Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts!

[ZeeWolf]

Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts! :o

Coach Jerry Sandusky (an assistant coach under head coach Joe Paterno) was
indicted on 52 counts of child molestation.

Also note; This is a real blow to Penn State football too. :wah: But don't worry, this
will have little effect on the direction of the nations morality, it will continue
heading straight down. :woot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_sex_abuse_scandal

Coach Jerry Sandusky is just one of a huge percent of homosexuals who
"likes them young" so to speak. Although I do have to draw the line
(for fairness) between those homosexuals who do not engage children
in their depraved and degenerate perversions.

ZeeWolf :salute:

[Morts]

in their depraved and degenerate perversions.

ZeeWolf :salute:

Really ?
Here is some reading for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Betonov]

Really ?
Here is some reading for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Yeah, as kids we used to laugh at cows humping cows when there was no bull around :) Amusement is cheap when you're young

[Skybird]

The point maybe is not that he is homosexual, but that he is a pederast.

[Betonov]

The point maybe is not that he is homosexual, but that he is a pederast.

Impossible, he wasn't a member of the Slovene parliament

[ZeeWolf]

Really ?
Here is some reading for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


:o So, if animals do it it's ok? You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on. Nor could you make a compelling case for
accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible. There is no civilization,
no nation, no army, no people that can escape the chaos your line of rationalization
will inflect. Tearing down never building up, destroying never creating, debasing never
affirming. Destroying the foundation and the entire structure will fall.

ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

Although I do have to draw the line
(for fairness) between those homosexuals who do not engage children
in their depraved and degenerate perversions.
Liar! If you were remotely fair you wouldn't have mentioned the fact at all. Or you would have also looked up heterosexual child molesters.
Child molester (Basic Profile)

Relatively young heterosexual man - not insane - no retardation.
Seeks to control child rather than injure.
Poses more psychological risk than physical risk to the child.
Highly repetitive behavior to the point of compulsion.

Myth 8: Children are at greater risk of sexual victimization from homosexuals
than from heterosexuals adults.
Truth - 51% of men selected female children.
21% selected both. Females victimized 2-1.
83% of child molesters are heterosexual.
http://www.save-our-kids.com/myths.html

More importantly, you did not bring this up because you're bothered by it, you brought it up solely to "prove" that homosexuals are evil. You have an agenda, and examining the truth is not part of it.

[Skybird]

Zeewolf, go back to the tank forum and sell your mod for overpriced money. Religiously motivated BS like this we do not need in GT.

:down:

[ZeeWolf]

Liar! If you were remotely fair you wouldn't have mentioned the fact at all. Or you would have also looked up heterosexual child molesters.


http://www.save-our-kids.com/myths.html

More importantly, you did not bring this up because you're bothered by it, you brought it up solely to "prove" that homosexuals are evil. You have an agenda, and examining the truth is not part of it.


Wow Sailor, you forgot to mention the fact that 70-80% of all children who are molested are boys. But of coarse that would mess up the significance of the heterosexual percent something fierce - huh :know:


ZeeWolf

[Morts]

:o So, if animals do it it's ok? You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on. Nor could you make a compelling case for
accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible. There is no civilization,
no nation, no army, no people that can escape the chaos your line of rationalization
will inflect. Tearing down never building up, destroying never creating, debasing never
affirming. Destroying the foundation and the entire structure will fall.

ZeeWolf
Im not even going to bother making a compelling case against it.
I've seen your previous posts on this subject, you're so blinded by your faith that you refuse to even take a look at any sort of evidence that contradicts your ignorant and narrow minded world view.

[Sailor Steve]

You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on.
Nor do you.

Nor could you make a compelling case for accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible.
If you believed in the God of the Bible you wouldn't be political, you wouldn't be militaristic and you wouln't be so self-righteous or so filled with hate. You would spend your time preaching the Gospel of Christ rather than the gospel of Naziism, and you would be quick to forgive, whereas you are only quick to condemn. Your actions are those of one who hates, whereas the Bible teaches that you should be one who loves.

[Sailor Steve]

Wow Sailor, you forgot to mention the fact that 70-80% of all children who are molested are boys.
Umm, you might want to reread the quote.
Females victimized 2-1.

[ZeeWolf]

Nor do you.


If you believed in the God of the Bible you wouldn't be political, you wouldn't be militaristic and you wouln't be so self-righteous or so filled with hate. You would spend your time preaching the Gospel of Christ rather than the gospel of Naziism, and you would be quick to forgive, whereas you are only quick to condemn. Your actions are those of one who hates, whereas the Bible teaches that you should be one who loves.


Gee SS, your lack of bible understanding is stunning. I think you should read
the bible - at least once.

ZeeWolf

[MH]

According to bible wankers go to hell as well...

[TLAM Strike]

Gee SS, your lack of bible understanding is stunning. I think you should read
the bible - at least once.

ZeeWolf
Yea you should read it at least once:
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/2522/demotivationalpostersgr.jpg
Its filled with all sorts of smut... :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Gee SS, your lack of bible understanding is stunning. I think you should read
the bible - at least once.
I've read it at least a dozen times in various translations. What did Jesus say you should do? Hate everybody? Hate anybody? No, he said love your neighbor as yourself. And when he was challenged with the question "Who is my neighbor?" he answered with the story of a man who was mugged and left for dead, and when his own people ignored him he was rescued by one he hated. The point of the parable was that in God's eyes we are all neighbors.

And you didn't answer my comment on you not bothering to read the quote I posted.

[ZeeWolf]

Umm, you might want to reread the quote.


You need to dig deeper into the crime stats on child molesting and you will see how the skewing of the Females 2 to 1 are achieved.

ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

You need to dig deeper into the crime stats on child molesting and you will see how the skewing of the Females 2 to 1 are achieved.
Why don't you link them rather than tell others "you need to do this". Presenting information is the proper way to debate.

[razark]

...the proper way to debate.
Th only proper way to debate him is not to. Based on this and previous threads, no amount of facts is going to get through.

[Sailor Steve]

Th only proper way to debate him is not to. Based on this and previous threads, no amount of facts is going to get through.
I live in hope.

[ZeeWolf]

I've read it at least a dozen times in various translations. What did Jesus say you should do? Hate everybody? Hate anybody? No, he said love your neighbor as yourself. And when he was challenged with the question "Who is my neighbor?" he answered with the story of a man who was mugged and left for dead, and when his own people ignored him he was rescued by one he hated. The point of the parable was that in God's eyes we are all neighbors.

And you didn't answer my comment on you not bothering to read the quote I posted.


This is a good teaching moment SS,
You must understand that love that the Lord was talking about has no single
word meaning today. Let me clarify: shoving things up another mans
rectum would not be an act of love making as it is today.
The love Christ was talking to believers about had the action of warning
your neighbor and nothing to do with engaging in selfish perversions.
Now, today of course warning someone of overt sinful behavior to avoid the
wrath of God is an act of hate, that is true. But it wasn't always so.

ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

And of course you do everything you can to pervert things to your own ends. The point of Christ's teaching is that all sins can be forgiven. I don't like the act any more than you do, believe it or not, but your answer is to hate and kill anything you find immoral. You live in hate, and that perverts your thinking, even your soul. You try to use God to justify your hate, and that is the exact opposite of everything Jesus taught.

You can hate all you want to, but to say God wants you to is a greater sin than the one you condemn. You are the exact opposite of everything Christianity stands for.

I'm not even a believer anymore, but even I can see how twisted your so-called philosophy is.

[Jimbuna]

:o So, if animals do it it's ok? You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on. Nor could you make a compelling case for
accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible. There is no civilization,
no nation, no army, no people that can escape the chaos your line of rationalization
will inflect. Tearing down never building up, destroying never creating, debasing never
affirming. Destroying the foundation and the entire structure will fall.

ZeeWolf

Marking this thread for observation purposes but also a little intrigued at your use of the phrase "morality that this nation (America) was built on".

Would that be the same 'morality' that almost wiped out the Indian nation?

I sincerely hope this thread will remain civil.

[Tribesman]

Yea you should read it at least once:

But Strike, that quote is from the jewish bit so it should be sent off to the camp along with the gays.

[Codz]

:o So, if animals do it it's ok? You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on. Nor could you make a compelling case for
accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible. There is no civilization,
no nation, no army, no people that can escape the chaos your line of rationalization
will inflect. Tearing down never building up, destroying never creating, debasing never
affirming. Destroying the foundation and the entire structure will fall.

ZeeWolf


The United States isn't built on Christian values. It is built (or at least supposed to be) on socitetal tolerance. It doesn't matter if what they do is against your god or anyone elses, as this is a secular country. Not a theocracy. Anyway, why do you care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? How are they bothering you in such a way that you'd repress their civil rights? Pedophilism is wrong for any sexuality, but being a homosexual in general is not.

[Betonov]

Let me clarify: shoving things up another mans
rectum would not be an act of love making as it is today.


So having a prostate exam is a sin :hmmm:

[ZeeWolf]

Marking this thread for observation purposes but also a little intrigued at your use of the phrase "morality that this nation (America) was built on".

Would that be the same 'morality' that almost wiped out the Indian nation?

I sincerely hope this thread will remain civil.


Hi Jimbuna,
I certainly want to remain civil. But to answer your direct question - yes.
But the Indians where never a "nation". They where tribal groups of murdering savages.
However the foundation of the nation of America that was put forth as a blue print on which
the foundation was to rest was one of very high and godly principles. And the men of congress
where to be men of high morale fiber. But of course that went up in smoke in the last century.

And, if you need proof of the total departure from the Founding Fathers.
I rest my case with the member of congress that is a toothless homosexual Jew that
was caught up in a scandal that wouldn't even make it on the news if it happened today.

ZeeWolf

[ZeeWolf]

You can hate all you want to, but to say God wants you to is a greater sin than the one you condemn.


:har:


ZeeWolf

[Codz]

Hi Jimbuna,
I certainly want to remain civil. But to answer your direct question - yes.
But the Indians where never a "nation". They where tribal groups of murdering savages.
However the foundation of the nation of America that was put forth as a blue print on which
the foundation was to rest was one of very high and godly principles. And the men of congress
where to be men of high morale fiber. But of course that went up in smoke in the last century.

And, if you need proof of the total departure from the Founding Fathers.
I rest my case with the member of congress that is a toothless homosexual Jew that
was caught up in a scandal that wouldn't even make it on the news if it happened today.

ZeeWolf


Men of high morale fiber? Is that why they owned slaves? Also, what's the problem with being a Jew? I reiterate, what gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't do based on your religion?

[u crank]

If you believed in the God of the Bible you wouldn't be political, you wouldn't be militaristic and you wouln't be so self-righteous or so filled with hate. You would spend your time preaching the Gospel of Christ rather than the gospel of Naziism, and you would be quick to forgive, whereas you are only quick to condemn. Your actions are those of one who hates, whereas the Bible teaches that you should be one who loves.

Very well said my somewhat Agnostic fellow forum member. Very well said. :up:

[Jimbuna]

I rest my case with the member of congress that is a toothless homosexual Jew that
was caught up in a scandal that wouldn't even make it on the news if it happened today.

ZeeWolf

Who exactly are you referring to?

[Sailor Steve]

However the foundation of the nation of America that was put forth as a blue print on which the foundation was to rest was one of very high and godly principles. And the men of congress
where to be men of high morale fiber. But of course that went up in smoke in the last century.
Actually they accused each other of having no moral principles and they acted pretty much as most do today. Have you ever read the works of Adams? As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
Jefferson?
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

a toothless homosexual Jew that
was caught up in a scandal that wouldn't even make it on the news if it happened today.
Back to the hating?

