@izzythepush,
DAVID wrote:Well, imagine that we were all elected members
of a legislature that was considering passage of such a bill.
Woud it accrue to our advantage to be civil n dispassionate
in debating the matter, as distinct from rioting in the legislative chamber?
izzythepush wrote:Clearly we're not,
Yes, clearly we r not, but my point is that if we addressed one another
with better courtesy n civility (as thay tend to do, most of the time),
then we might succeed in getting our ideas across more successfully
and it 'd be a more
pleasant experience for everyone.
Permit me to suggest, for your consideration, that it is better
to be friends than to be enemies. Its more
fun.
I am confident that
no one is more fiercely
anti-collectivist,
pro-Individualist, pro-weak n feeble jurisdiction than I am,
but I have known, debated, and enjoyed commies n nazis
as people. There is a woman, named Eve, who is very, very left
(maybe commie) to whom I 've been magnetically attracted
for a goodly number of years, despite her
heatedly left philosophy.
I really like her a lot, as a person; her beliefs have not interfered
in our sexual relations, tho she knows that I'm very rightist,
bordering on anarchist.
Being nice can be a
FUN part of life,
akin to when I unexpectedly give away cash.
izzythepush wrote:. . .
You won't accept our language's colloquialisms will you?
Maybe it coud be possible that I 'd consider doing so,
if I
understood what thay mean.
izzythepush wrote: Thick means stupid.
I see.
In candor, I discern no benefit in evaluating the relative intelligence
of people's sexual organs. It is even
more perplexing when those organs
are attributed to members of the incorrect gender, as u have indicated.
I cannot remember, at
ANY time in my life,
being opposed to the sexual organs of any person.
The issue simply has not arisen. I judge folks'
conduct,
not their sexual organs; and I tend to think of cunts more
lovingly,
than with any negative emotion. ( Actually: I tend to
FAVOR them n think ill of their defamation. )
David
