Totalitarianist

Your ignorance really does surprise me. You are lucky that I am using the computer presently only to quickly check my E-mail and some other things.

Ahhh, sounding American really makes your argument sounder.

(edited by Moderator to change quoted language to match the edited language in the original post)

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

winstonjen

It seems to me that Trebaxian Vir advocates the theory that increased masturbation results in increased crime.

As that is very doubtful, and masturbation in itself does not actually harm anyone else, I don't see anything wrong with it.

tronvillain

Ignorant? I'm not the one who accuses people of logical fallacies without understanding their definitions.

Now, can anyone here explain how "You lose little man" sounds "American"? Perhaps I am ignorant after all.

Monkeybot

Well Trebaxian, if we're tossing around logical fallacies, I'm surprised you haven't caught your own [url=http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm]Fals Analogy[/i]. Having sex with chickens, young boys, or strangling babies, or whatever bizarre situations you can come up with, are all different from masturbation in one crucial way - they affect living beings other than the one who commits the action. Sex with chickens can be argued against on the grounds that it is unnecessary cruelty to animals, pedophilia can be argued against because the child is not able to give consent, strangling babies can be argued against - well, I hope I don't have to explain this one.

Masturbation, on the other hand, is not really shown to harm anyone else. There have been dubious arguments that it hurts the perpetrator, but even if this were the case it is still a victimless crime -- and as such is fundamentally different from any of the comparisons you made.

Totalitarianist

Well, to such a degree and extent as the specified, seamingly sentient, object is presently of an undesirable mental disposition (and perhaps owing to it), which is quite manifest in the object's doubtless cessation of functioning in a manner charateristic of class "non-feebleminded" (although that would imply that we can consciously perceive negations--ignore that for the moment) in relation to the state of being suitable to fully comprehend the undeniably manifest and self-explanatory, which has been observed on occasion and is a characteristic and desirable (insofar as common thought is an object of desire) trait of the norm, which any sentient object ought to conform to (and if deficient in this respect, be attracted by), that no psychologically able man ever sees occasion for doubt as regards this point, the specified person is mistaken; for it is so incredibly manifest that the potential perceiver of the object of potential consideration is not even consciously considered by any sentient object that is a member of class "educated man".

How does it not sound American? I have only heard Americans speak like that.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Please cease presenting to the objects who are in the habit of viewing the contents of my posts or any other posts on this internet forum the analogical representation of class "ignorant" when I am the object of deliberate direction. It offends me. IT OFFENDS ME.

winstonjen

Please stop talking in complicated technical terms in an effort to confuse us. If you do that, we will all be able to have a more civil discussion.

Totalitarianist

The above person asserts that I use "complicated technical terms" so as to "confuse" the persons I am communicating with. Clearly, this is not the case. Give me one example of a "technical term" that I used.

Jagged

analogical

have you had a sex change recently?

Totalitarianist

If you consider that technical, it is in the case of my using the word a justified use of the word, for it is a common word that every man can define.

I did not have a sex change. I am, and have always been, male.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lady Anoteros ]</p>