"Leif Erikson" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
pearl wrote:
>
> > "Leif Erikson" > wrote in message nk.net...
> >
> >>Glorfindel wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>pearl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>>And just to be clear, you *do* endorse bestiality:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *As long as the feelings are mutual*,
> >>>>>> and there's *no coercion or force involved,* why
> >>>>>> should you be concerned? Personally, I have no
> >>>>>> problem with people's personal choices *as long as
> >>>>>> they don't harm or cause distress to another*- be it
> >>>>>> human or animal. [emphasis in original]
> >>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/dwzj7
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>From an AR point of view. What people do in the privacy of
> > their own home may be sick as hell, but as long as they're not
> > harming or causing distress to another - that's their business.
>
> So you endorse it. You don't condemn it. Saying it's
> "their business" is endorsement of it.

Saying it is sick as hell is condemnation.

> > Or as Karen Winter put it:
> >
I don't think I have a right to prevent people by force
from doing things which cause no harm to another,
human or animal. There may be things which religious
groups regard as sin, but in a non-theocratic state, religious
groups only have the authority to enforce their views on
their own members. There may be things I dislike or regard
as wrong, but unless they cause *harm* -- harm which can
be objectively observed -- I do not have the right to enforce
my opinion on others against their will.
>
> That's endorsement of it, too.

No it isn't. She has agreed that it is a perversion.

Stop lying, ball - if you can. I think you can't.