🚀 go-pugleaf

rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN) writes:
>
>I am aware this seems to hold true for almost all people, but 
>it can also be demonstrated that a huge chunck of humanity 
>drinks alcohol, there's no sane reason for it, it does nothing
>to promote survival, and ideally no one would do it.  Yet
>billions do.  
>

     So what's the difference between the "moral stance" that you're
attempting to promote and that of the fundamentalist Christians?  Each has the
recommendation of a personal belief system without anything to back it up
other than the assertion that "this is the way it's supposed to be".

>
>Just because 99% of the human population behaves like an 
>idiot doesn't mean idiocy is either a desirable characteristic
>or necessary to our survival.
>

      We have only your word that engaging in monogamous relationships is a
type of "idiocy".  At least 50% of the population seems to manage to do it
with little or no problem.  If you don't care to, that's fine; I really don't
give a rat's ass how you live your life.  When it reaches the point where you
think everyone should live as you do in order to validate your belief system,
however, I have a problem.  At that point it becomes an ego-driven assertion,
quite akin to what the bible-thumpers would argue.

>OO
>\/
>Rod
>
>I may be an idiot like you, but *sniff* my idiocy is of a superior
>sort.  <-:


     Idiocy is idiocy, whether it comes from a self-proclaimed moral "liberal"
or a religious fundamentalist.  Ascending the moral highground is, to say the
least, dangerous, because generally that hill is about as stable as a mound of
jello.  It's bound to quiver you off sooner or later.

Bob c/o The OTH Gang
rcf@pnet01.cts.com