Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
Judging by your philosophy, I could go in the street and shoot some random guy in the face and not be considered a murderer because I only did it once.
|
Even you have to admit that you've made an absurd analogy. But it sheds an interesting light on what you feel is an appropriate comparison to one guy sucking another guy's cock.
From my point of view, this is more apt: You have a friend who doesn't eat meat. He doesn't make a big deal about it, doesn't run around proclaiming himself a vegetarian, but appears to be one from every outside perspective. One day the two of you are at a Raiders game and he eats a chili dog because he wants to try one. The next day, he goes right back to his seemingly vegetarian diet.
1) How does this change anything about him as a person?
2) Why should you care what he eats? He's not making you eat it.
3) Does eating an occasional chili-dog change the fact that he prefers veggies?
4) Why are you so adamant about defining your friend based on what he is putting in his mouth?
If you want to use your analogy, then go with this: Just because you kill someone doesn't mean you're a "murderer." Cops kill people, guys in the military kill people. Those guys are generally considered heroes. Ultimately, the definition is based on a lot more than someone's actions.
//edit--my apology to the post directly beneath mine--I didn't see your analogy before I posted mine, but it seems we had the same idea.