[ZeeWolf]

The United States isn't built on Christian values. It is built (or at least supposed to be) on socitetal tolerance. It doesn't matter if what they do is against your god or anyone elses, as this is a secular country. Not a theocracy. Anyway, why do you care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors? How are they bothering you in such a way that you'd repress their civil rights? Pedophilism is wrong for any sexuality, but being a homosexual in general is not.


Nothing is built on "socitetal tolerance." only torn down and destroyed. However, The United States is not and has not been totally destroyed - yet.
But the foundation has been.

ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

:har:
First rule of trolling: What you can't answer, mock. :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

Nothing is built on "socitetal tolerance." only torn down and destroyed. However, The United States is not and has not been totally destroyed - yet.
But the foundation has been.
To justify that you'll have to condemn the Founders themselves. Franklin, Jefferson, Adams? They all promoted tolerance.

[ZeeWolf]

So having a prostate exam is a sin :hmmm:

You need to go back and reread - slowly

[Codz]

Nothing is built on "socitetal tolerance." only torn down and destroyed. However, The United States is not and has not been totally destroyed - yet.
But the foundation has been.

ZeeWolf


How is what they do in their bedrooms "tearing down" society. I'd say it's far more damaging to deprive certain groups of their rights.

[Betonov]

You need to go back and reread - slowly

You need to go back and reread your constituition- slowly

[Codz]

You need to go back and reread your constituition- slowly


Exactly.

[Platapus]

Zeewolf,

I would like to ask you to consider the feelings of the gay members of the Subsim community when you compose your posts.

No one is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, I just think you can express it in better ways that don't alienate some of our members.

[TLAM Strike]

Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts! :o


But Strike, that quote is from the jewish bit so it should be sent off to the camp along with the gays.

Well we have talked about the Gays, we have talked about the Jews,

Now what does everyone think about Black People?


:haha:

[ZeeWolf]

Anyway, why do you care about what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

I would like to say something about this liberal mantra too.

I think the word "consenting" is completely out of context here in the Coach
Jerry's case. Teachers and yes football coaches have a sacred trust relationship
with the parents of all those who are under their care. And any
behavior that would violate that trust is enough for serious punitive action.

As for "behind closed doors". I live in a nation that watched in open broad daylight on national TV the murder of a president.
So, I cringe at the thought of what these peaple are doing behind closed doors.
I think these two events are enough to justify my concern as well as the
opposition of those who would silence me. But there is more!

ZeeWolf

[Tribesman]

How is what they do in their bedrooms "tearing down" society. I'd say it's far more damaging to deprive certain groups of their rights.
Get with the program Codz.
What people do in their bedrooms is part of a jewish plot, tearing down society is a jewish plot, subsim forums are also a jewish plot and following the "logic" of the silly nazi the founding fathers must also have been a jewish plotanmd the native indians were secretly jewish and probably gay too so it would have been OK to send them to the gas chambers if they had gas chambers back then, but gas chambers are a myth invented by the jewish media who run America and this forum.

See it is simple isn't it when you understand Zeewolf master race theories

[Tribesman]

Now what does everyone think about Black People?

Black people? that is covered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTT1qUswYL0&feature=related

Its down to the jews again
Heil zeefuhrer

[Sailor Steve]

II think the word "consenting" is completely out of context here in the Coach
Jerry's case.
Now you're back where you should have been in the first place. You want to condemn this man for the evil he did? I'm right there with you. But you want to blame a group for the sins of one, and condemn them out of hand. That has nothing to do with the case in question, and is an attempt to tar the entire subject of your hatred with a very broad brush.

As for "behind closed doors". I live in a nation that watched in open broad daylight on national TV the murder of a president.
So, I cringe at the thought of what these peaple are doing behind closed doors.
I think these two events are enough to justify my concern as well as the
opposition of those who would silence me. But there is more!
Your example has nothing to do with the subject of your thread. Or are you saying a president was murdered by gays? Or that the president was murdered because he supported gays? Because he hated gays? Your example has nothing to do with Sandusky or with homosexuality in general. The two seem connected only in your mind.

[ZeeWolf]

First rule of trolling: What you can't answer, mock. :sunny:

Forgive me SS for being a troll in my own thread.

It is the following that should have me somber instead:

" I'm not even a believer anymore, but even I can see how twisted your so-called philosophy is. "

Turning your back on the faith and denying the only way to salvation is no laughing matter.

ZeeWolf

[ZeeWolf]

Zeewolf,

I would like to ask you to consider the feelings of the gay members of the Subsim community when you compose your posts.

No one is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, I just think you can express it in better ways that don't alienate some of our members.

If the following is your definition :

gay
adj. 1. Happy and carefree; merry. 2. Brightly colorful or ornamental. 3. Jaunty; sporty. 4. Full of or given to lighthearted pleasure. 5. Rakish; libertine.

For anything else is a perversion of the original word.

ZeeWolf

[Oberon]

So the 'Indians' were 'murdering savages'... :hmmm:

Quite why were they so?

[Sammi79]

Get with the program Codz.
What people do in their bedrooms is part of a jewish plot, tearing down society is a jewish plot, subsim forums are also a jewish plot and following the "logic" of the silly nazi the founding fathers must also have been a jewish plotanmd the native indians were secretly jewish and probably gay too so it would have been OK to send them to the gas chambers if they had gas chambers back then, but gas chambers are a myth invented by the jewish media who run America and this forum.

See it is simple isn't it when you understand Zeewolf master race theories

According to bible wankers go to hell as well...

:har: I couldn't decide which reply I liked the best.

Kudos to everyone for the valiant attempts to open an imprisoned mind. Here's mine; (as if I think it'll have any effect at all :shifty:)

Zeewolf, what if, God is homosexual? I mean, he never seemed that interested in women, apart from when he needed a son. Even then he used some kind of magical artificial insemination method didn't he? Didn't fancy the deed himself I guess. And the angels? well they are a bit camp for want of a better word. Can't blame him for keeping it quiet, much safer that way considering the attitudes of some folks. I guess that means you'll be going to hetero-hell. :o

[ZeeWolf]

Now you're back where you should have been in the first place. You want to condemn this man for the evil he did? I'm right there with you. But you want to blame a group for the sins of one, and condemn them out of hand. That has nothing to do with the case in question, and is an attempt to tar the entire subject of your hatred with a very broad brush.


Your example has nothing to do with the subject of your thread. Or are you saying a president was murdered by gays? Or that the president was murdered because he supported gays? Because he hated gays? Your example has nothing to do with Sandusky or with homosexuality in general. The two seem connected only in your mind.

Don't worry SS I will clerify.

My response to the "behind closed doors" part of the liberal mantra was to
contrast events that occur in the open, in broad daylight. Therefore your
issue of "these peaple" is irreverent.

ZeeWolf

[Codz]

I would like to say something about this liberal mantra too.

I think the word "consenting" is completely out of context here in the Coach
Jerry's case. Teachers and yes football coaches have a sacred trust relationship
with the parents of all those who are under their care. And any
behavior that would violate that trust is enough for serious punitive action.

As for "behind closed doors". I live in a nation that watched in open broad daylight on national TV the murder of a president.
So, I cringe at the thought of what these peaple are doing behind closed doors.
I think these two events are enough to justify my concern as well as the
opposition of those who would silence me. But there is more!

ZeeWolf


I'm not reffering to this guy's case. Pedophilism, regardless of sexuality, can't be consenting. Homosexuality between two consenting adults is perfectly fine though.

[ZeeWolf]

Now you're back where you should have been in the first place. You want to condemn this man for the evil he did? I'm right there with you. But you want to blame a group for the sins of one, and condemn them out of hand. That has nothing to do with the case in question, and is an attempt to tar the entire subject of your hatred with a very broad brush.


Your example has nothing to do with the subject of your thread. Or are you saying a president was murdered by gays? Or that the president was murdered because he supported gays? Because he hated gays? Your example has nothing to do with Sandusky or with homosexuality in general. The two seem connected only in your mind.

So the 'Indians' were 'murdering savages'... :hmmm:

Quite why were they so?

Does that make you wonder why there no museum for them in Washington DC?

ZeeWolf

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Its pity that Adolf is dead. I'm quite sure there would be more intelligent and worthy debate (debate not "debate" like this one) with him than with you Zee.

Sorry if I punched your (or Adolf's) feelings too hardly.

[razark]

Its pity that Adolf is dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He%27s_Alive

I suppose some good might come out of debate here. Someone sitting on the sidelines might be reading it, and have an open enough mind to take something from the discussion.

[Oberon]

Does that make you wonder why there no museum for them in Washington DC?

ZeeWolf

Erm...there is?

http://nmai.si.edu/visit/washington/

But your inaccurate statement still does not answer my question.

[ZeeWolf]

Its pity that Adolf is dead. I'm quite sure there would be more intelligent and worthy debate (debate not "debate" like this one) with him than with you Zee.

Sorry if I punched your (or Adolf's) feelings too hardly.


Don't worry, if that is what you call a punch it's obvious why you would be
concerned about this thread.

ZeeWolf

[ZeeWolf]

Erm...there is?

http://nmai.si.edu/visit/washington/

But your inaccurate statement still does not answer my question.

Wow Oberon, those political whores in Washington DC never cease at proving
how wonderful they are. And what was your question?

ZeeWolf

[Oberon]

Wow Oberon, those political whores in Washington DC never cease at proving
how wonderful they are. And what was your question?

ZeeWolf

My question was why are the 'Indians' 'murdering savages'?

[Jimbuna]

Come to think of it I never received an answer to my question in #31 either.

[Codz]

Wow Oberon, those political whores in Washington DC never cease at proving
how wonderful they are. And what was your question?

ZeeWolf


Yes, opening a museum for the indiginous culture is disgusting isn't it? /sarcasm:shifty:

[Sailor Steve]

Forgive me SS for being a troll in my own thread.
The thread title itself is considered trolling by some.

It is the following that should have me somber instead:

" I'm not even a believer anymore, but even I can see how twisted your so-called philosophy is. "

Turning your back on the faith and denying the only way to salvation is no laughing matter.
I'm not laughing. I am, however, always honest. My belief and its ramifications are subject for a different thread. Yours are the very core of your thread. Anyone can claim to be anything. While you claim to be Christian you have never once preached Christ in anything you've said. You preach hate, pure and simple. I can't judge your innermost thoughts, but what you say here is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a Christian in supposed to be. Talk is cheap. "By their fruits shall you know them."

[ZeeWolf]

My question was why are the 'Indians' 'murdering savages'?

Well, this would most likely have been the opinion of those who had to bury
their white victims. And my also have been those who made a general study
of how they historically treated other Indians of other tribes. The crime of
murder in a land that was considered lawless at the time and a people that
had no written laws may sound odd but the white man had written laws in
which they could accurately judge such acts. The term "savages" would detail
the consistent and repeated brutality and overkill of their vicious acts of murder etc..

If you need more on this subject would you please start a new thread.

ZeeWolf

[ZeeWolf]

The thread title itself is considered trolling by some.


I'm not laughing. I am, however, always honest. My belief and its ramifications are subject for a different thread. Yours are the very core of your thread. Anyone can claim to be anything. While you claim to be Christian you have never once preached Christ in anything you've said. You preach hate, pure and simple. I can't judge your innermost thoughts, but what you say here is the exact opposite of what the Bible says a Christian in supposed to be. Talk is cheap. "By their fruits shall you know them."

I do have actions to back my faith. However, I have personal experience dealing with apostates
who think they understand the bible. Neither should be on this thread because it diverts the discussion.
May I suggest a new thread for you to start call possibly: "Talk is Cheap" and so was my faith in Christ.


ZeeWolf

[Oberon]

Well, this would most likely have been the opinion of those who had to bury
their white victims. And my also have been those who made a general study
of how they historically treated other Indians of other tribes. The crime of
murder in a land that was considered lawless at the time and a people that
had no written laws may sound odd but the white man had written laws in
which they could accurately judge such acts. The term "savages" would detail
the consistent and repeated brutality and overkill of their vicious acts of murder etc..

