"Adultery" site sued

The post that was quoted here has been removed

These examples hardly represent typical cases. In the first case the wife is justified in assuming her husband dead and in the second case the vow breaking was under duress. Oaths made under duress are not oaths, similarly oaths broken under sufficient duress reflect no guilt on the one under oath, the oath breaker is the one applying compulsion. In the individual example that you focused on in the second case there is a straightforward case for a rape charge since she was in fear for her life, a rape victim can hardly be described as unfaithful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly haven't observed animals very much. Have you ever had a pet?

[b]Animals act and react with nature according to instinct. Prove otherwise.
There is no need for me to prove otherwise, you are the one making the ridiculous claims. Remain in your ignorance if you wish.

Man isn't an animal, he's a human being.
Well that depends o ...[text shortened]... ng to impress God. If you are, then the lack of humility you just displayed, didn't impress him.[/b]

"You clearly haven't observed animals very much. Have you ever had a pet?"

I was a dairy farmer. I've had pets, still do. I know animals. Humans and animals are not even remotely similar except we're made of the same stuff.

"...then the lack of humility you just displayed,.."

Well twhitehead, you misread me, but to be fair the truth is I'm not very humble. Thing is though, if you're car broke down on the road I'd stop and help. If you're standing on a street corner with a sign that says please help I'll give some cash. If a big ass bully was threatening you I'd get in his way.

But in this forum I'll stand my ground toe to toe with you in a fair fight. Would you want it any other way?

I'll try to be kinder if it helps.

Originally posted by josephw
I was a dairy farmer. I've had pets, still do. I know animals.

Well you have clearly never looked at them, or you are straight out lying.

Humans and animals are not even remotely similar except we're made of the same stuff.
Nevertheless, animals clearly do not act purely on DNA programming and instinct as you suggest. Animals can learn, and animals can think. Ever heard the phrase 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks?'. What do you think can be done with young dogs?

But in this forum I'll stand my ground toe to toe with you in a fair fight. Would you want it any other way?
I would like a fair fight. Instead, you are trying to cheat by lying about animals.

I'll try to be kinder if it helps.
I never asked for kindness. You said God valued humility. Humility is not kindness. And I am not God.
The one thing I do ask for is honesty, but it is often lacking in forums such as these.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well you have clearly never looked at them, or you are straight out lying.

[b]Humans and animals are not even remotely similar except we're made of the same stuff.
Nevertheless, animals clearly do not act purely on DNA programming and instinct as you suggest. Animals can learn, and animals can think. Ever heard the phrase 'you can't teach an old d ...[text shortened]... ot God.
The one thing I do ask for is honesty, but it is often lacking in forums such as these.[/b]

You are projecting human characteristics and attributes onto animals, while simultaneously making humans no more than animals.

Open your own eyes and see for yourself. The gap between humans and animals in every aspect of our existence is far too wide to be bridged. You're lying to yourself.

Originally posted by josephw
You are projecting human characteristics and attributes onto animals, while simultaneously making humans no more than animals.

No, I am not.

Open your own eyes and see for yourself.
I have, and I can quite clearly see that animals are capable of thought and of learning - contrary to your claims.

The gap between humans and animals in every aspect of our existence is far too wide to be bridged.
I have not claimed otherwise.

You're lying to yourself.
And you are lying to everyone. Either you do not have pets and you lied about having them, or you know perfectly well that animals do not act purely on 'instinct as their genetic code dictates.'
Or do you honestly believe a dog responds to its name being called because its name is written in its DNA?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am not.

[b]Open your own eyes and see for yourself.
I have, and I can quite clearly see that animals are capable of thought and of learning - contrary to your claims.

The gap between humans and animals in every aspect of our existence is far too wide to be bridged.
I have not claimed otherwise.

You're lying to yourself. ...[text shortened]... honestly believe a dog responds to its name being called because its name is written in its DNA?[/b]

Originally posted by josephw
You are projecting human characteristics and attributes onto animals, while simultaneously making humans no more than animals.

"No, I am not."

Then what are you doing?

"I have, and I can quite clearly see that animals are capable of thought and of learning - contrary to your claims."

I never said animals don't learn, but what they do learn is limited by the fact that they are animals constrained by genetic coding, which can only be described as instinctual response to the environment.

[i]Originally posted by josephw
The gap between humans and animals in every aspect of our existence is far too wide to be bridged.

"I have not claimed otherwise."

Then what are you claiming? Either you agree that the disparity between humans and animals is so great that attributing human characteristics to animals is outlandishly foolish, or you don't.

"And you are lying to everyone. Either you do not have pets and you lied about having them,.."

I don't lie. Why should I? Your insistence that I am is presumptuous. I wouldn't lie to you about anything. Serves no purpose. Not saying I can't be wrong.

"Or do you honestly believe a dog responds to its name being called because its name is written in its DNA?

I never said DNA. A dog responds to its name based on conditioning according to its genetic code which drives its instincts. If you named your dog Bob it doesn't respond because he thinks and knows he is Bob. Ever ask a dog what his name was and got an answer? Animals don't "know" they're animals. Animals can't think as humans do. Not even remotely!

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by josephw
Then what are you doing?

Talking about what I know about animals. I am not projecting as you claim.

I never said animals don't learn,
Yes you did. You said:

Animals behave according to instinct as their genetic code dictates.

.. but what they do learn is limited by the fact that they are animals constrained by genetic coding, which can only be described as instinctual response to the environment.
No, that is not an accurate description of animal behaviour.

Then what are you claiming? Either you agree that the disparity between humans and animals is so great that attributing human characteristics to animals is outlandishly foolish, or you don't.
I don't agree, but I didn't make any such claim until now. Yet you claimed I was 'lying to myself' over something I never said.

I don't lie. Why should I? Your insistence that I am is presumptuous. I wouldn't lie to you about anything. Serves no purpose. Not saying I can't be wrong.
Maybe you just don't read your own posts.

I never said DNA.
I never said you did. You said 'genetic code'. If you don't know that the genetic code is stored in DNA, then you have some learning to do.

A dog responds to its name based on conditioning according to its genetic code which drives its instincts.
Now you are just trying to twist your own words to avoid admitting that you either got it wrong, or outright lied. Either way, you are being dishonest.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The point is that you are choosing extreme examples to justify a position regarding typical cases of infidelity. Both cases were from films and fictional. In the second case your example was of a woman who feared for her survival if she did not do it. Constructively they were compelled.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If you seriously expected me to read that post you shouldn't have started it off with an attack on my "intellectual honesty".

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Oh dear, poor Lemon Lime.