Not really. :)

A bit of both actually. Dale? I feel retarded now, so explain. ;/

Why'd you click on it?

That's a religious-sounding moralist answer, like a pulpit-pounding preacher might rant. Try again. On second thought, let's leave it here lest it become a name-calling exercize with no good end.

Of course not........... Of course I am not wrong. Just wait until September 14, 2004...... and then we will see if what I have said is right or not!

Yes........ such is a wonderful thing!

Such as yourself......... I presume!

1) I was pretty sure you were making fun of Dovina for suggesting so in the first place. 2) Nurturing, even by a robot, is not morally neutral. There is a rather interesting and amusing note in the memoirs of Master Wellington-Beeves concering an Irish infant abandoned in a forgotten back courtyard at Cambridge and somehow allowed to grow to maturity more-or-less undisturbed, but that's hardly applicable to this discussion. 3) It's hard to say there's "very little correlation between high church-going levels and low murder rate", because the moral influence of religion extends to most nonbelievers, as Dovina has demonstrated. You can't say a moral is innate simply because the practical reason for it has been forgotten or become irrelevant. I can't imagine what reason might have been for the refrigerator thing, but the condemnation of gayishness, especially gayish monogamy, was probably at some point pretty practicaly, involving political and species-minded motivations. At any rate, gayfear still has to be learned (and unlearned).