wande quoted-
Quote:"But it's pretty hard to find fault with the judge's findings," he said.
Like it's (pretty) hard to find fault with a 5 year old girl who thinks Father Christmas has answered her postcard.
It is obvious that any action resulting in physical pleasure is natural.
As evolution is a natural process within which this principle is seen at work it needs, in human society, to be inhibited by an ethic of some sort which, by its very nature, as it countermands evolution, requires a religious theology to justify it.
This it can never do absolutely because theology is never perfect as it is a human construction and not a part of nature but an attempt to triumph over it.
I am quite ready to agree to the intellectual coherence of the AIDser's position providing they will agree that we are animals and that any action which goes against animalistic principles is abnornal or perverted.
Without religion no morality can be justified. It can only be "other-directed" rather than "inner-directed". A2K's censoring of certain things is either based on state security considerations or implies an interference with free speech on moral grounds which requires a religious theology to support it. Do we censor certain things because we are repelled by them on religious grounds or because we fear they will cause us physical unpleasure.
Many people take obvious pleasure from taking part in what seems to be unpleasant and meaningless activity. Such behaviour is never found in nature and is thus unnatural.
It is because we have imagination.
Quoting de Sade now-
Quote: Imagination is pleasure's spur....directs everything, is the motive of everything; is it not thence that our pleasure comes? Is it not from that that our sharpest pleasures arise?
Well, if we allow that imagination to wander freely, if we let it cross the last frontiers which religion, decency, humanity, virtue, in a word all our so called duties would erect to it, would not its divagations become prodigious? And wouldn't their very immensity irritate us the more? In which case the more we wished to be moved, to feel violently, the more must we give rein to our imagination in the most singular routes...
Mt Gorer comments on that with- "It was de Sade's considered and very sincere opinion that pleasure, and especially physical and sexual pleasure, is the chief aim of human existence."
de Sade again-
Quote: We are born to 'copulate' , we accomplish Nature's laws in 'copulating' and any human law which goes against Nature's is only worthy of disdain.
They locked him up in an asylum.
A libertine is someone who wilfully and imaginatively extends the possibilities of pleasure. It is only in the sexual field that the Judeo-Christian morality is revolted at such a process. In all other fields it is considered praiseworthy as timber's salivations at the prospect of putrescent pheasant shows.
Perhaps there is money to be made by encouraging libertinism in the sexual field which is what the exclusive teaching of evolution can only result in when imaginations are stimulated to the levels they are by mass media and no religion-based morality exists to inhibit them.
I could present that in a much less polite manner than I have.
The Dover defence dived goodstyle. Their own morality prevented them from arguing the case properly.
All known societies regulate sexual behaviour with a religion justified morality and evolutionists have themselves the inhibitions created by such a system.
