dk

• Tani:
  - slander involveds whoes concent? the person doesn't have to either know it or physically be there to be a victim of slander.
  dk: A person may know they’ve been slandered, but the victims knowledge of the slander is incidental and irrelevant.
• Tani:
  - adultery requires breaking an established contract without concent, meaning there must be at least three parties involved with one unconsent to be an adultery, or it is just called polygamy.
  dk: The victim of adultery like the victim of slander may or may not know, most of the time they don’t know they’ve been wronged.
• Tani:
  - conspiracy involves at least one party gainning from anthoer party without its knowledge, if the affected party gave its concent, then acknowledgement of such plan is de facto known to the other party, and in such case we just call it a contract.
  dk: Again the conspirators know who the victim is, but they don’t tell the victim.
• Tani:
  - blackmail is the same thing, it is a blackmail only if there are terms in the contract which are enforced without consent, with consent we just call it contract.
  dk: Blackmail amounts a scandalous threat where the parties agree its cheaper to pay off, than pay up. As long as the person being blackmailed pays nobody knows but the blackmailer and the person blackmailed. Ironically the place where blackmail usually takes place is civil court, where a defendant pays big bucks for a gag order on the plantiff.

dk: Kimpatsu said, “I find all actions between consenting adults more tolerable than attempts to interfere in said actions.” I’m simply pointing out to Kimpatsu the faults in such a statement. Consent doesn’t imply legitimacy or immunity. The legitimacy of anal sex must therefore depend upon something else, something unmentioned.

Kimpatsu

What nonsense. Anal sex between consenting adults is perfectly legitimite. Why do you spend so much time obsessing about other people's sexual practices? (speculations deleted by moderator)

Nostalgic Pushhead

No. If two people consent to something, and it doesn't involve anyone else, and it doesn't endanger anyone (including themselves), then its okay. Can anyone come up with an example to the contrary?

DK, are you aware you're not making ANY sense?

Jinto

dk: will you please state once and for all why YOU find homosexuals to be so offensive. Not your bigoted right-wing arguments, not your bullshit about slippery slopes, not your idiocy about not undeerstanding the meaning of consent, not any of that, I want to know your personal reason.

(deleted by moderator)

The Other Michael

Jinto and Kimpatsu, you need to be more careful about addressing dk's arguments, and not speculating about his personal life.

Attack the arguments, and not the person making them.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Nowhere357

1000 pts on "lack of thoughtful morals".

Morals, after all, require empathy.

dk

What's interesting is that the pro-homo crowd, who claim to be enlightened, jump to the conclusion that I find gays or lesbian's offensive. I don't.

Jinto

We are pro-rights, not pro homo. How many of us do you see telling you how great it is to be homosexual, and that you should try it? (Answer: 0)

And sorry. I forgot: you insist on this artificial distinction between "gay" and "gay culture," purporting that there is no link when we show that you are making bigoted and unfounded statements, yet you depend on assuming that the two are one and the same in order to make your argument.

Now, stop dodging and answer the question.

dk

No, I distinguish between gays and lesbians. Anyone that confuses an indivicual with a community or culture is a bigot. Bigots need government institutions to legitimize their values. For example it was absentee fathers, abusive mothers, divorce and adulters etc... that made the institution of marriage necessary. If people weren't corrupt there would be little if any need for institutions, or laws.

The Other Michael

Excuse me, but that's a mighty sweeping statement.

I have the idea that marraige came about partly as a way to control property rights via inheritance.

Also, you can't have divorce and adultery exist before the institution of marraige, as they are both defined by marraige (one is the dissolution of marraige, and the other is sexual relations outside of marraige).

That leaves you with proving your assertion that absentee fathers and abusive mothers were a direct cause for people to sit down and say "gee fellows, I've got this idea that I call "marraige" that I think we should bring about".

Citing your sources for your assertions above would be a nice thing to do.

cheers,
Michael