Conquer Club

Not so much of a stab at you as at the huge portion of christians who still think we came from 2 people. (Adam and Eve, since you don't seem to be up on your bible-scripture)

Ha....

ha

ha.

Clever dat...not so much a pertinent argument as just, you trying and cringeworthily failing to be funny, then? Followed, of course, by the emoticon, which features de rigeur, of course, after any asinine comment the poster feels is worthy of a public e-representation of his emotions, just for the reader's benefit.

No, paedohpillia is not right if society says so. Are you really that stupid?

That's the question I was, in a slightly more subtle way, asking you, actually, since you just admitted incest with your cousin is right if society says so, leading to me figure whether, y'know, the same standard would apply elsewhere.

But you're just making arbitrary, unjustified distinctions with no basis in logical reality. That's cool. Just...wanted to clear that up.

Oh wait, I forgot I'm talking to the kid who thought 14 was an acceptable age for consent as the women can make babies then...

.

Did you by George, did you...

Oh wait! I get it! You're calling me a paedophile now? Well this just gets better and better....

You can't. But your insistent claims about it being "unnatural" (like cooking your food and living in houses) are just stupid. You can claim it's immoral, and noone can disagree with that without going into a discussion about the bible, tradition and morals as a whole, but you can't just claim it's unnatural and not be called on your bullshit. It's perfectly natural, which doesn't justify anything but does show the "natural"-position is silly.

OH WOW THAT TOTALLY RIPPED MY ARGUMENT TO SHREDS!

Yes. Yes it did. Next.

I guess picking a single thing out of an argument (which isn't even really part of the argument) now constitutes as a solid counter-argument?

No, absolutely destroying the only argument the opponent put forward, however, is.

f*ck you nappy, if you won't respond to any point you might as well go back to fellating yourself and reading books by economists you have a hard-on for now.

No, I just did respond. Homosexuality is unnatural. This is a semantically different use of the word to that you used in your rebuttal, therefore invalidating said rebuttal.

You can't then make up mythical "points" you never made then throw a cyber-tantrum because no-one's responding to your non-existent arguments.

Now after that, my suggestion is essentially a shorter version than yours: stop fellating yourself, and start reading books, by economists if you so wish.

HOLY MOTHERFUCKING SHIT!!!?


!!?

GRRR! CAPSLOCK TO EMPHASIZE YOUR RAGE!!!1!!1!!!!1!!!!1ONE!limx->0(sin x/x)!!1!

Did you just try to make yourself seem well smart by replacing a word which doesn't take anything away from my point

Oh. So we're condoning incest now? Interesting...

Honestly nappy, you seem like a huge mong now.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I can literally taste the irony.

Nappy and Snorri just need to make out already - they're obviously hot for each other, what with all this foreplay through words that this thread has turned into -

radiojake wrote:Nappy and Snorri just need to make out already - they're obviously hot for each other, what with all this foreplay through words that this thread has turned into -

Now Now Jake I dont think you should be encouraging Snorri to have sex with a child.

Snorri1234 wrote:What are you blabbering about?
I say that whatever people do that doesn't harm me is of no concern to me. Hell, I think you, being the liberal that you are, should be of the same opinion.

I think the only thing we agree about so far is that there is no god. That doesn't give people an excuse to legalize unnatural behaviors which break down traditional families. I can't stand the crazies who tell me I'm going to hell but liberals are just about as judgmental.

Snorri1234 wrote:It is not justifying. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Wow, that's proof of your position. "I said it's not justifying. Stop disagreeing with me!"

Snorri1234 wrote:"traditional" is not the same as "rational".

Of course if it's traditions you want to believe in then it's a whole different ball game, right sparky? I'm sure they'll magically become rational in those cases.

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you're missing the point so much it's not even funny anymore.

When you actually make a decent one beyond consent and desire I might consider it, Dr. Welby

Snorri1234 wrote:Because racism is about race only, AMIRITE?!?!?!

OH WAIT A MINUTE! I R NOT RITE!!!

