[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.
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.