incorygible
Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Jan. 03 2008,13:20) | | Oh, my loving God! Lazy? You simply cannot be serious. I have spent *two days* explaining *in agonizing detail* exactly what I meant by the word "condone". My definition of condone was right on target. Skatje didn't "refuse to condemn zoophilia as intrinsically immoral". That is not at all what she said. She said it was not for her, but that it can be a "meaningful" relationship for others. There was no "refuses to condemn" about it. |
Skatje NEVER advocated bestiality. She explicitly offers this as a disclaimer, and points out that the entire post is in response to you, FtK, evidently "freaking out" after she asked why YOU were so quick to CONDEMN IT. (I can't verify her description, but at least I can accurately relay the context for her post as she gives it.) She NEVER said that sexual relationships with animals could be "meaningful for others" (that is flat-out quote-mining right there, cut-and-dry); rather, she said that SINCE human relationships with animals are often deep and meaningful, zoophilia is UNSURPRISING. She addressed two common arguments against zoophilia (animal abuse and lack of consent) and showed that they are not valid in certain circumstances. She then concluded:
| Quote | | That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it. |
I initially defended you against charges of quote-mining based on the proper definition of 'condone' -- as others have pointed out (here and on Pharyngula), 'tolerance' is a pretty good synonym. But you have, indeed, spent *two days* explaining *in agonizing detail* exactly what you meant by the word 'condone': you meant support and advocacy. Not tolerance, not reluctant acceptance. Flat out approval, with the only caveat being not for Skatje herself. You think Skatje approves of bestiality for anyone aside from herself, without reservation. In other words, you meant 'condone' in the vernacular sense, as it was received, and not in the proper sense for which I defended you. Quite clearly, given the content of Skatje's post and your paraphrase here ("She said [zoophilia] was not for her, but that it can be a "meaningful" relationship for others"), you quote-mined, as charged. I withdraw my defense of your use of the word 'condone' -- you meant it exactly as it was received, and the charges against you are completely valid. (Somebody call off the Darwinian police -- I've recanted on my own!)
| Quote | | Now, you tell me.....If Sal had written that zoophilia post, how would you have taken it? |
As written: a rational discussion of why zoophilia is unsurprising, why two of the primary arguments for its prohibition fail in some circumstances, and why -- in those circumstances -- its legal prohibition would appear to have no logical basis. How would you have taken it?
| Quote | | Do you truly believe that the Sal haters here would not have taken that post and gone absolutely hog wild with it? |
Please tell me this pun is unintentional. Please? In any case, get Sal to offer something a little braver and more compelling than pig-on-teen fantasies and playground humour, then maybe we'll find out?
| Quote | | I believe I was *very* tame and relayed everything exactly as she said it. No cracking jokes, no name calling, no ridicule. I provided the facts and that is all. |
Nope. See above. You quote-mined, and have been even more dishonest in your defense thereof. That is all.
|
