XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/30/2016 8:55 AM, Ned Ludd wrote:   
      
   >  Nice (if long) post.  I must offer one correction, as realist   
   > and literalist as it may appear to your realist and literalist   
   > heart and mind.   
   >   
   >  Your recent extensive use of the term 'onanistic', while   
   > comporting with the secondary dictionary definition of the   
   > term ("of or pertaining to masturbation"), is not, in fact,   
   > the meaning and import of the story of Onan. Most good   
   > dictionaries will correctly point out that the term refers to   
   > "withdrawal of the penis in sexual intercourse so that   
   > ejaculation takes place outside the vagina", which has   
   > nothing to do with masturbation.  It has to do with   
   > contraception, which was the ENTIRE point of the story   
   > of Onan. God, and the Jews, do not favor contraception,   
   > if it is going to result in there being less Jews.   
   >   
   >  Therefore, in terms of the primary definition of the term,   
   > I am very 'onanistic', in that I am very much in favor of   
   > contraception.  Timing the removal of a "squirting" and   
   > "oozing" penis (to use your terms), in order to prevent   
   > conception, however, is a mission fraught with extreme   
   > peril. Thus my onanism religiously advocates the use   
   > of all ways and means (mechanical, chemical, and   
   > prophylactical) to prevent another screaming rug-rat   
   > from pillaging the earth.   
      
   So, you seem to advocate the limiting of the world   
   population, right? As everybody knows, I am for   
   that, though the sceptic will ask me why I haven't   
   eliminated myself from said population, to serve   
   as example. As I often say, great mass murderers   
   like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and recently, Pol Pot, are   
   exemplary, perhaps involuntarily, in helping to   
   keep said population within earthly sustainability.   
   (The reverse villain seems to be Gengis Khan, who   
   as you often point out, seems to have fathered one   
   percent of said population as collateral of his   
   far-reaching conquests, amorous or otherwise).   
      
   As you say, the Jewish God, and the Jews, do not   
   favour contraception, if it is going to result in there   
   being less Jews. This tendency, which oozes out   
   from all over in the Book, makes it quite unseemly   
   that some offshoots of Jewish mythology present   
   themselves as universal anything, never mind   
   universal Love. It would be to ignore Yahweh's   
   direct and frontal commands to genocides, etc.,   
   and Jesus's many disquisitions to exclude the   
   unsaved (which is circular, because the people   
   who would not be saved are excluded by him, in   
   person, first hand and without intermediaries, so   
   to speak). Their words represent an air-tight case   
   of "If you say so", without concession. Boom, just   
   like that, like it or not.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)