If you need more on this subject would you please start a new thread.

ZeeWolf

An interesting conclusion, however one could apply both terms to those of many different nations who marched under many different banners, including those who marched on Jerusalem in the name of God as sanctioned by multiple representatives of Gods will on Earth, aka the Pope.
In terms of how they treated their fellow Indians, might I refer you to the American Civil War, and indeed World War One and Two for how civilized people treat their neighbours.

I shall refrain from starting a new thread because I don't want this thread to sprawl across the forums, there's enough thread in here for all of us, and it was a statement made by yourself after all.

[MH]

Well, this would most likely have been the opinion of those who had to bury
their white victims. And my also have been those who made a general study
of how they historically treated other Indians of other tribes. The crime of
murder in a land that was considered lawless at the time and a people that
had no written laws may sound odd but the white man had written laws in
which they could accurately judge such acts. The term "savages" would detail
the consistent and repeated brutality and overkill of their vicious acts of murder etc..

If you need more on this subject would you please start a new thread.

ZeeWolf


Wow excellent.....:haha:


now go play...

[/URL]
[URL="http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hotdoll-the-sex-doll-for-dogs-253334.php"]http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/c/7c/c7c7556f5843815936933af5d7111fff-orig (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zqFoq3qej2c/SnKPNp2cBVI/AAAAAAABBoY/uRMrht9bkfo/s1600-h/doggieloverdoll_hero.jpg)

[Sailor Steve]

I do have actions to back my faith.
Such as? Christ said to go forth and preach the Gospel. Have you done that here? Ever? As I said, the only thing you preach here is hate.

However, I have personal experience dealing with apostates who think they understand the bible. Neither should be on this thread because it diverts the discussion.
May I suggest a new thread for you to start call possibly: "Talk is Cheap" and so was my faith in Christ.
No, you're using your claimed faith to condemn groups of people you don't like. You brought it into this thread and you have to live with it. The discussion you created was solely to use the actions of one man to justify the condemnation of all homosexuals. You claim that God wants this. That is in direct opposition to what the Bible says Christ wants. Now you're trying to escape it by claiming it's not part of the discussion.

So, if your discussion isn't about blaming all homosexuals for one man's sick activities, as your title suggests, then what is it about?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I do have actions to back my faith. However, I have personal experience dealing with apostates
who think they understand the bible. Neither should be on this thread because it diverts the discussion.
May I suggest a new thread for you to start call possibly: "Talk is Cheap" and so was my faith in Christ.


ZeeWolf:D What discussion?

You come here with your opinion - thats fine you have right to it. The "small problem" here is that you expect everyone else to provide evidence (and if they do you just mock instead of countering with your own) their point of view while you refuse to do so yourself.

I say this bluntly: Either show evidence to back your claims or shut up.

[Tribesman]

If you need more on this subject would you please start a new thread.


Why should he start a new thread, you the resident nazi introduced the subject to this thread, several people have said you are talking crap in this thread on that subject and demonstrated it, you attempted a sad and lame rebuttal together with another dumb conspiracy and all that did was quickly show how ignorant you are of your own country.
I can see why you don't want it in this topic any more, but quite frankly the total failure of any "idea" you had in that direction are no more humiliating for you than any of the other rubbish you are writing.

Kudos to everyone for the valiant attempts to open an imprisoned mind.
Sammi there is no attempt, it would be futile to even try.
There are two schools of thought to consider in dealing with brain dead neo-nazis.
The best of the two in my opinion is to shine the light on them to let them display themselves in all their glory and simply laugh at how pathetic their views are.

[mookiemookie]

In this thread: troll feeding at it's finest.

[Takeda Shingen]

I shall refrain from starting a new thread because I don't want this thread to sprawl across the forums, there's enough thread in here for all of us, and it was a statement made by yourself after all.

And the powers that be thank you for it. Good man.

Watching this thread with great interest.

The Management

[ZeeWolf]

An interesting conclusion, however one could apply both terms to those of many different nations who marched under many different banners, including those who marched on Jerusalem in the name of God as sanctioned by multiple representatives of Gods will on Earth, aka the Pope.
In terms of how they treated their fellow Indians, might I refer you to the American Civil War, and indeed World War One and Two for how civilized people treat their neighbours.

I shall refrain from starting a new thread because I don't want this thread to sprawl across the forums, there's enough thread in here for all of us, and it was a statement made by yourself after all.


Ok fine. The problem is in the heart of mankind and is a spiritual one. If you
can step back and view the overall history of man. You will see one very
clear and unusual event in time (33 years). Namely the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
Christ Jesus stated a movement that began small and grew steadily through
fierce persecution into a movement that changed
the entire history of the world. Men like you Oberon refuse to imagine how
the world would be if those early believers in Christ were wiped out. The
massive contribution Christianity to all of humanity can and will stand on their own merits forever.
No other religious order can even show it's face in comparison.
I know all to well how some like to find fault in those who profess Christ as if they have a better way
or they claim to know Christ and what he really thinks while rejecting the bible.


There is no peace without Christ Jesus the Lord - He (Christ Jesus) will make certain of that!

ZeeWolf

[Jimbuna]

I give up, I'm obviosly going to get no reply to my earlier question and leave it to my fellow moderator Takeda Shingen to monitor the 'merits' of this thread.

[ZeeWolf]

Who exactly are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

ZeeWolf

[Jimbuna]

Well I'm obviously missing something here....he is gay and Jewish, so is there an issue here?

[MH]

There is no peace without Christ Jesus the Lord - He (Christ Jesus) will make certain of that!

ZeeWolf

Very nice of him..... my dear holly warrior.

[ZeeWolf]

Well I'm obviously missing something here....he is gay and Jewish, so is there an issue here?

Don't worry Jimbuna it's nothing that should concern you, as one from the UK.
Anything I post is mainly for my concern as a white American. No offense but
I am will to stop at nothing to keep my nation from becoming like yours.

ZeeWolf

[Oberon]

Ok fine. The problem is in the heart of mankind and is a spiritual one. If you
can step back and view the overall history of man. You will see one very
clear and unusual event in time (33 years). Namely the life, death and resurrection of Christ.
Christ Jesus stated a movement that began small and grew steadily through
fierce persecution into a movement that changed
the entire history of the world. Men like you Oberon refuse to imagine how
the world would be if those early believers in Christ were wiped out. The
massive contribution Christianity to all of humanity can and will stand on their own merits forever.
No other religious order can even show it's face in comparison.
I know all to well how some like to find fault in those who profess Christ as if they have a better way
or they claim to know Christ and what he really thinks while rejecting the bible.


There is no peace without Christ Jesus the Lord - He (Christ Jesus) will make certain of that!

ZeeWolf

That's an awfully large assumption to make that I refuse to imagine how the world would be today without Christianity. Where have I put forward evidence to suggest this?

[Jimbuna]

Don't worry Jimbuna it's nothing that should concern you, as one from the UK.
Anything I post is mainly for my concern as a white American. No offense but
I am will to stop at nothing to keep my nation from becoming like yours.

ZeeWolf

Well, with a comment like that I could easily take issue with you but Neal expects better from those he entrusts to moderate this community.

Any further disparaging comments/innuendos toward my country I trust you will transmit via PM.

[ZeeWolf]

That's an awfully large assumption to make that I refuse to imagine how the world would be today without Christianity. Where have I put forward evidence to suggest this?

I am sorry Oberson, are you someone who believes the bible is the word of God?

[ZeeWolf]

Well, with a comment like that I could easily take issue with you but Neal expects better from those he entrusts to moderate this community.

Any further disparaging comments/innuendos toward my country I trust you will transmit via PM.


jimbuna please quote me the disparaging comments/innuendos you are referring to.

ZeeWolf

[Tribesman]

my dear holly warrior
That is a prickly subject.

Well I'm obviously missing something here....he is gay and Jewish, so is there an issue here?
It means you have to gas him twice, unless its a special holocaust celebratory offer of gas one gas one free.
Damn I forgot, the holocaust is a hoax:rotfl2:

[Oberon]

I am sorry Oberson, are you someone who believes the bible is the word of God?

I believe that it is mans interpretation of Gods will.

[ZeeWolf]

I believe that it is mans interpretation of Gods will.


But not a translation of God's words?

[Oberon]

But not a translation of God's words?

In a manner of speaking, it is a translation, but as with any translation done, error creeps in. Then when you take that original word and then re-translate it again and again over the space of two thousand years then what you have at the end of it deviates from the original words.
When you look at the original word translated into Hebrew, then the King James version, and all versions since. At each time, slight alterations from man creep in, what one translator meant might not be picked up by another or misinterpreted.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to how these words are interpreted, like any book, everyone takes away something different from it.

[CaptainHaplo]

It seriously saddens me when someone takes the tone of the OP. Especially when the OP can't even be correct in his title.

First of all, Sandusky has by his own actions demonstrated himself to be bisexual, not simply homosexual. He was after all married and the marriage was obviously consumated - as he has natural born children.

What is more important is that he is a pedophile. Regardless of the gender of his victims, he has been held accounable for his abuse of them because there was no consent. Even if his victims would have been "willing" - they were not able to give consent due to their age. Additionally, he purposely utilized his position to victimize them - adding another despicable facet to his actions.

As for all the judgementalism of the OP - do you really think your adding anything to any discussion here. Jerry Sandusky will answer for his crimes - not just here in this life - but in the one that matters. Berating him to generalize about an activity that you abhor is pointless. Yes, the Bible is clear on how we should view homosexuality - but Sandusky's crime would be no less had he molested young girls in the eyes of our society. Perhaps it would be to God, but we don't have the ability or the right to make that call since we don't know the full mind of God. We live in the world of man, and can only hearken to the Law of God as it is given to us. God condemns the rapist to death (see 2 Kings) and it condemns homosexuality with death. Either way - Sandusky will die in prison. So the Justice of the Lord is carried out in this life. As for the eternal - well that's up to God, and not us, so we don't need to worry about it.

So why, OP, are you all in a tizzy? Preaching to convienence does nothing to win a soul.

[ZeeWolf]

In a manner of speaking, it is a translation, but as with any translation done, error creeps in. Then when you take that original word and then re-translate it again and again over the space of two thousand years then what you have at the end of it deviates from the original words.
When you look at the original word translated into Hebrew, then the King James version, and all versions since. At each time, slight alterations from man creep in, what one translator meant might not be picked up by another or misinterpreted.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to how these words are interpreted, like any book, everyone takes away something different from it.

That sounds reasonable for someone not versed in bible history concerning
two very important facts.

1.) The history of the ancient Jewish methods in making exact copies of
the Old Testament scriptures.
2.)The huge number of original New Testament scriptures.

These two areas are a fascinating study that can easily dispel any serious
doubts.

ZeeWolf

[Oberon]

That sounds reasonable for someone not versed in bible history concerning
two very important facts.

1.) The history of the ancient Jewish methods in making exact copies of
the Old Testament scriptures.
2.)The huge number of original New Testament scriptures.

These two areas are a fascinating study that can easily dispel any serious
doubts.

ZeeWolf

This is something I shall have to look into. Thank you.

[Codz]

Don't worry Jimbuna it's nothing that should concern you, as one from the UK.
Anything I post is mainly for my concern as a white American. No offense but
I am will to stop at nothing to keep my nation from becoming like yours.

ZeeWolf

A "white" American? What does an evolutionary trait have to do with anything? Also, "becoming like his"? Do you mean a nice mix of races, cultures, and ideas? I don't see why anyone would oppose that.

