Login

06-23-2003, 08:35 AM

I think the first and primary defenition of sodomy is anal intercourse... correct me if im wrong here.

Fragbait · 06-23-2003, 08:49 AM

... depends on the nation you live in.
For example, in Germany, sodomy means intercourse with animals. :o

It can also mean homosexuality, and homosexual intercourse - be it oral or anal - in nations where christianity is common.

Greetings, Fragbait

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 12:12 PM

Hi,

Bookmark http://www.m-w.com or some other dictionary server. Use it when there is a question of definition. Remember that dictionary definitions aren't necessarily up to date on usage and often don't have technical or jargon usage right, but are often a good starting point.

From the link:

1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

Covers rather a lot of ground, no?

--Pete

PS Humorous aside. Ran the spell checker (ieSpell) and the only word it choked on was "noncoital" which was in a cut and past from the dictionary :)

wundergore · (This post was last modified: 06-23-2003, 01:01 PM by wundergore.)

Nevermind: Pete already clarified.

W>

kandrathe · 06-23-2003, 04:23 PM

Quote:Pure libertarianism is not a fact that the world must run by, it's an opinion shared by a minority.

Ah, too bad that some feel that they must enforce their sense of morality upon others with laws. I mean you wouldn't want prostitutes playing strip poker, whilst riding in a car without wearing a seatbelt.

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 04:55 PM

Hi,

This is not wrong but in saying "The purpose of government as founded in the United States" it implies that it is the complete purpose.

No, it doesn't in the context that I used it since I went on *in the same sentence* to contrast the legislating of the prejudices of the majority with the freedoms of the minorities. However, your extension to my argument is valid. And the balance between the freedoms of an individual and safety of *others* is a strong pivot for arguments on issues like gun control. But I'm hard pressed to see how homosexual marriage effects my safety or that of anyone else.

Thus, while valid, I fear your argument is a red herring in this discussion. :)

--Pete

pakman · 06-23-2003, 04:59 PM

Red herrings smell bad...and let's give it up to semantics!

06-23-2003, 05:05 PM

I was addressing your post but also the whole string of posts that led preceded it. it want really meant to be an arguement so much as a reminder.

The whole line seemed to be losing perspective on why we have our laws. I wasnt trying to comment on homesexual marriage but rather I was addressing a commen trend in these type of threads that bothers me.

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 05:05 PM

. . . and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Hi,

let's give it up to semantics

?????????????????????

Do you know what "semantics" is? If so, why did you say that? If not, why did you say that?

--Pete

pakman · 06-23-2003, 05:08 PM

Here is an article from today's Chicago Tribune. Exactly what we have been saying here.

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 05:10 PM

Hi,

The whole line seemed to be losing perspective on why we have our laws. I wasnt trying to comment on homesexual marriage but rather I was addressing a commen trend in these type of threads that bothers me.

I will not pretend to understand what you mean on the basis of your previous post, though it does give a glimpse. However, a thread on the purpose of government could be interesting, possibly shedding some light without an overabundance of heat. You might want to kick it off by expanding on the view you sketched in that post.

--Pete

pakman · (This post was last modified: 06-23-2003, 05:16 PM by pakman.)

No, it doesn't in the context that I used it since I went on *in the same sentence* to contrast the legislating of the prejudices of the majority with the freedoms of the minorities

You are explaining the semantics of your sentence.

n. Semantics: The study or science of meaning in language.

You want to start pulling out argumental and logical fallicies, let's start with your ad hominem arguments. Most of the time you comment on the apparent stupidity or idiocy of the poster and not the issue at hand.

Why did I post that? Why did you post to attack me? Lighten up.

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 05:23 PM

Hi,

You are explaining the semantics of your sentence.

No, I was explaining the *grammar* of my sentence. Semantics had nothing to do with it, both Ghostiger and I agreed on the terms and concepts used.

You want to start pulling out argumental and logical fallicies, let's start with your ad hominem arguments. Most of the time you comment on the apparent stupidity or idiocy of the poster and not the issue at hand.

