uality are bigots, intolerant of others
> lifestyles, religions, or methods of expression.
We do not condemn ***uality - just knowing that there is a time and place
for everything. Having *** in the middle of the city mall, or out in the
parking lot of Wal-Mart is not appropriate. In the privacy of your own
home, yes.
> Telling intolerant
> people to be tolerant is not the same as being intolerant. Freedom
> should prevail, and the law should follow freedom. I.e. it is not the
> blacks, Jews, Christians, ****ists, ***ualists, or other minorities who
> are in the wrong, but the Nazis, Klansmen, anti-****ists, and anti-
> ***ualists who are in the wrong.
Christians are not a minority group, at least not in our countries.
> However, while the Nazis, Klansmen,
> anti-****ists, and anti-***ualists are in the wrong, the law should
> still give them the right to free speech.
I disagree. Hate speech should be made illegal if love and tolerance is
to
prevail.
> I just hope that they will
> listen to my reasoning and come to be tolerant.
Unfortunately there is Buckley's chance of that. Have you ever heard of
the
saying "A leopard won't change his spots" at all?
> "I may detest what you say, but I would fight to the death for your
> right to say it."
> - Voltaire
>
> Hate speech is bad and wrong, it should even be condemned, but it
> should still be legal. Otherwise we be unable to make the point of
> tolerance itself, and instead come to resort to mindless oppression.
Hate speech drives people to commit crimes, massacre other people etc.
etc.
We can do without it, thank you.
> For if we can outlaw one thing we find odious, then why not another.
> And perhaps it is you the condemner who is odious, rather than that
> which you condemn. Though it is true, the haters are kind of
> attacking, but if we outlaw hate speech we loose the free speech
> principle, and have no arguments merely oppression.
Free speech should not include the right to indulge in threatening
behaviour
or verbally threatening another person's life.
> The above and below is not meant to be construed as an avocation to
> break any laws. The currently immoral statutory laws say ***ual
> activities are illegal everywhere I know of in public.
There is a reason why: we are human beings, and not evolved enough to have
eradicated envy and jealousy from our lives.
> While you have an unalienable right to wear what you want and do what
> you want in public, on private property there can be dress codes, and
> codes of conduct. What private property owners should not
> discriminate against are things a person can not change such as race,
> handicap, or in some cases, political and religious ideologies. The
> line is greyer in public institutions such as public schools; but they
> should definitely make an attempt to at first accommodate everyone
> rather than to inhibit someone's desires; yet in some cases things
> such as gang signs or colours may necessarily be prohibited.
That's true.
> Free love is not all inclusive, just less exclusive. You shouldn't
> just find someone to have *** with, you should find someone who you
> _want_ to have *** with. All of *** is and should be fun, even before
> you have an orgasm.
Free love went out in the mid-80's when AIDS and HIV came in. These days,
people are much more conservative ***ually. Times have moved on, and the
***ual revolution of the 60's has crashed back in the opposite direction.
> We are pro-gawkers. We know there is nothing to see, and believe
> everyone should gawk away. If someone is beautiful, how is it wrong to
> be staring at them? Gawkers should join the ****d party. We are
> exhibitionists and voyeurs.
I'm not a pro-gawker. Try gawking at people in a ****ist venue, and see
how
long you will last in there. Gawkers should be counselled before going
into
a ****ist environment.
> But really, it's no big deal. For after
> the initial novelty wears off there's nothing to stare at (or exhibit)
> but beauty. You might stare at a beautiful sunset or a beautiful woman
> - it isn't wrong. Staring at someone because they're **** is just
> because it's a novelty.
But it is *NOT* considered acceptable behaviour. People don't like being
stared at, regardless of whether they are dressed or ****.
> It would just be a problem if it bothers
> someone.
For most people, it does bother them, especially young women. You've got
to
be very careful with where and how you look in a ****ist environment, and
especially if you are not a married man.
--
Regards,
Dario Western
(61) 0437-428-859
Come and visit my sites at:
http://www.myspace.com/fatpizzaman
http://360.yahoo.com/larrikin70
http://theglamgod.spaces.live.com
|