[Tribesman]

This is something I shall have to look into. Thank you.
Look into it then laugh
1. shows he hasn't a clue and doesn't go near your point
2. try and show a single example where that statement is even remotely true.
The nazi "christian" is as clueless on scripture as he is on most things, though he is correct that it is a fascinating area of study, perhaps he should try it sometime

[Skybird]

Kneeling in front of the manual of a Harry Potter game and mumbling "Abrakadabra", doesn't make wizardy any more real, and the manual not any more holy. Even if it is a print from the first edition.

[Codz]

Kneeling in front of the manual of a Harry Potter game and mumbling "Abrakadabra", doesn't make wizardy any more real, and the manual not any more holy. Even if it is a print from the first edition.


I completely agree. Of course, everyone is allowed to have their opinion on such things.

[ZeeWolf]

It seriously saddens me when someone takes the tone of the OP. Especially when the OP can't even be correct in his title.

First of all, Sandusky has by his own actions demonstrated himself to be bisexual, not simply homosexual. He was after all married and the marriage was obviously consumated - as he has natural born children.

What is more important is that he is a pedophile. Regardless of the gender of his victims, he has been held accounable for his abuse of them because there was no consent. Even if his victims would have been "willing" - they were not able to give consent due to their age. Additionally, he purposely utilized his position to victimize them - adding another despicable facet to his actions.

As for all the judgementalism of the OP - do you really think your adding anything to any discussion here. Jerry Sandusky will answer for his crimes - not just here in this life - but in the one that matters. Berating him to generalize about an activity that you abhor is pointless. Yes, the Bible is clear on how we should view homosexuality - but Sandusky's crime would be no less had he molested young girls in the eyes of our society. Perhaps it would be to God, but we don't have the ability or the right to make that call since we don't know the full mind of God. We live in the world of man, and can only hearken to the Law of God as it is given to us. God condemns the rapist to death (see 2 Kings) and it condemns homosexuality with death. Either way - Sandusky will die in prison. So the Justice of the Lord is carried out in this life. As for the eternal - well that's up to God, and not us, so we don't need to worry about it.

So why, OP, are you all in a tizzy? Preaching to convienence does nothing to win a soul.

First of all these terms you and others who like to label this behavior is
an attempt to hide the true nature to the issue of sexual perversion.
The real issue here is the total lack of self control for all those how feed
their insatiable lust for sexual gratification. Those who let there depraved
sexual desires take control over their lives.

You also conveniently ignore the dishonorable conduct that must occur
prior to the victimization of their pry.
The dishonor brought to his family and his wife. The dishonor he brought
to all those who trusted him is immeasurable. But by those who have no
value for such things they are easily brushed aside.

The terms gay, homosexual, bisexual etc. are all meaningless when you see
what is really involved in these incredibly selfish and self centered sexual predators.
Do not be deceived by the hype campaign shoved down our
throats by those with a larger agenda. The true goal by those who find
no problem with the "gays" is to legalize all forms of sexual expression.
And I mean ALL FORMS!


ZeeWolf

[Skybird]

I completely agree. Of course, everyone is allowed to have their opinion on such things.
Yes, as long as he does not try to change the world for the others as well, with nothing else but a Harry Potter spellbook as his justification, and as long as he does not abuse children to poisen their undefended minds with his stuff for the mere reason that they are young, and their minds not yet can weigh, judge and form an educated assessement of the matter themselves. Religions indoctrinating already small children and young teens, is one of he most cyncial and inhumane crimes I know of. I rate it the same like sexual abuse and rape, or genital mutilation.

[Codz]

First of all these terms you and others who like to label this behavior is
an attempt to hide the true nature to the issue of sexual perversion.
The real issue here is the total lack of self control for all those how feed
their insatiable lust for sexual gratification. Those who let there depraved
sexual desires take control over their lives.

You also conveniently ignore the dishonorable conduct that must occur
prior to the victimization of their pry.
The dishonor brought to his family and his wife. The dishonor he brought
to all those who trusted him is immeasurable. But by those who have no
value for such things they are easily brushed aside.

The terms gay, homosexual, bisexual etc. are all meaningless when you see
what is really involved in these incredibly selfish and self centered sexual predators.
Do not be deceived by the hype campaign shoved down our
throats by those with a larger agenda. The true goal by those who find
no problem with the "gays" is to legalize all forms of sexual expression.
And I mean ALL FORMS!


ZeeWolf

Do you actually know anyone who's gay? I have a gay uncle and he's none of the things that you listed. In fact, he's been with the same guy for longer than my parents have been married. He has no "agenda" other than being allowed to marry the consenting adult who he likes.

The problem with your slippery slope arguement is that homosexual men and women have the ability to consent to a relationship. Children, corpses, animals, and inanimate objects can not consent, and therefore wouldn't be legalized.

EDIT:Yes, as long as he does not try to change the world for the others as well, with nothing else but a Harry Potter spellbook as his justification, and as long as he does not abuse children to poisen their undefended minds with his stuff for the mere reason that they are young, and their minds not yet can weigh, judge and form an educated assessement of the matter themselves. Religions indoctrinating already small children and young teens, is one of he most cyncial and inhumane crimes I know of. I rate it the same like sexual abuse and rape, or genital mutilation.

I agree. My tolerance for religion stops when people try to infringe on other people's rights with nothing more for justification than a religious text. I am disgusted with the amount of intolerance for homosexuals, Muslims, and atheists that is somewhat prevalent here in the US. I also hate the fact that people are actually trying to fight evolution in favor of creationism in public schools.

[Sailor Steve]

I see you've avoided more and more of my points. Saying you know more about the Bible than someone else is simple diversion of discussion.

You started a thread based on hatred for all homosexuals, and used Sandusky as an example, yet you didn't disuss him at all, just the broad sweeping condemnation. You try to use the Bible to justify this hate, yet pure hate it is. This much is obvious. You try to dismiss anyone who points this out as not knowing as much as you do, yet you don't actually use biblical scripture at all. Anyone can make claims. Yes, the Old Testament condemns it. How do you know for absolute certain that was God's judgement and not some old preacher spouting his own hatred? Answer: You don't. You believe it and that's fine; for all I know you may be right. But you are so full of yourself and your belief you can't concieve of the idea that you may be wrong. This is what led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people by others who felt exactly the way you do. Which of the two has done more to hurt the world?

That sounds reasonable for someone not versed in bible history concerning two very important facts.

1.) The history of the ancient Jewish methods in making exact copies of
the Old Testament scriptures.
True, but that does't guarantee the authorship in the first place. You believe it comes from God. Fine. Where is the proof?

Also, the entire thing was written by Jews. So now they're the good guys?

2.)The huge number of original New Testament scriptures.
There are no 'originals'. Not one. Every real Bible scholar in the world is agreed on this. The earliest copies of the Gospels date from at least seventy years after the fact. They don't even pretend to be eyewitness accounts; they just tell the stories. This ignores the other Gospels rejected by the early councils. After that, you "huge number" turns out to be less than two hundred fragments.

Paul's letters? More reliable, and it's possible that one or more of them may actually be original, but it's not possible to identify which ones, if any. And then there's the fact that Paul did not consider himself to be writing sacred scripture. He was writing letters of encouragement or admonishment to churches he had founded. There is nothing in them to indicate that it's anything more than his own personal belief.

Your 'scholarship' seems to be little more than faith, and it's preaching like yours that gives Christians a bad name.

[Tribesman]

Do you actually know anyone who's gay?
If you couple his nazi fetish with his public tirade about poofs and merge in his words about self control over urges of sexual gratification perhaps it means that he does know someone who is gay.
It could well be that poor Zeewolf is just a little Haggard:har:

[ZeeWolf]

The problem with your slippery slope arguement is that homosexual men and women have the ability to consent to a relationship. Children, corpses, animals, and inanimate objects can not consent, and therefore wouldn't be legalized.

That's not true all most anything can be legalized or criminalized. And consent
can be completely absent in the law. It can even be wrote as a fundamental
"Human Right" as to any form of sexual expression may not be infringed.
So, your wrong on that Codz.

[Tribesman]

There are no 'originals'. Not one. Every real Bible scholar in the world is agreed on this. The earliest copies of the Gospels date from at least seventy years after the fact.
Don't forget Steve that the collection which yielded these early examples also shows his first claim to be thoroughly ridiculous, in fact it showed the diversity between Jewish texts to be far far greater than the huge gaping chasm they had already accepted existed.

[Codz]

That's not true all most anything can be legalized or criminalized. And consent
can be completely absent in the law. It can even be wrote as a fundamental
"Human Right" as to any form of sexual expression may not be infringed.
So, your wrong on that Codz.

What? It would be more infringing on a non-consenting person's rights, so pedophilia would never be legalized. No one's rights are being infringed when gays have a relationship. Well, maybe except your right to be a bigot.

[ZeeWolf]

I see you've avoided more and more of my points. Saying you know more about the Bible than someone else is simple diversion of discussion.

You started a thread based on hatred for all homosexuals, and used Sandusky as an example, yet you didn't disuss him at all, just the broad sweeping condemnation. You try to use the Bible to justify this hate, yet pure hate it is. This much is obvious. You try to dismiss anyone who points this out as not knowing as much as you do, yet you don't actually use biblical scripture at all. Anyone can make claims. Yes, the Old Testament condemns it. How do you know for absolute certain that was God's judgement and not some old preacher spouting his own hatred? Answer: You don't. You believe it and that's fine; for all I know you may be right. But you are so full of yourself and your belief you can't concieve of the idea that you may be wrong. This is what led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people by others who felt exactly the way you do. Which of the two has done more to hurt the world?


True, but that does't guarantee the authorship in the first place. You believe it comes from God. Fine. Where is the proof?

Also, the entire thing was written by Jews. So now they're the good guys?


There are no 'originals'. Not one. Every real Bible scholar in the world is agreed on this. The earliest copies of the Gospels date from at least seventy years after the fact. They don't even pretend to be eyewitness accounts; they just tell the stories. This ignores the other Gospels rejected by the early councils. After that, you "huge number" turns out to be less than two hundred fragments.

Paul's letters? More reliable, and it's possible that one or more of them may actually be original, but it's not possible to identify which ones, if any. And then there's the fact that Paul did not consider himself to be writing sacred scripture. He was writing letters of encouragement or admonishment to churches he had founded. There is nothing in them to indicate that it's anything more than his own personal belief.

Your 'scholarship' seems to be little more than faith, and it's preaching like yours that gives Christians a bad name.

Wrong again there Sailor,
I think you would be wise to avoid showing me how much you do not know
about the bible Old or New Testament. You simply do not know the truth about
the manuscript evidence that the bible has behind it. You mention a few
references but there is much more that destroys the assertion that undermines the accuracy of the scriptures.

ZeeWolf

[Tribesman]

I think you would be wise to avoid showing me how much you do not know
about the bible Old or New Testament. You simply do not know the truth about
the manuscript evidence that the bible has behind it. You mention a few
references but there is much more that destroys the assertion that undermines the accuracy of the scriptures
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har: :har::har::har::har:
Could anyone top that as an epic failure?
You really should quit while you are lying helpless in the gutter wolfie darling, you are getting more pitiful by the minute.

[ZeeWolf]

What? It would be more infringing on a non-consenting person's rights, so pedophilia would never be legalized. No one's rights are being infringed when gays have a relationship. Well, maybe except your right to be a bigot.

Your premise is based on "consenting persons rights" as if there is something
sacred about them or like they are fixed and unalterable. There is nothing
sacred to those who wright our laws. You make a grave error when you assume there is.
And again you ignore reality when age of consent can be changed with the stroke of a pen child molesting is just another form of love. :haha:

[Skybird]

"Accurate scripture."

That joke stands for itself.

:har:

[ZeeWolf]

"Accurate scripture."

That joke stands for itself.

:har:


Skybird no matter how much "Go along to Get along" you do, they are still not going to like you!

