--- BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> But we are talking about sexual situations. What
> difference does it make how the reasoning works in
> non-sexual situations?
[WS:] I am not sure whether you are serious or merely flippant, but assuming the former - don't you think that consistency with principles matters for people ostensibly concrend with the implementation of those principles. If one starts applying these principles selectively to the areas of life that suit him (or her), those principles cease to be principles and become mere excuses or rationalizations. That might be a problem for those who value principles (e.g. lefties, who tend to use them rather extensively.)
As I already said on this forum, you do not seem to be satisfied with people merely accepting forms of behavior that you hold in high esteem - you expect and insist that they accept your defintion and your justifiations of that behavior as well. Your obstinacy in this matter suggests to me that you may be a queer equivalent of the old fashioned prude who never just does things or accpets them for what they are, but always looks for their proper justification by conventional morality. The only difference is that for you "conventional morality" is defined by queer rather than x-tian standards.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com