Try again, dipshit.

Nice bedside manner.......doctor!

You have a problem with those on your own side of the political aisle. Schedule some time away from your tree hugging rallies & anti-corporate marches and coordinate with the other elitists here so you can be on the same page. You can all have a Marxgasm together.

I'm fair over the whole 'liberal' tag that people like throwing around a lot. I guess I've always been slightly confused by the term because in Australia the Liberal Party is the slightly more right wing than the other major party, Labour. (though, they are both centre-right, the old 2 party system where its like choosing potato or po-tah-toe - whatever)

Blanketing generalisations across everybody with even a slight left wing leniency with the word liberal and all the rhetoric behind it is pretty much all you do bradley - get a new game, because I'm over this one.

P.S - two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:What are you blabbering about?
I say that whatever people do that doesn't harm me is of no concern to me. Hell, I think you, being the liberal that you are, should be of the same opinion.

I think the only thing we agree about so far is that there is no god. That doesn't give people an excuse to legalize unnatural behaviors which break down traditional families. I can't stand the crazies who tell me I'm going to hell but liberals are just about as judgmental.

Snorri1234 wrote:It is not justifying. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Wow, that's proof of your position. "I said it's not justifying. Stop disagreeing with me!"

Snorri1234 wrote:"traditional" is not the same as "rational".

Of course if it's traditions you want to believe in then it's a whole different ball game, right sparky? I'm sure they'll magically become rational in those cases.

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you're missing the point so much it's not even funny anymore.

When you actually make a decent one beyond consent and desire I might consider it, Dr. Welby

Snorri1234 wrote:Because racism is about race only, AMIRITE?!?!?!

OH WAIT A MINUTE! I R NOT RITE!!!

Try again, dipshit.

Nice bedside manner.......doctor!

You have a problem with those on your own side of the political aisle. Schedule some time away from your tree hugging rallies & anti-corporate marches and coordinate with the other elitists here so you can be on the same page. You can all have a Marxgasm together.

can I just ask wtf?

Er...Jake, no-one's saying homos doing each other is something we should ban. If a brother and sister use contraception and have sex, or a guy has sex up his car's exhaust pipe (that's an actual sexual disease, I kid you not), I have nor right to stop them: but I can still say it's fucking weird and not allow them to adopt/get married, because these are societal advantages which are given forward, not passively allowed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oh my hat, how they toss and turn and squirm under serious analysis...I said impulses, not the actual act. In what measure are the impulses of paedophiles wrong? Surely child-lust is fine in your book, if the paedophile doesn't actually carry through. Well, you consider it a normal part of moolti-diverse koolcha, and I consider it, and homosexuality, sickening diseases...

All diseases are, by definition, sickening, nappy. Diseases are also natural. So homosexuality is, according to you, natural. Or are, say, multiple sclerosis sufferers freaks too?

You skewered yourself there but it doesn't matter, because you're wrong anyway. An 'impulse' is an instinctual, unconscious compulsion. Obeying or disobeying an impulse is, however, a conscious decision. Society demands that we regularly ignore or disobey many of our instinctual impulses. You can't condemn someone for having an impulse to molest a child, any more than you can condemn the people you no doubt meet each day who want to punch you with great force. It's the people who give in to these impulses who need to be punished and from whom the rest of us need to be protected.


Aaanyway. This is all besides the point - i just enjoy pointing out how wrong you are. And I think we're all probably quite fascinated by your continued references to autophilia. Are you obsessed? God knows what goes on in your head. Teenagers these days. Have you got one of those lamborghini posters above your bed?


(cue spluttering generalisations involving, er, socialists, welfare scrounging, guardian reading etc etc)

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Not so much of a stab at you as at the huge portion of christians who still think we came from 2 people. (Adam and Eve, since you don't seem to be up on your bible-scripture)

Ha....

ha

ha.