ZeeWolf

[Codz]

Your premise is based on "consenting persons rights" as if there is something
sacred about them or like they are fixed and unalterable. There is nothing
sacred to those who wright our laws. You make a grave error when you assume there is.
And again you ignore reality when age of consent can be changed with the stroke of a pen child molesting is just another form of love. :haha:

The chances of enough people approving that are so ridiculously small, that it's not worth considering. 18 is the international standard for the age of consent, and that isn't changing. It's just as likely as murder suddenly becoming acceptable.

[ZeeWolf]

The chances of enough people approving that are so ridiculously small, that it's not worth considering. 18 is the international standard for the age of consent, and that isn't changing. It's just as likely as murder suddenly becoming acceptable.

Codz, can you name any government on earth (that has anything good to say about the US) that gives a damn about what the people want?

"international standard!" :o Oh yah, I remember voting on that one :haha:

ZeeWolf

[Codz]

Codz, can you name any government on earth (that has anything good to say about the US) that gives a damn about what the people want?

"international standard!" :o Oh yah, I remember voting on that one :haha:

ZeeWolf


Can you name a government on Earth that would want to lower the age of consent dramatically? With your logic, murder would be legalized in a matter of days.:shifty:

Let's also remember that in the US, you vote for representitives, and I seriously doubt a majority of the population would vote for someone who is in favor of legalizing pedophilia.

[Rilder]

18 is the international standard for the age of consent, and that isn't changing.

Err what? 18 isn't even a universal age of consent in the United States.

[Codz]

Err what? 18 isn't even a universal age of consent in the United States.

Generally accepted age of consent then. The age of consent in the US is between 16 and 18 in all states.

[Sailor Steve]

Wrong again there Sailor,
I think you would be wise to avoid showing me how much you do not know
about the bible Old or New Testament. You simply do not know the truth about
the manuscript evidence that the bible has behind it. You mention a few
references but there is much more that destroys the assertion that undermines the accuracy of the scriptures.
Talk is cheap. You have yet to show that you know anything. How about trying to refute the argument with facts rather than trying to win by dismissal.

"There is much more that destroys the assertion?" Show it then. Let's see what you "know". Show the "truth" about the manuscript evidence. So far all you've done is talk. You also need to show exactly where the Bible tells you to hate the way you do.

[ZeeWolf]

Can you name a government on Earth that would want to lower the age of consent dramatically? With your logic, murder would be legalized in a matter of days.:shifty:

Let's also remember that in the US, you vote for representitives, and I seriously doubt a majority of the population would vote for someone who is in favor of legalizing pedophilia.

I guess you are a young man, perhaps a teenager because you consistently
ignore my point.

Take the political act of removing homosexuality as a mental disorder. Then
the reversing the sodomy laws in state after state.

Then the (very small, tiny) political movement that defined homosexuality as a civil right a group that covered every form of perverted sexual behavior including pedophilia.

Then there is the effort to ban it's discrimination and normalize it in the American mind, through sex education in schools and government jobs etc.

And of course reversing the military ban was a major hurdle that brought the walls crashing down.

Can you see now how the will of the people was ignored by the government here?

[ZeeWolf]

Talk is cheap. You have yet to show that you know anything. How about trying to refute the argument with facts rather than trying to win by dismissal.

"There is much more that destroys the assertion?" Show it then. Let's see what you "know". Show the "truth" about the manuscript evidence. So far all you've done is talk. You also need to show exactly where the Bible tells you to hate the way you do.

Sorry you feel that way SS,
There is only one scripture I can give to you:
Matthew Chapter 6 verse 7

ZeeWolf

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry you feel that way SS,
There is only one scripture I can give to you:
Matthew Chapter 6 verse 7
I would suggest that Matthew 7, verses 3-5 would be more appropriate for you.

[Reece]

My view is that homosexuality is a sickness, a man does not play with another man's parts, it's just plain sick. However as morals have slipped so far and we know that we live in a sick world, what a man chooses to do with another man consensually is their business as long as they conduct it in private - but when innocent children are victimised, as far as I'm concerned pedophiles should be locked up and the key thrown away. This a Christian view and mine as well.

Some members will agree while others will disagree. The fact is if an atheist has the right to his/her opinion on this forum so does a christian or anyone else for that matter.

[mookiemookie]

Dragging homosexuality into an argument about pedophilia is completely stupid. That's all the comment this thread deserves.

[ZeeWolf]

Dragging homosexuality into an argument about pedophilia is completely stupid. That's all the comment this thread deserves.

Really, then how do you explain little boys being molested by men? Isn't
that a same sex union too.
The idea that "homosexuals" have any self restraint when it comes to pursuing
their cravings is nonsense and that is what is completely stupid.

In an earlier post the claim was made that a third of children where boys and
two thirds where girls. And therefore that proves the majority of the perps
where heterosexuals. Now why would I pretend the male perpetrators of the
boys be anything but homosexuals?

Let me give you something else to consider. If you take two thirds of the
molested and put it up to the total number of heterosexual males, you will
see a tiny sliver of a percent of the overall heterosexual male population.
But, if you take the one third and put it against the overall homosexual male
population the percent is huge in comparison.

I hope this helps, it certainly explains why some have been so vicious in their attempt to silence this issue - huh?

ZeeWolf

[MH]

Now why would I pretend the male perpetrators of the
boys be anything but homosexuals?


You could pretend that they are homosexuals and not pedophiles to prove your point...still i guess that not every person above 18 who has sex with someone under 18 is pedophile.It may be a fluid situation in reality but black&white by law sometimes.
I guess that when such a case occurs with homosexual couple we might have a bit skewed view and jump to some conclusions.


Actually i find it funny that religion is so well defined about homosexuality but very shady when it comes to issues of sexual/mental maturity...in particular regarding women.

[ZeeWolf]

Now why would I pretend the male perpetrators of the
boys be anything but homosexuals?

You could pretend that they are homosexuals and not pedophiles to prove your point...still i guess that not every person above 18 who has sex with someone under 18 is pedophile.It may be a fluid situation in reality but black&white by law sometimes.
I guess that when such a case occurs with homosexual couple we might have a bit skewed view and jump to some conclusions.

I can see why names that classify criminal behavior is necessary in the law.
But to then use these names to give order to chaos which is sexual perversion,
is worse then misleading. It gives the false sense that there are
hard boundaries and a false sense of predictability. And plays a role that
predators use to win trust. As with Sandusky, everything about this guy
was a lie. How could this guy deceive so many for so long with so many victims?
I think the time to rethink this entire area of human behavior is over due.
To few have had to much power to make decisions that produced to many
truly innocent victims and yet are still considered experts.

ZeeWolf

[Codz]

I guess you are a young man, perhaps a teenager because you consistently
ignore my point.

Take the political act of removing homosexuality as a mental disorder. Then
the reversing the sodomy laws in state after state.

Then the (very small, tiny) political movement that defined homosexuality as a civil right a group that covered every form of perverted sexual behavior including pedophilia.

Then there is the effort to ban it's discrimination and normalize it in the American mind, through sex education in schools and government jobs etc.

And of course reversing the military ban was a major hurdle that brought the walls crashing down.

Can you see now how the will of the people was ignored by the government here?

So apparently only young people aren't bigots then? Once again, what are they doing to you that is infringing on you or another person's rights? The link you are describing between homosexuality and pedophilia does not exist. Pedophilia can happen in either sexuality and it is independant of both. The government is not ignoring the will of the people just because it is trying to reverse the wrong it has done in the past.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The question is why we even try to refute his argument at all. Its clear to most people with half a brain and some critical thinking skills to see the impossibility of trying to get a deaf man to listen. It wouldnt surprise me if he was trolling, it wouldnt surprise me if its what he ACTUALLY believes. Either way its disgusting. If you are going to argue seriously with another, there needs to be a reason to do so. There has to be a chance of getting the other to come to a realization, which is clearly not going to happen here.

How can you refute an argument that is so beyond flawed its ridiculous, to a man that cannot and will not listen or understand. Not only is the argument flawed, but how can you take an argument seriously from a man who is clearly a MASSIVE hypocrite and, from his words as it appears to me, is not a credible enough person with the skills to present a well balanced argument.


Therefore, refuting the argument wastes time, energy, maybe a bit of disgust, all thrown at a brick wall. not even good enough for GT. my views have already been reflected by many, and putting forth anymore would be fighting fire with more fire. Kind of reminds me of the Westboro baptist church.

[Tribesman]

There is only one scripture I can give to you:
Matthew Chapter 6 verse 7

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Such a knowledge of scripture.

Come on wolfie darling you can do better than that, surely sweetie you must be able to find a line that is even remotely relevant.


The question is why we even try to refute his argument at all.
What arguement?
He has yet to make one which doesn't refute itself by its own patheticness.

If you are going to argue seriously with another, there needs to be a reason to do so.
"christian identity" is enough of a reason to rip the piss, they are a sick bunch of puppies.

[Hottentot]

Come on wolfie darling you can do better than that, surely sweetie you must be able to find a line that is even remotely relevant.

I don't know about that...

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

Sounds pretty relevant to me. Just not the way he might think.

[Tribesman]

Just not the way he might think.
You mean its a bit like the ladyboy doth protest too much, but not in a gay way of course?:rotfl2:

Is it that he again manages to simply and quickly destroy his own lame attempt at making sense. :yep:
If his views were not so sick and twisted you could almost feel sorry for him couldn't you.

[MH]

I can see why names that classify criminal behavior is necessary in the law.
But to then use these names to give order to chaos which is sexual perversion,
is worse then misleading. It gives the false sense that there are
hard boundaries and a false sense of predictability. And plays a role that
predators use to win trust. As with Sandusky, everything about this guy
was a lie. How could this guy deceive so many for so long with so many victims?
I think the time to rethink this entire area of human behavior is over due.
To few have had to much power to make decisions that produced to many
truly innocent victims and yet are still considered experts.

ZeeWolf
So you think that "sexual perversion" is not possible if some sort of religious sharia?
As far as i can tell you are very mistaken here.
Just make some inquiry into some religious led states with harsh punishments and so on...the lies are even greater there and you cant even whisper about it besides denying that it exists because admitting would mean a failure of the system....(Vatican's conduct in some cases could be a good example too) well... that might be your cup of tea spoon...bone?:03:
Oh yeah... you are talking about christian sharia so it would be much different...right?

Are you some sort of shi"ite christian...whats the matter with you?:down::haha:

[Skybird]

You guys are still at this...? :o :timeout:

It started with sexual morals lined out on the basis of religious ideology, ignoring that said ideology's clerics have a big problem with sexual abberations within their own rows, and that statistics say - I quote by the books of Dawkins and Hitchens again* - that crime numbers related to rape and sexual assault are higher in red states than in blue states.

It then went to an "argument" over "holy scriptures" like the bible being historically original, being historically accurate and beign well-founded in their sources and ways by which they got delivered, ignoring that almost every theologican, as long as he is no ultra-hardcore fundamentalist extremist brute force type of guy, today denies that the scriptures are historically correct. I again refer to the two books mentioned above where the authors rip the christmas story and books of Moses, parts of Jesus' claimed historical biography apart and leave nothing but rags of paper of it - not by rethorical means, but basing on the many inner contradictions the Bible includes in its statements and timetables. it makes historical claims on names and events and timetables of which we know that they are simply wrong, plain and simply historically wrong.

Next comes the mandatory trading back and forth of Bible references, as if that would prove anything and would improve the miserable record of authenticity, or as if systemtically sorting bible quotes by a random patterns would turn the content of the quotes into something less fictional. The Bible is neither a book of science nor a book of truth, it is a collection of fictional pieces written by a huge plethora of authors who based on hear-say, rumours, lip-delivered historical stories of their time, and most of that, if not all, is illustrating only the way in which the people with that limited knowledge of their time tried to make sense of the world around them. Taking that as an authority means to deny everything that has taken place in the past 2 thousand years and denying any increase in scientific understanding of cosmos, biology, environment, physics, mathematics, medicine - you name it.

