Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:07:35PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > And that is relevant how? I parse that as "technical needs of...". > > > > No, I parse that as "needs". > > "Debian's goals include the provision of free sex for its users"
Is that free <gratis>, or free <libre>? I've always and only had free <gratis> sex. And I'm not sure anyone believes in really free <libre> sex. For example, I think that the potential other participant(s) should have the right to veto sex with me. And I get to veto having sex with someone else if I don't want to do it with them. Indeed, that standpoint of bodily integrity is one of the things that makes sex so much fun, that one is freely giving it up, and the other person doesn't have any right to it. But that also means that anytime I might want to have sex, the other person gets to say "no", and that means that I can't claim to support <libre> sex. I must always ask permission (don't get me wrong; there are plenty of non-verbal ways to ask). Thomas
