(September 5, 2013 at 10:50 am)John V Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 9:36 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: Who is pretending?

You. The post says what it says.

Quote:I said it could have been misunderstood, and by your accounting, you did.

I understood it just fine. That it was later revised does not mean that I misunderstood it.

Quote:But you are off on some tangent, attempting to show that this was widely the case. It was not. The confusion is obviously yours. I only say that you didn't help things by continuing the discussion from your end under this notion. It's not really a big deal, except if you make it out to be. Considering your tenacity, I'm guessing you have a compulsive need to think you're right...so don't let me dissuade you.

Bleh.

Er, pot-kettle, takes two to tango, etc. You seem to be fine with playing he-said she-said until you're losing, at which point your opponent has a compulsive need to think he's right. That's really lame.

I alluded to confusion, and simple misunderstandings...my initial thought was to just clear things out, no big deal. Your idea was to insist, for yourself and others, that you see the correct way to interpret the progression of posts. Further evidence of your pig headedness is by your use of the word 'losing' above. This isn't a win/lose situation to me...but you seem to consider it so. Now that's lame. I'd also think your post in another thread where you claim to enjoy arguing is telling as well.

Welp...I think that I've wasted enough time derailing this thread...which wasn't supposed to be about interpreting why a poster quoted a verse of yours when he did. Time to let this go, methinks. Hopefully youthinks too.

(September 5, 2013 at 11:05 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: I alluded to confusion, and simple misunderstandings...my initial thought was to just clear things out, no big deal. Your idea was to insist, for yourself and others, that you see the correct way to interpret the progression of posts.

The plain meaning of the post is clear. The problem isn't confusion on my part, it's sloppy writing on the author's part. If you guys keep phrasing it as my confusion or misunderstanding, there's nothing wrong with me defending myself.

Quote:Further evidence of your pig headedness is by your use of the word 'losing' above. This isn't a win/lose situation to me...but you seem to consider it so. Now that's lame.

Yes, I consider advocating a position which is demonstrably wrong against one which is supported by the evidence to be losing.

Quote:I think that I've wasted enough time derailing this thread...

At least now you recognize that you're as much to blame as me for the continuation of this line of the thread. Again, takes two to tango. I always find it strange when my interlocutor accuses me of obstinance without seeing it in himself.

Quote:which wasn't supposed to be about interpreting why a poster quoted a verse of yours when he did. Time to let this go, methinks. Hopefully youthinks too.

All you have to do to let it go is...let it go.

Snarkiness noted.

(September 5, 2013 at 8:24 am)John V Wrote:

(September 4, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Brakeman Wrote: No it is not! Grabbing someone's junk is not disfigurement at all. You are being deceitful in your attempt to cover this.

http://men.webmd.com/guide/testicle-injuries

That link does nothing for your argument.
Let me make it simple. Every guy I know well has been "racked" or hit or pinched in the junk. None of them had any reproduction problems from it whatsoever. You yourself have probably been hit without lasting effect. The verse writer made no attempt to qualify the extent of injury necessary to require punishment, therefore all contact, even fleeting would be punishable.

(September 4, 2013 at 5:00 pm)John V Wrote: The verse mentions neither injury nor sufficient pain to help her husband escape. I've already covered the fact that injury is not certain.

Quote:Furthermore, the verse does not make note or exception to the cause of the altercation with the husband. If the attacker were a criminal bent on doing evil to the husband, the wife would still lose her hand, Is that fair?

That would be for the judge to decide.

Nope, no human judge could lessen or mitigate god's commandment.

Quote:

Quote:Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce, the loss of her hand as a punishment is barbaric and unjust.

You're right, it is unjust - in favor of the woman. Just punishment would be for her to lose her ability to reproduce, and fertility was a highly valued attribute of women in that culture.

Again, excessive conjecture as you've already conceded that there is no level of injury required in the edict. You're twisting around like a worm to try and make this look less barbaric and wrong. You are disgusting. Furthermore, the loss of a male does not affect the community as one make can fertilize many females, but it doesn't work the other way around, or didn't you know that? Did you know that men actually intentionally get snipped of their own accord? Wow, what a terrible punishment. The only loss is that of a man's pride in his kids looking like him, provided he even had more opportunity to reproduce.

Quote:

Quote:We would never allow such a thing in our US courts because of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

So what? Are you saying that US jurisprudence is objectively correct?

Subjectively correct, there is no magic skydaddy to be "objectively" correct.

Quote:

Quote:Today we know that if you want to be unmolested, don't go around attacking people.

A point I made earlier - if the woman just stays out of the fight, she keeps her hand.

Asshole.

(September 5, 2013 at 11:18 am)John V Wrote: All you have to do to let it go is...let it go.

^ ^

(September 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 11:18 am)John V Wrote: All you have to do to let it go is...let it go.

^ ^

Call me a prophet because I foresaw this response.

[quote='Brakeman' pid='502643' dateline='1378399349']
That link does nothing for your argument.[/quote]
Sure it does. It shows that serious injury can be done to the testicles.
[quote]Let me make it simple. Every guy I know well has been "racked" or hit or pinched in the junk. None of them had any reproduction problems from it whatsoever. You yourself have probably been hit without lasting effect. The verse writer made no attempt to qualify the extent of injury necessary to require punishment, therefore all contact, even fleeting would be punishable.[/quote]
The potential for serious injury is there. Again, the punishment could be less severe or more severe than the crime in this case.
[quote='John V' pid='502335' dateline='1378328421']
Nope, no human judge could lessen or mitigate god's commandment.
[quote]
Why not?
[quote]Again, excessive conjecture as you've already conceded that there is no level of injury required in the edict.[/quote]
Incorrect, as I was replying to your statement "Even if she did affect his ability to reproduce..."
[quote]You're twisting around like a worm to try and make this look less barbaric and wrong. You are disgusting. Furthermore, the loss of a male does not affect the community as one make can fertilize many females, but it doesn't work the other way around, or didn't you know that? Did you know that men actually intentionally get snipped of their own accord? Wow, what a terrible punishment. The only loss is that of a man's pride in his kids looking like him, provided he even had more opportunity to reproduce.
[/quote]
Your opinion as to the value of reproduction v. a hand is noted.
[quote]Subjectively correct, there is no magic skydaddy to be "objectively" correct. [/quote]
Again, your opinion is noted.
[quote]Asshole.
[/quote]
Typical liberal more concerned with the perpetrator than the victim.

"Typical liberal more concerned with the perpetrator than the victim."

Victim - the man attacking her husband for reasons unknown.

Perpetrator - the woman rushing to the defence of her husband.

Yup - that's a fine handle on justice you and your God have.

(September 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm)max-greece Wrote: "Typical liberal more concerned with the perpetrator than the victim."

Victim - the man attacking her husband for reasons unknown.

Except...the verse doesn't say that. It says they're fighting, with no indication of who the initial aggressor was.

(September 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm)max-greece Wrote: "Typical liberal more concerned with the perpetrator than the victim."

Victim - the man attacking her husband for reasons unknown.

Except...the verse doesn't say that. It says they're fighting, with no indication of who the initial aggressor was.

My point exactly. To you and God it doesn't matter who the initial aggressor was - the woman still gets her hand cut off for the "crime" of handling the other guy's penis.