gender confused wrote:
>>>

Quote:

>>> >>>>What he does with other consenting adults is not something I intend toget upset about. >>> >>>Nor do I. >>>

>>>
>>>Seems to imply that you have no moral problems with it,
>>
>>You sure are reading a whole lot into my statements, hussy. Whether or
>>not I have disagreement over the morality of what others do is begging
>>the question. The issue was whether or not I intend to get upset about
>>it. I didn't, I don't, and I won't.
>>
>>>or is it something you consider immoral, but not upsetting?
>>
>>I think my posts against sadomasochism and homosexuality are still
>>archived at Google. Perhaps you can figure out my views from when I've
>>already addressed the issue. I haven't changed my mind.
>>
>>>Sounds a bit inconsistent.
>>
>>Only to someone like you intent on stirring up shit rather than taking
>>someone at his word.
>
> You didn't address my point.

Yes, I did. I said I wouldn't get upset about it. I'm not upset, and I
won't get upset about it. It isn't worth my time and there's nothing I
can do to stop him from doing what he wants with other consenting
adults. That does NOT mean I find such behavior acceptable or beneficial
to anyone involved.

> You said that you didn't intend to get
> upset about it. How does that go with finding it immoral, if you do
> find it immoral?

The two are completely unrelated, dummy. I'm not upset by what some
pederast chooses to do out of my sight. If he explains his predilections
in any detail, I may or may not express my views about
morality/immorality. I still wouldn't get upset at any point in that chain.

Contrary to what you apparently think of me, and perhaps others, I don't
get physically or emotionally upset by what others say or do. My mind,
emotions, and body are not controlled or affected by the private actions
of others.

>>The OP made a generalization on par with ones I've made and to which
>>you've taken exception. Pinko.
>
> He has said, directly, that not all banana farms was bad and some
> might be having better standards, but he didn't know which ones.

He made a rash generalization about his behavior and attributed it to a
sense of ethics. I took exception, and I still do. That is what every
aspect of my responses to him was about. Your silly game has only
muddied the water, and taken us away from the main issues I raised. In
so doing, you chose to ignore the points I made and interpret ONE
****ING QUESTION in light of what you *think* I meant or thought. You
were, and still are, WRONG about my intentions.

>>I didn't say they were all bad, either. Again, you reflexively give
>>others a measure of benefit of the doubt and assign to me the worst of
>>intentions. You are a misguided, shrill idiot.
>
> Ehm - I'll repeat my question, as you didn't answer it: Do you agree
> that *some* of them are bad?

I did answer it.

>>>That something comes from an activist doesn't
>>>automatically make it 100% wrong.
>>
>>Damn sure doesn't make it 100% right, either.
>
> Correct.
>
>
>>In most cases, the
>>propaganda from activists is easier to dismiss than industry rhetoric
>>for the sole reason that governments oversee industries and industry
>>claims. Activists have no accountability with respect to the truth, and
>>do they ever take advantage of that lack of accountability.
>
> I'll believe them over the commercials from an industry where they
> have a salees-rate to protect.

You must be ignorant of the fact that claims made in advertising are
overseen by government regulators. I don't know which agency or agencies
operate in Sweden, Denmark, or if it's handled by the Eurocrats, but
here it's the Federal Trade Commission. They're very active in pursuing
false claims by industries, companies, and illegitimate sales operations.

<snip of continued nagging>

I'll be nice when you apologize. E-mail me if you're not man enough to
do it here.