Ad hominem attacks are invalid in reply to a argument. If there was no argument presented, simply a bland and incorrect statement, there can be no counter argument other than "that was nonsense". Most of the time in those cases the stupidity (or, more often the ignorance) of the poster *is* the main issue at hand. For instance, your ignorance and misuse of "semantics" was the sum and substance of your post and my reply.

--Pete

pakman · (This post was last modified: 06-23-2003, 05:45 PM by pakman.)

This is going nowhere. I can sit here and argue all day, but I have work to do and I'm getting paid for my time.

Edit: grammar mistakes --- wouldn't ya know.

06-23-2003, 05:38 PM

Pete, you attacked him. Just admit you were wrong and be humble about it, I hate it when you philosophical types get on a rant and have to go insulting anyone who isnt taking things as deathly serious as you are.. :o Btw: Not everyone gives a rat's ass about their grammar, thats no excuse to flame.

Occhidiangela · 06-23-2003, 06:04 PM

for Kandrathe:

Quote: I mean you wouldn't want prostitutes playing strip poker, whilst riding in a car without wearing a seatbelt

Eh, why not? :D 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished, unless one were driving, in which case the distraction of the poker game could be a road hazard that makes cell phone conversation "behind the wheel" seem tirival in comparison.

"Honest, Officer, I saw her g-string, I mean the stop sign, it was right under her flopping headlights, I mean the yellow flashing light!"

*Accepts the traffic ticket with a grimace, and wonders why the State Trooper had everyone "put 10 fingers on the fender and spread 'em!": the ladies weren't driving . . . *

--Pete · 06-23-2003, 06:09 PM

Hi,

Pete, you attacked him.

Yes, I did. never denied it as any literate person would know.

Just admit you were wrong and be humble about it

Since I *meant* to attack him, I wasn't wrong. And I'll be humble when humility is called for. In this case it isn't.

hate it when you philosophical types get on a rant and have to go insulting anyone who isnt taking things as deathly serious as you are

And I hate it when you jackasses open your mouths and bray about things you have no clue about.

Not everyone gives a rat's ass about their grammar, thats no excuse to flame.

Well, let's see. First, there was no flame, second, the topic wasn't about grammar. Third, you've opened your mouth and there is no doubt left.

--Pete

Occhidiangela · (This post was last modified: 06-23-2003, 06:22 PM by Occhidiangela.)

Quote:Pete, you attacked him. Just admit you were wrong and be humble about it, I hate it when you philosophical types get on a rant and have to go insulting anyone who isnt taking things as deathly serious as you are..  Btw: Not everyone gives a rat's ass about their grammar, thats no excuse to flame.

And some folks here hate it when 'excitable' types sound off without any merit, thought, or reason other than to sound off. That conversation up there was doing quite nicely on its own, all handling themselves within the norms of this board, and hardly needed your butting in and a rather clumsly attempt at 'pouring gas on the fire' rather than 'oil on the water.'

Sometimes, there is wisdom in silence. Or are you just trying to pick a fight?

I've sinned by saying too much myself, from time to time, and having walked a mile in the shoes, so I recognize zero value added 'scolding' when I see it. It has never worked for me so far. :(

PS: A tip for you: if you are going to do a 'Me Too,' you probably need to figure out who the Big Dog is, or you make yourself look silly. :o Given the last thread wherein all and sundry gave you a hard time, should I conclude that you don't learn quickly? Hopefully not, and more data points should probably be sampled before I draw such a conclusion.

Right? ;)

PPS: Tip #2: Build 'street cred' before launching on anyone. ;) Post count on dii.net don't count as street cred, FWIW.

EDIT: a couple of typos, and it looks like Pete replied while I was typing this.

kandrathe · 06-23-2003, 06:18 PM

Yes, I agree. B) See, Libertarianism is not that bad, as far as ism's go. But as with many things, some people tend to take it to ridiculous extremes, then point at it as an aberration.

06-23-2003, 08:00 PM

Extremes are bad, take extreme jerks for example... hi Pete.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me