pearl wrote:
> "chico chupacabra" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>You *don't* think people should have the right to eat meat in the
>>>>>>privacy of their own homes, but you do think it's okay if they ****
>>>>>>animals. Go figure!
>>>>>
>>>>>I oppose anything which causes harm and distress.
>>>>
>>>>Yet you condone sexual abuse of animals.
>>>
>>>No. You keep confirming that you're a desperate rabid liar.
>>
>>Yes. You CONDONE it.
>>
>>tr.v. con-doned, con-don-ing, con-dones
>>To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
>>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/condone
>
>
> I have said it is a perversion numerous times. That is condemnation.
No, it isn't. It isn't making any moral judgment about
it at all. Calling it a perversion is merely observing
that it's different from the norm.
>>>I have said it is a perversion numerous times.
>>
>>Yet you continue to condone it:
>
>
> I have stated that it is a perversion. That is condemnation.
No, it isn't. It isn't making any moral judgment about
it at all. Calling it a perversion is merely observing
that it's different from the norm.
>>I. You offer only qualified objections to it:
>
>
> Look at your
We've looked at your heavily qualified - meaningless,
in other words - pseudo-condemnation. It isn't a
condemnation; you're trying to be "tolerant" of it
because it's an "alternative lifestyle", i.e. just
another instance of "inner earth beings" mentality.