Clever dat...not so much a pertinent argument as just, you trying and cringeworthily failing to be funny, then? Followed, of course, by the emoticon, which features de rigeur, of course, after any asinine comment the poster feels is worthy of a public e-representation of his emotions, just for the reader's benefit.

You're accusing me of making asinine comments? You? The person who can't make a post without personal attacks and overgeneralizations?

If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

No, paedohpillia is not right if society says so. Are you really that stupid?

That's the question I was, in a slightly more subtle way, asking you, actually, since you just admitted incest with your cousin is right if society says so, leading to me figure whether, y'know, the same standard would apply elsewhere.

No, I was saying that since society is totally ok with incest between cousins it does seem that "traditional values" really mean jack shit. Tradition does not justify anything.

The problem you keep on ignoring is that peadophillia and incest are two totally different things. It's the simple concept of consent we've been over time after weary time and you keep on ignoring it. You try to draw away attention from something which is simple at the basis because you have your own definition of natural which doesn't actually have to agree with nature.

f*ck you nappy, if you won't respond to any point you might as well go back to fellating yourself and reading books by economists you have a hard-on for now.

No, I just did respond. Homosexuality is unnatural. This is a semantically different use of the word to that you used in your rebuttal, therefore invalidating said rebuttal.

Then what is your definition of "natural"? Because so far you haven't said anything about it except for pointing out what concepts are evi...I mean unnatural. Your magical definition doesn't seem to have the slightest bit to do with nature, and I'm beginning to suspect strongly that you're just using it as a substitute for "immoral".

Oh. So we're condoning incest now? Interesting...

Yes we are. If two consenting adults want to have sex based on equal standing I'm not going to go in and force them to stop. I might think it's disgusting or bad, but I won't stop it, something which is the very definition of condoning.

bradleybadly wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:What are you blabbering about?
I say that whatever people do that doesn't harm me is of no concern to me. Hell, I think you, being the liberal that you are, should be of the same opinion.

I think the only thing we agree about so far is that there is no god. That doesn't give people an excuse to legalize unnatural behaviors which break down traditional families. I can't stand the crazies who tell me I'm going to hell but liberals are just about as judgmental.

You also need to define "unnatural", as it doesn't seem to hold any relationship to nature.

And while you're at that, you might as well tell us about these traditional families you're talking about. And why tradition should overrule rationality.

Snorri1234 wrote:It is not justifying. How hard is that for you to grasp?

Wow, that's proof of your position. "I said it's not justifying. Stop disagreeing with me!"

I am not justifying it, I am condoning it. Just like nappy is condoning gay people having sex. He disagrees with it, but at least he is not trying to stop it, which is fair enough I suppose.

I think you need to look up the difference between condoning and justifying, bradley.

Snorri1234 wrote:"traditional" is not the same as "rational".

Of course if it's traditions you want to believe in then it's a whole different ball game, right sparky? I'm sure they'll magically become rational in those cases.

???

What are you talking about? What traditions?

Snorri1234 wrote:Also, you're missing the point so much it's not even funny anymore.

When you actually make a decent one beyond consent and desire I might consider it, Dr. Welby

Consent, desire and non-harmfull effect.

Your only counter-arguments are based on your own special definition of 'natural' and the "traditional values" you're so up in arms about. Neither of which seem to have any relation with the world as it is and has been.

Snorri1234 wrote:Because racism is about race only, AMIRITE?!?!?!

OH WAIT A MINUTE! I R NOT RITE!!!

Try again, dipshit.

Nice bedside manner.......doctor!

Indeed it is.

You have a problem with those on your own side of the political aisle.

I do?

If there's one positive aspect to growing up in a house dominated by the double-X chromosome (and this is reaching), it's that I can be fairly positive in the belief that sexuality is hard-wired before birth, because there is no fucking way I'd go near vaginas now if I had any choice in the matter.

Oh, props to California. You guys took your time, but it's good not being the only state in the Union with a bit of common sense.

Snorri, I think you may have to put up a neon sign saying "warning, low flying sarcasm" for some people here to pick up on it.

