Justforfun000 wrote:
I've lost track of what your point was anyway since it's so far back. So what is a good argument for personal privacy in your home besides caring about it? I believe it was you that said personal uncomfortableness was not a good reason, so what is?
I don't have an argument in favor of it, since I've never claimed there was one. The fact that you can't think of a good reason isn't my problem.
Ok, fine. So? I didn't have any arguments of this nature in my posts. You and Rye did.
You on the very last page wrote:Watching ice melt by the power of your piss flow is hardly an endeavour that is going to cause you or anyone else grievious harm, so I would say the curiosity you might have regarding such a trite experience is defensible as an experiment. If that's what you want to do.
Ahem. Just to refresh your memory, which is apparently goldfish-like. This depends upon some knowledge that the outcome is harmless, which defeats the purpose of deciding whether or not a decision to do something itself is rational, which is independent of the consequences as I've shown. Perhaps you should simply give up since you can't seem to keep anyone's points straight after a mere 3 pages.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Ahem. Just to refresh your memory, which is apparently goldfish-like. This depends upon some knowledge that the outcome is harmless, which defeats the purpose of deciding whether or not a decision to do something itself is rational, which is independent of the consequences as I've shown. Perhaps you should simply give up since you can't seem to keep anyone's points straight after a mere 3 pages.
Thats because I've been dealing with many posts from another thread. It's been confusing to say the least.
I got into that as a side point when those examples got thrown in. I meant I didn't originally use anything like them for my argument of a right to privacy. That's all.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
Ahem. Just to refresh your memory, which is apparently goldfish-like. This depends upon some knowledge that the outcome is harmless, which defeats the purpose of deciding whether or not a decision to do something itself is rational, which is independent of the consequences as I've shown. Perhaps you should simply give up since you can't seem to keep anyone's points straight after a mere 3 pages.
Thats because I've been dealing with many posts from another thread. It's been confusing to say the least.
I got into that as a side point when those examples got thrown in. I meant I didn't originally use anything like them for my argument of a right to privacy. That's all.
The phrase "Don't bite off more than you can chew" comes to mind.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The phrase "Don't bite off more than you can chew" comes to mind.
Fair enough.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