Bible swingers making remarks on sexual perversions - that combo alone should let your brain mode jump from active to standbye. When not just somebody but religious people start to lecture about sexuality and morals, I immediately switch off. By the historic record of religions and their effect on the world, nobody is more unqualified to comment on morals and sexuality, then religious people.

So guys, don't you have something better to do with your time?

For German readers, a random find that I had last week when searching the archive for something.
Jesus wollte diese Kirche nicht (http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,56578,00.html)
Eugen Drewermann in an interview from early 90s. He is a theologist and psychotherapist, has fought bitter battles with the church (they finally separated in anger), and is the most profound critic and attacker of the church's dogma available in German language. His book "Kleriker. Psychogramm eines Ideals (http://www.amazon.de/Kleriker-Psychogramm-eines-Ideals-Drewermann/dp/3530700169/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340534204&sr=8-1)" is seen by not few as the most devastating and insightful attack against the church and its personell that has been written until today. It describes , amongst others, the massive accumulation of personality defomations to be seen amongst clerics' ranks, and how the church and its dogma are causing this and are responisble for this. But be warned, the book is demanding, and is thick: 900 pages.

*Dawkins: The God Delusion; Hitchens: God is not Great

[Betonov]

You guys are still at this...? :o :timeout:


About time someone derails this thread.
Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??

[Oberon]

"Well, it started badly, it tailed off a bit in the middle and the less said about the end the better, but apart from that it was excellent!"

[Hottentot]

Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??

My bonsai tree is doing great. I'm hoping it will have leaves once my grand child finally inherits it.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??I live in block of flats. That means closest I could get of gardening would be as 'acting rake specialist' in autumn. :shifty:

[mookiemookie]

I have an amaryllis in a pot outside my patio that I just can't get to bloom. Grr...

[Skybird]

The only thing blooming in my home are my neuroses.

[u crank]

The only thing blooming in my home are my neuroses.

Good one. I think we all cultivate that garden a little.:D

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I have an amaryllis in a pot outside my patio that I just can't get to bloom. Grr...Which one? At my (very limited) understanding some need tropical conditions.

[Sailor Steve]

Really, then how do you explain little boys being molested by men? Isn't
that a same sex union too.
The idea that "homosexuals" have any self restraint when it comes to pursuing
their cravings is nonsense and that is what is completely stupid.
A personal feeling for which you have no evidence. You might as well say that all heterosexuals are perverts because some like little girls.

In an earlier post the claim was made that a third of children where boys and
two thirds where girls. And therefore that proves the majority of the perps
where heterosexuals. Now why would I pretend the male perpetrators of the
boys be anything but homosexuals?
A valid argument. The problem is that even if all molesters of boys are homosexuals it doesn't follow that all homosexuals molest boys. See my comment immediately above.

I hope this helps, it certainly explains why some have been so vicious in their attempt to silence this issue - huh?
No one has attempted to silence the issue. No one has even attempted to silence your ludicrous attempts to equate all gays with one man's sickness. We have only attempted to show you your own perversion of hatred.

[Tribesman]

Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??
It has been suggested that the OP is secretly rather fond of uphill gardening.

[mookiemookie]

Which one? At my (very limited) understanding some need tropical conditions.

I'm not sure exactly. Years ago when we lived in California, we had this 80 year old man who had the greenest thumb ever. He had this beautiful amaryllis and gave my mother one of the bulbs. She planted it, and has since moved here to Texas and she has no problem getting hers to bloom. Mine's a bulb off of hers, and it hasn't bloomed in two years.

Not sure that the tropical weather is a problem...if you've been to Houston in the summer time you know it's about as humid and hot as a rainforest. :rotfl2:

[nikimcbee]

About time someone derails this thread.
Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??

Something smashed my flowers:shifty:.

[Egan]

It has been suggested that the OP is secretly rather fond of uphill gardening.

:har::har::har:

[Rockstar]

Something smashed my flowers:shifty:.

Maybe it was Bigfoot or you stumbling home from the pub.

[Betonov]

It has been suggested that the OP is secretly rather fond of uphill gardening.

Had to check that one out :haha:

I planted 20 tomato plants, 8 red peppers (mild ones) about 8 hot peppers, different varietes from Habanero to Naga Jolokia, origano and basil.
Made a second garden this year, trippled the capacity and already contemplating a third garden. Good garlic is a rarety around here, every store flooded with rotten chineese kind.

I just hope I'm not too late. Planting season in Slovenia is mid May :-?

[mookiemookie]

Had to check that one out :haha:

I planted 20 tomato plants, 8 red peppers (mild ones) about 8 hot peppers, different varietes from Habanero to Naga Jolokia, origano and basil.
Made a second garden this year, trippled the capacity and already contemplating a third garden. Good garlic is a rarety around here, every store flooded with rotten chineese kind.



I can't wait until I have a place with enough room to grow all of that. My dream is to have an entire rosemary bush. Nothing smells better to me than fresh rosemary. I have to rub my hand over every rosemary bush I ever see and smell it. Wonderful stuff.

[ZeeWolf]

So apparently only young people aren't bigots then? Once again, what are they doing to you that is infringing on you or another person's rights? The link you are describing between homosexuality and pedophilia does not exist. Pedophilia can happen in either sexuality and it is independant of both. The government is not ignoring the will of the people just because it is trying to reverse the wrong it has done in the past.

Codz, reversing the wrong of the past by shoving their filthy agenda up our
rectum is not the will of the people.
But it will fail when men stand against this stupidity and reclassify homosexuality/pedophilia for what it is.

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay we're going a bit too far here. Some light reading for all:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

No vulgarities, obscenities, hate speech, or foul language.

Emphasis mine. Let's all just chill out.

The Management

[ZeeWolf]

About time someone derails this thread.
Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??

That has been the goal from the very first page

[danny60]

About time someone derails this thread.
Soooo, how many of you do gardening ??

We have flowers... somewhere in the pathetic excuse that is my back garden...

[Sailor Steve]

That has been the goal from the very first page
No, most of us have been debating you honestly and fairly. You've somewhat derailed it yourself more than once. I also see you've stopped answering my points.

[ZeeWolf]

The question is why we even try to refute his argument at all. Its clear to most people with half a barin and some critical thinking skills to see the impossibility of trying to get a deaf man to listen. It wouldnt surprise me if he was trolling, it wouldnt surprise me if its what he ACTUALLY believes. Either way its disgusting. If you are going to argue seriously with another, there needs to be a reason to do so. There has to be a chance of getting the other to come to a realization, which is clearly not going to happen here.

How can you refute an argument that is so beyond flawed its ridiculous, to a man that cannot and will not listen or understand. Not only is the argument flawed, but how can you take an argument seriously from a man who is clearly a MASSIVE hypocrite and, from his words as it appears to me, is not a credible enough person with the skills to present a well balanced argument.


Therefore, refuting the argument wastes time, energy, maybe a bit of disgust, all thrown at a brick wall. not even good enough for GT. my views have already been reflected by many, and putting forth anymore would be fighting fire with more fire. Kind of reminds me of the Westboro baptist church.

Wait a minute there genius, I am no professional at this and I never claimed
to be a holy all knowing "Expert". I am one guy who will no longer buy the
lies that has my nation in chaos. And this issue of sexual perversion and predator molesters is
just one of the many issues that the enemies of any moral restraint what me and all those they disagree with silenced.

But I will not be cowed nor silenced!

As for those who call themselves "gay".
This is another smoke screen to hide the fact that they are miserable and retched human beings.

ZeeWolf

[Morts]

As for those who call themselves "gay".
This is another smoke screen to hide the fact that they are miserable and retched human beings.

ZeeWolf

Or maybe you're just a narrow minded bigot, which honestly sounds more likely :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

Moving on. And calling someone names only makes the moderating job more difficult, and allows these sort of threads to go on longer than they should. Members are asked to keep this in mind when dealing with situations like this in the future.

[Sailor Steve]

Wait a minute there genius,
Stooping to insults again.

I am no professional at this and I never claimed
to be a holy all knowing "Expert".
But you have dismissed anyone who disagrees with you as knowing nothing, rather than discussing it reasonably. That amounts to pretty much the same.

I am one guy who will no longer buy the lies that has my nation in chaos. And this issue of sexual perversion and predator molesters is just one of the many issues that the enemies of any moral restraint what me and all those they disagree with silenced.
Yet you spread the lies that those you don't like are evil and the cause of the problem. And you speak of being silenced when you are allowed free speech to spread those calumnies, and you would silence all who oppose you if you could.

[mookiemookie]

This is how I know we've successfully derailed his hate thread. Google AdSense has the final say. :har:

http://i.imgur.com/34gn0.png

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

This is how I know we've successfully derailed his hate thread. Google AdSense has the final say. :har:

http://i.imgur.com/34gn0.pngBrilliant! :har:

[MH]

nice.

[Codz]

Codz, reversing the wrong of the past by shoving their filthy agenda up our
rectum is not the will of the people.
But it will fail when men stand against this stupidity and reclassify homosexuality/pedophilia for what it is.


Were you also against the repeal of segregation laws when those were removed? Even if most of the population in the US were bigots, like you seem to think, it is the government's job to do what's right for the country and its population. Not what you and your friends want. You have no evidence for your hatred besides pure ignorance of the subject. Ignorance is NOT an excuse for blind hatred of about 10% of the human race.

[Betonov]

I can't wait until I have a place with enough room to grow all of that. My dream is to have an entire rosemary bush. Nothing smells better to me than fresh rosemary. I have to rub my hand over every rosemary bush I ever see and smell it. Wonderful stuff.


You can always have it inhouse in a pot.

[u crank]

Plants are nice. They don't hate anyone. You can talk to them and they don't pass judgement on you. They ask little and give a lot. Let's hear it for the plants. :up:

[Betonov]

And more love you give them, the more they produce.

[u crank]

They watch out for you at night. :03:

[Skybird]

Plants are nice. They don't hate anyone. You can talk to them and they don't pass judgement on you. They ask little and give a lot. Let's hear it for the plants. :up:

And more love you give them, the more they produce.


Obviously you never have met Mr. Amorphophallus titanum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum)

:D

[Betonov]

Obviously you never have met Mr. Amorphophallus titanum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum)

:D

I want one :)

[Oberon]

I once had a vegetarian Venus Fly Trap that I called Terry the Triffid

Needless to say he didn't make it... :wah:

[u crank]

Obviously you never have met Mr. Amorphophallus titanum. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphophallus_titanum)

:D

Wow. Having that in your house would be like having an elephant as a house pet. :O:

[Tribesman]

I once had a vegetarian Venus Fly Trap that I called Terry the Triffid

Wasn't one of these then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovu0_VFJsBY
perfect for the topic its got colour and its an immigrant and a threat to america plusits in the media so obviously it must be jewish, its even musical just to camp it up for the OP to secretly enjoy

[Platapus]

I started cultivating CPs in my office. It can be a bit difficult as they need a lot of light.

Wish I was better at it as CPs fascinate me.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I started cultivating CPs in my office. It can be a bit difficult as they need a lot of light.

Wish I was better at it as CPs fascinate me.Sorry but what are CPs? Are they chilis of somekind. :oops:

[Skybird]

I want one :)

No, you wouldn't, it stinks terrible.

[Tribesman]

Sorry but what are CPs?
Carniverous plants

[Oberon]

I started cultivating CPs in my office. It can be a bit difficult as they need a lot of light.

Wish I was better at it as CPs fascinate me.

Yes, and never ever use compost. The plant has to get its nutrients from what it eats, otherwise it puts too much energy into things like the flowers and not the actual traps.

Also, don't touch the traps because triggering them will use up vital energy.

