Re: *** in public is a fine thing which doesn't bother anyone

<gooddad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ec16842e-3d7f-4d39-85e0-ba5c2ba0821a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> <JS>
>> The part about the translation sup****ting specific beliefs is not 
>> entirely
>> true. It is certainly true in some instances, but the vast majority of
>> translation errors are precisely that, translation errors.
>>
>> *** outside of marriage is universally wrong,
>
>
> It's not "universally wrong" and it's not wrong in my opinion at all.
> Lying about it is wrong, but open marriages and *** outside of
> marriage are fine and good.
>
>

Go stand in front of the supermarket and ask the people that come out, if 
your spouse was having *** outside of your marriage, would you be happy?
My 
guess is that 95 out of 100 would not be happy. That's universal enough
for 
me. But, eve if you want to debate the universal quality of the results,
no 
matter how you slice it, it is not fine and good.

With your opinion and a quarter, you can get a free cup of coffee.




>> which explains why so many
>> marriages end when one of the participants is found to be having *** 
>> outside
>> of the bond of marriage.
>
>
> Not everyone wants this restriction, and not everyone has it.  The
> choice is yours, and you always have freedom to change it.
>
>
Nobody cares what everybody likes. It is only im****tant what most of us 
like.




>> The trouble is with the definition of "universally," which you will 
>> construe
>> to mean each and every person that ever lived, then set about to show
the
>> exception.
>
>
> Because your argument of universally is  totally off.  Even if you
> could argue that such notions have been held by many people through
> the entire course of human history it would not prove anything
> universal at all.

Well, by definition it would prove "universal" even if it didn't prove 
anything else, and underscores just how fine and dandy your notion isn't.