The1exile wrote:Snorri, I think you may have to put up a neon sign saying "warning, low flying sarcasm" for some people here to pick up on it.

Oh yeah, because that's a really practical idea...

I don't think it is, really.

radiojake wrote:two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

In a thread where there's an attempt to try and make us buy into the whole notion of they're wired that way, this was priceless. LOL!!

radiojake wrote:P.S - two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

My family and I choose to own property and take care of it how we see fit. It's not hurting you. So STFU about property ownership being theft and how we're destroying land bases!

silvanricky wrote:

radiojake wrote:P.S - two homosexual men in a relationship sucking each others cock in the privacy of their own bedroom does not degrade human relationships or ruin the sanctity of marriage - so who fucking cares? I've never seen why people care about other people's life choices that have no effect on themselves. It's called diversity.

My family and I choose to own property and take care of it how we see fit. It's not hurting you. So STFU about property ownership being theft and how we're destroying land bases!

First, don't hijack a thread.

Second, what you do to the environment affects EVERYONE... So perhaps you should grow up a bit and grow some pubes before you spew bullshit.

DangerBoy wrote:In a thread where there's an attempt to try and make us buy into the whole notion of they're wired that way, this was priceless. LOL!!

rtft. Impulse versus action in specific.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Oh. So we're condoning incest now? Interesting...

Yes we are. If two consenting adults want to have sex based on equal standing I'm not going to go in and force them to stop. I might think it's disgusting or bad, but I won't stop it, something which is the very definition of condoning.

It means you absolve it from it's negative perception. From the latin, condono condonare condonavi condatum. Are we forgetting our classics now?

That, however, to paraphrase Al Murray, is not the point though, what the point is, the point is this:

If two consenting adults want to have sex, regardless of the bizarre "equal standing" clause you insert, I'm not stopping them either, but I'm saying it's disgusting and bad.

Aaaand...you recognized that incest is therefore ethically undifferentiable to homosexuality, and that the former is disgusting and bad, so I win. You can now apologize you ever tried to f*ck with me, and deliver my trophy on saturday, because tomorrow I'm celebrating the end of gcses.

Napoleon Ier wrote:It means you absolve it from it's negative perception. From the latin, condono condonare condonavi condatum. Are we forgetting our classics now?

Are you being elitist here?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Aaaand...you recognized that incest is therefore ethically undifferentiable to homosexuality, and that the former is disgusting and bad, so I win.

Who keeps making all these rules man?

Napoleon Ier wrote:you recognized that incest is therefore ethically undifferentiable to homosexuality

where?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Oh. So we're condoning incest now? Interesting...

Yes we are. If two consenting adults want to have sex based on equal standing I'm not going to go in and force them to stop. I might think it's disgusting or bad, but I won't stop it, something which is the very definition of condoning.

It means you absolve it from it's negative perception. From the latin, condono condonare condonavi condatum. Are we forgetting our classics now?

I haven't had latin for over 4 years, I've forgotten quite a lot of it.

Merriam webster says:
: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

It doesn't seem to say anything about negative perception though.

Aaaand...you recognized that incest is therefore ethically undifferentiable to homosexuality,

I must second exile here and ask you where I ever did this.

Just imagine what a bisexuals brain looks like

Oh, everyone's a bit bisexual anyway. Thats what makes Nap so cross

Wet dream wrote:First, don't hijack a thread.

I'm applying his generalized accusation to other areas as well as this one. Besides, he was getting uncomfortably detailed in his description of homosexual relations as if he'd had experience. If he's going to tell us he can't understand why people care about life choices when it comes to this issue, it's fair to make him think about the hypocrisy of his statement when he doesn't apply it to himself.

Wet dream wrote:Second, what you do to the environment affects EVERYONE... So perhaps you should grow up a bit and grow some pubes before you spew bullshit.

How does my family's owning property hurt you? How does it hurt Jake? What are people doing wrong to the environment by owning property? Do you, your family, or friend own property? Let's hear your sermon, O Wise One!