Still, you live and learn...well, the plant doesn't... :wah:

[Catfish]

I cultivate Triffids, and Slaver sunflowers in my little shop of horrors :yep:

[yubba]

Wow excellent.....:haha:


now go play...


http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/c/7c/c7c7556f5843815936933af5d7111fff-orig (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/hotdoll-the-sex-doll-for-dogs-253334.php) I see your pooped puppy and raise you this
:o
http://funnymilitarypictures.imgs4fun.com/images/05.jpg (http://funnymilitarypictures.imgs4fun.com/index.html#5)you really don't want to know what I think of child abusers like this Sandusky @##$%%^*()^%$#@$#@!%& puppy was on page 7 last time I was here an hour, or so ago, plants how did we get so far off topic I see no one wants to talk about fast and furious, makes watergate look like a second rate burgarly which it was, Sandusky should of capped himself, coward.

[Betonov]

No, you wouldn't, it stinks terrible.

It would be outside, under the neighbours yard :arrgh!:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Carniverous plantsThank you! :salute:

It would be outside, under the neighbours yard :arrgh!:Sounds like you really love your neighbour. :D

[Betonov]

Sounds like you really love your neighbour. :D

Especially sundays when he mowes the lawn

[MH]

I see your pooped puppy and raise you this
:o
.

Since its plant thread now....you can use it on Sandurski.

http://gaiuscaptis.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/cactus1ey6.jpg

[Stealhead]

Don't forget fungi!

[Sailor Steve]

We are now crossing the line on what's acceptable on a family forum. People get brigged for more than just hate mail.

[Rockstar]

Here we go again! :haha: Ya the acronym FUBAR is ok in a family forum but cactus, fungi and astrisks are not. And how do we know the funny red hat isnt screwed into the head that cat, that looks to me like animal abuse. :D

[Stealhead]

Well the F in FUBAR can mean fouled depending on the person using the word so one would have to know the individual and that persons typical use of language to know which F word they are thinking of come to think of it "Saving Private Ryan" is the the source of the nasty FUBAR.

I will remove my risky fungi photo to be on the safe side.

[Sailor Steve]

come to think of it "Saving Private Ryan" is the the source of the nasty FUBAR.
Really? You mean it hasn't been around since the real war? It wasn't listed in the January 7, 1944 edition of Yank magazine?

[Stealhead]

Maybe so but I have spoken to several WWII vets that claim to have never heard the word FUBAR during the war one of my uncles was an infantryman in a unit with some rough and tumble foul mouthed guys they barely survived Belgium together and he never heard anyone say FUBAR making me feel that it was more than likely a REMF term "F" meaning Fantastic Fellow for the sake of our rules. (that one is from Vietnam) word or a Pouge or what us working Air Force members would call a pencil pusher.

[Sailor Steve]

I've heard it since I was in the Navy, and that was 1970. So I looked it up and sure enough, it's that old.

Acronyms are considered acceptable because they don't directly refer to the words involved. If you know them then you know them. Even asterisks don't tell anything when that's all there is, unless the meaning is obvious from the context. The biggest problem is when only one letter is changed and the word intended is unquestionable. It's no different than using spaces to get around it. There are rules against graphic pictures. All one needs to do is read them.

[Rockstar]

Umm Acronyms DO directly refer to words and are made up from abbreviations of the words involved. Examples:

(S)elf (C)ontained (U)nderwater (B)reathing (A)pparatus

(SO)und (N)avigation (A)nd (R)anging

(F)'d (U)p (B)eyond (A)ll (R)ecognition

Evident by the discussion between SH and SS the letter 'F' in FUBAR means exactlly what everyone already thought it meant, a naughty word and a more blatent violation of the family funtime standards than astrisks, cactus or fungi. If the abbreviated word is too offensive to spell in its entirety or astrisks are needed to hide the obvious then dont use it.

[Sailor Steve]

No, they don't. An acronym by itself doesn't say anything. The meaning isn't obvious unless you already know it. The rules are clear.

[Betonov]

Yesterday I ate some FUBAR potatoes (fried up beyond all recognition)

[Sailor Steve]

Foolish Undertakers Believe All Reasons.

[Skybird]

Freibier und Brezeln, aber rasch!

[Penguin]

So you guys all dismiss the theory that it derives from the German word 'furchbar'? (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/furchtbar)
That's FUBAR! :x

[Safe-Keeper]

:o So, if animals do it it's ok?I love it when this happens. The homophobes are up in arms about how being gay is so damned "unnatural", and yet whenever somebody posts out to them that it isn't, they are all of a sudden dumbfounded as to what on earth nature has to do with the discussion!

Let's see... poor integrity or horrible short-time memory:hmmm:?

You have no concept of the morality that
this nation (America) was built on.Colonialism, slavery, restriction of voting rights to white males, a total absernce of workers rights, exclusion of women from the work force, and husbands' rights to rape their wives?
:violin:

Edit: what's up with this reasoning anyway? "The founers of this country had values x, y and z, therefore we too must have... oh, at least the values I agree with. I pick y". Isn't it possible for founders of nations to be as wrong as everyone else?

Nor could you make a compelling case for
accepting behavior that runs against the God of the bible.Tell that narcissistic bronze age tyrant of yours that I could not care less what he wants until he comes down here and tells us personally.

There is no civilization,
no nation, no army, no people that can escape the chaos your line of rationalization will inflect. Tearing down never building up, destroying never creating, debasing never affirming. Destroying the foundation and the entire structure will fall. Your ignorance is astounding. Read up on the people around the world who have courting and marriage traditions totally unlike ours and still function just fine. The Mosou (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85444) for starters.

[Skybird]

I love it when this happens. The homophobes are up in arms about how being gay is so damned "unnatural", and yet whenever somebody posts out to them that it isn't, they are all of a sudden dumbfounded as to what on earth nature has to do with the discussion!

Let's put it this way:

Homosexuality neither is the statistical norm representing the sexual design of heterosexual species (the statistical norm in heterosexual species, representing "normality" due to being the dominant norm, is heterosexuality - big surprise); nor is homosexuality the way by which evolutions planned to ensure the survial of a species that was designed to reproduce by mixing genes through sexual intercourse between two different sexes.

Abberations from the norm do not qualify for being a norm of equal quality, quantity and "naturalness". Amongst apes and birds, homosexuality often happens when male adolescent ones still are excluded from competing for the female animals due to being too young or too weak, or when they live in a habitat where they still have not found a mating partner of the other sex, again male animals seem to be effected more often than female animals. Amongst animals, male homosexuality appears to happen more often than female homosexuality. One can thus formulate the theory that this form of homosexuality is not genetically predetermined, but a neurotic reaction to an uncooperative environment - like the budgie that is held alone in a cage although these birds are totally social animals. You then put a mirror into the cage and laugh when the bird starts to court or fight with it's image, in the end even tries to copulöate with the mirror. That is not a sign of natural behavior towards mirrors - it is a sign that the bird has become neurotic due to isolation, and that the mirror serves the purpose of a surrogate for a real mating partner.

Some individual animals even can become fixiated on surrogates for a living mating partner. For example in my home town some years ago there was a swan who fell in love with a tourist boat shaped like a giant swan. The romance lasted two or three seasons, the animal swam beside the boat and did not leave it alone. It finally gave up - when it had found a real swan of the other sex to mate with.

Nobody would conclude from that story that it is natural and a representative event in nature that animals bond with man-made boats. ;)

Homosexuals exist, and I see no reason to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then many species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probably our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! - move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some people find that unsentimental truth a hard and big pill for their glorious egos to swallow, but that's how it is.

Some people get born with a cheilognathoschisis (=harelip), so the phenomenon exists and in this meaning is part of nature. But it is not the norm, nor is it the way our species design is meant to be - it is an aberration. We must not discriminate people with that anomaly, like we must not discriminate people having the defective gene making them albinos, because they do not mean any disadvantage for the community they live in, but we also must not think or claim that their lip design is natural in the meaning of being representative for our species, or being of equal status beside normally shaped lips.

Not before we allow homosexuality to distort the hierarchy of communal vital and important priorities that safeguard our survival and our communal/cultural integrity, it turns into a problem. That's why the couple living somewhere like everybody else and just let the world be what it is, is no problem for the community. But narcissistic and/or exhibitionistic freak shows like CSD and comparing parades with the outwritten agenda to change society for the worse and relativising important value standards that feed back on our communal solidity and long term survivability, are a problem. And they give the majority of homosexuals who just want to go on with their lives, a bad name, to get their own egoistic kick in the present moment. Last but not least CSD is not only a display of exhibitionsim and narcissism, but of a very ruthless egoism as well. With the "ordinary" homosexual whoi just wants to gewt along with his loife like I want, too, I get - and got! - along. With parade-marchers I cannot - and I don't even want.

Some people get born with one psychological gender, trapped in a body of the other physical sex. It happens sometimes. It is great vdrama and tragey, and great suffering for the affected individual. The problem exists, but that does not make it "normal". - Some people are genetically predetermined to be homosexual. Fine. Let them. But they are not the natural norm in our species' design, nor is it equal in significance to the dominant and evolutionary wanted norm in our species: heterosexual orientation, that is.

There have been theories that maybe homosexuality may have some indirect and so far undiscovered effect on the genepool of a species, "indirectly" by influencing the mating frequency of heterosexual partners (lowering it), and thus effecting the stirring of combinations in the genepool, or that it may have an effect in terms of stimulating mutations by reducing the mixture of the next generation'S genes. Others wanted to construct parallels to known precedences like diseases killing parts of a population, but immunizing against another, more dangerous epidemia (like for example malaria immunizes against sichel-cell-anemia). But these theories, if one wants to call them like this, so far have been extremely unfounded, speculative and unreasonable imo, and seem to be more motivated by constructing an argument for declaring homosexuality natural in the meaning of being as important as heterosexuality. Lot'S of agendas out there, and unfortunately the ideologic warfare does not stop short of sciences, but not rarely corrupts scientific methodology. And then it becomes worthless.

Back to the gardeners' discussion. :)

[AVGWarhawk]

homophobes

Is there a term for those that have issues with heterosexuals?

[nikimcbee]

Is there a term for those that have issues with heterosexuals?

Lesbians?:hmmm:

[Tchocky]

This thread started badly, got worse, became briefly brilliant around the Triffid-phase, and now we're back to the ins and outs of in-out-in-out.

Good work everyone :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Skybird:

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some peope, find that a hard and big oill to swallow, buit that's how it is.

I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.

[u crank]

Back to the gardeners' discussion. :)

The plants have read your post and they tip their hats. :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

I think that the trouble has passed enough that I can take off the moderator hat and sound off a bit. I do, however, reserve the right to put it back on if people start acting crazy again. Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some peope, find that a hard and big oill to swallow, buit that's how it is.

So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

[Betonov]

So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

They don't have to deal with women. Lucky bastards

[Safe-Keeper]

Skybird:



I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.
You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well.
I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

[AVGWarhawk]

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.

Rape is natural? Do tell. So, we should just throw out things in nature such as pheromones that illicit a response no matter who is standing around? The animals were observed demonstrating homosexual behavior. There are things in nature that chemically generate a response. I do not buy hook,line and sinker that it is natural because animals demonstrate homosexual behavior. Fido likes to hump my leg. Sometimes my stuffed teddy bear. What gives?

[Skybird]

I think that the trouble has passed enough that I can take off the moderator hat and sound off a bit. I do, however, reserve the right to put it back on if people start acting crazy again. Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.



So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.
No. That is your erratic summary and conclusion. I am only about pointging out that both forms of sexuality are not of equal importance in the way nature moves on, and that the one is dominant due to evolutionary design, and the other is a - statistical as well as biological - anomaly that does not do harm to the species as long as it'S prevalence does not exceed a certain mark - beyiond which it starts to effect the reproduction rate of a population in a given habitate.

I did not say somethign like that if we let poeope with arelips live, the whole population sooner or later would become harelipped.

But you stumbled over something although you did not want that. A side-effect of medical progress is that many people with a genetical disease that in earlier times would have killed them before they could have had children of their own (carrying the same defectiove gene), today survive and can have children. As a result we know that these defective genes spread thrpoughout the genepool, and survive. We know that because counting it out showed us that the share of individuals with said genetically caused disease has grown amiongst the total population, and they become older. For example, a higher percentage of populations are bleeders, than in earlier times, and they also become older. They have children which carry their defective gene - in earlier times, they often died from a small injury while being teenagers.

So, there are three forms of homosexuality: intended trying, neurotic reaction for example due to sexual traumatisation or isolation, and genetic. The latter could have a material effect on a population indeed if the respoijnble gene gets transported from one generation to the next. As far as I know, we are unknowing about this, we have not even idenmtified the assumed homosexuality-gene, or am I wrong there? Could very well be that I am wrong, I so far think on the grounds of that the genetical component is just concluded on, but is not proven in hard evidence in a genetic screening. If the "gay-gene" indeed has been identified, let me know.

Maybe homosexuality is not caused by a defective gene triggering it, but a constellation of other genetic combinations that taken for themselves have different singular features, but in combination cause homosexuality as kind of a side-effect. But again: I don't know.

[Skybird]

You're falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy, I believe.

"Natural" doesn't inherently mean "good". Rape is natural. Earthquakes are natural. Illness is natural. Sulphuric acid and mercury are natural. "Natural" doesn't mean "good" or "healthy", it means just that, natural. Of nature.

Yes, homosexuality is natural. Sure, it may not lead to procreation (lots of things don't, like wearing a condom or waiting until you find the "right one"), but that's another discussion. Natural just means natural.


I could say the same about safe sex with condoms, or the morning-after pill, or waiting with having sex until you find the right one. If everyone wore condoms every time they had intercourse, and the girls used morning-after pills, we would probably go extinct pretty quick as well. What's your point?

I see lots of advantages in a system within a species where a small fraction enjoys sex that does not lead to procreation. For one thing, this "frees up" individuals to adopt and care for the offspring spawned by heterosexuals who for some reason or another cannot take care of them.

You point at the phenomenological dimension of "natural". What exists, is naturall, so to speak. It happens, so it happens in nature, so it is part of nature.

I tried to clear that up when mentioning evolutionary meaning of a design feature in a species, or differing between between biological and statistical norms/normalities.

And your last paragraph. Just this. When a man and a women have intercourse and contraceptives or not, it can make a difference. If two men or two women use contraceptives or not, it never makes a difference. ;)

Humans have the ability to do sex for enjoyment only, almost all animals as far as we know, cannot do that, but are driven by their drives to reproduce, and that is what their intercourse serves in purpose, always. Our higher cognitive abilties enable us for this. We are animals, yes - but regarding some features we are different animals. It comes down to that we have a second-grade reflexivity. Animals, even the most intelligent ones, only have a first-grade-reflexivity, as far as we have observed until today.

[MH]

Skybird:



I would agree here. I believe the homosexual animal theory was taken as proof it is all natural(for humans) was accepted a bit to easily.

I don't really think that it matters weather it is true or not.

Homosexuals exist, and I see no reason to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then many species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probably our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! - move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some people find that unsentimental truth a hard and big pill for their glorious egos to swallow, but that's how it is.


It also dos not matter very much....we don't live anymore in some sort of tribal society when survival is the issue.
Birth control is not evolutionary planned as well.

I'm also not sure about guy genes passing on for obvious reason even more so if homosexual relation is not perceived as taboo which means gays would not have to pretend as being heterosexual.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

This is botany thread - don't derail it. :stare:

[CaptainHaplo]

Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

[VipertheSniper]

(like for example malaria immunizes against sichel-cell-anemia)

I think it's the other way around, I think sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disorder isn't it?

[Takeda Shingen]

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

You really want to do this publically? Because we can, you know.

[NeonSamurai]

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian' (note the irony 'quotes') the OP claims to be (ie the kind that likes to wave placards claiming that "god hates fags!" and other rubbish), and was not hate speech.

As a broad minded supporter of free speech (even of the kind that I find utterly revolting, like holocaust denial/revisionism) it takes a lot for me to consider a post hate speech. Like calling a group nothing but degenerate scum that should be eradicated of the face of the earth, or the use of pejorative slurs would qualify. If anyone crosses that kind of line when it comes to the groups you or anyone else belong to, then I will be more then happy to nail them to the wall for it.

I don't censor or censure you for what you say, just as I don't for those that disagree or counter you, regardless of what side I may actually be on. If you bring your cherished personal beliefs up to the table, it is perfectly fair to expect to have them disputed, even dragged through the mud, and up to you to defend them if you can (and if you can't then perhaps those views should be reevaluated).


As an academic, I really do not see why this is such a hard concept to understand. If you don't want to play, leave your ball at home.

[TLAM Strike]

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/148/whoaf.png
I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here... :shifty:

[u crank]

I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here... :shifty:

All right, now I'm starting to get confused. No wait, I was confused already. :D

[Tribesman]

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian'
Wow, I suppose its all about "ME ME ME":rotfl2:
So its nazi "christian", I wonder what that refers to?
Perhaps the later "christian identity" is more specific if the other reference was just too hard to understand or were not familiar with the OPs stated "christian" beliefs

Would it be permissable to link to a few sermons by the good nazi "christian" pastors from "christian identity" to make the point crystal clear to anyone that cannot tell the difference between Christians and "christians"?
I have to ask as even though ther OP has in the past put up some of their wonderful hate filled bigoted nazi bile I think linking to those "christians" site would be breaching the rules about posting racist crap.

[Platapus]

I think we got a few Homophobisexuals here... :shifty:

I am an admitted trisexual. I will try anything once. Twice if she is cute.

(The Frau comes into my office)

<Smack>

What? I was talking about you hun!!!!

[Skybird]

I think it's the other way around, I think sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disorder isn't it?
Öh... yes... The other way around.

[mapuc]

You are not a real man if you haven't had sex with both genders.

So I guess it's about time I find myself a woman

Markus

[NeonSamurai]

Wow, I suppose its all about "ME ME ME":rotfl2:
So its nazi "christian", I wonder what that refers to?
Perhaps the later "christian identity" is more specific if the other reference was just too hard to understand or were not familiar with the OPs stated "christian" beliefs

Would it be permissable to link to a few sermons by the good nazi "christian" pastors from "christian identity" to make the point crystal clear to anyone that cannot tell the difference between Christians and "christians"?
I have to ask as even though ther OP has in the past put up some of their wonderful hate filled bigoted nazi bile I think linking to those "christians" site would be breaching the rules about posting racist crap.

If you explain exactly why you are posting them, warn people what the content of the videos is, and they do not violate any other rules (nudity, graphic violence, etc), I do not object to you posting them. Though I would prefer if possible not to direct link to the hate sites themselves (you can often find these videos on anti hate sites too). We don't need them coming here.

[CaptainHaplo]

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian' (note the irony 'quotes') the OP claims to be (ie the kind that likes to wave placards claiming that "god hates fags!" and other rubbish), and was not hate speech.

As a broad minded supporter of free speech (even of the kind that I find utterly revolting, like holocaust denial/revisionism) it takes a lot for me to consider a post hate speech. Like calling a group nothing but degenerate scum that should be eradicated of the face of the earth, or the use of pejorative slurs would qualify. If anyone crosses that kind of line when it comes to the groups you or anyone else belong to, then I will be more then happy to nail them to the wall for it.

I don't censor or censure you for what you say, just as I don't for those that disagree or counter you, regardless of what side I may actually be on. If you bring your cherished personal beliefs up to the table, it is perfectly fair to expect to have them disputed, even dragged through the mud, and up to you to defend them if you can (and if you can't then perhaps those views should be reevaluated).

As an academic, I really do not see why this is such a hard concept to understand. If you don't want to play, leave your ball at home.

You really want to do this publically? Because we can, you know.

Someone with a documentable history of hostility to those of faith continues that pattern (regardless of whether its "justified" on any single occasion or not) - along with hurling a personal insult regarding someone's sexuality in their following post (expressly forbidden in the TOS) and you guys choose to turn a blind eye - thats up to you. I guess some things are not hate speech when the "target" is equally hateful and despicable. I guess it all depends on the "kind" of group that its targetted at. So anyone who is an "identity christian" is a target - regardless. But because they are as a group wrong, hateful and yes - despicable - that makes such comments perfectly ok. The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well? Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about? Some people see Jews as despicable. That's one of the ways the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

I don't agree with "identity christians". But I still see a major double standard.

You guys call em like you see em.

So do I. It is what it is. I don't see a need to "do" anythng - either publicly or privately. If you do - then you know how to PM me - or take action publicly as you see fit.

[Tribesman]

Someone with a documentable history of hostility to those of faith continues that pattern
The only "hostility" is the writings of those of "faith", especially those that make ridiculous claims about the scripture they claim to follow.
There is no hostility at all to people of faith or to people of no faith.

along with hurling a personal insult regarding someone's sexuality in their following post
It addresses the issue.
It is widely held that the more someone screams about queens the greater the chance is that they are rather partial themselves.
Would you like a big list of very vocal homophobes who turned out to be taking deliveries by the back door?

I guess some things are not hate speech when the "target" is equally hateful and despicable.
Well done, almost correct.:yeah:
Calling a nazi a nazi isn't hate speech, calling a Klansman a racist "christian" isn't hate speech, calling a black supremacist a dumb bigot isn't hate speech, it is addressing their views.

The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well?
You can call them racist scum, extreme right wing or bigots, but I don't think you can call them liberals:rotfl2:

Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about?
That is simple, a statement about "christians" isn't a generalised statement about Christians any more than a statement about white supremacists is a generlised statement about "white" people.

I don't agree with "identity christians".
Good, becuase I wouldn't want you to follow the trail from NC to the great northwest homeland for "white" "christian" aryan folk based on the principles of the founding fathers and true to the US constitution free of "jews, ******s, race traitors and other degenerates"........call em like you see em.

@Mods. If any words of that last neo nazi hate speech is deemed unnaceptable despite the context please censor them.

[kiwi_2005]

Gee SS, your lack of bible understanding is stunning. I think you should read
the bible - at least once.

ZeeWolf

Nor do you.


If you believed in the God of the Bible you wouldn't be political, you wouldn't be militaristic and you wouln't be so self-righteous or so filled with hate. You would spend your time preaching the Gospel of Christ rather than the gospel of Naziism, and you would be quick to forgive, whereas you are only quick to condemn. Your actions are those of one who hates, whereas the Bible teaches that you should be one who loves.

And of course you do everything you can to pervert things to your own ends. The point of Christ's teaching is that all sins can be forgiven. I don't like the act any more than you do, believe it or not, but your answer is to hate and kill anything you find immoral. You live in hate, and that perverts your thinking, even your soul. You try to use God to justify your hate, and that is the exact opposite of everything Jesus taught.

You can hate all you want to, but to say God wants you to is a greater sin than the one you condemn. You are the exact opposite of everything Christianity stands for.

I'm not even a believer anymore, but even I can see how twisted your so-called philosophy is.

Wow! Well said. :yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

I have seen threads take a turn. This one is making figure eights. :hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

I guess it all depends on the "kind" of group that its targetted at. So anyone who is an "identity christian" is a target - regardless. But because they are as a group wrong, hateful and yes - despicable - that makes such comments perfectly ok. The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well? Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about? Some people see Jews as despicable. That's one of the ways the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

[HunterICX]

I have seen threads take a turn. This one is making figure eights. :hmmm:

Just another day in the GT :03:

HunterICX

[CaptainHaplo]

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

I have no issue with you brigging the OP. I pointed out way earlier in this thread that I found his tone and message way off base. I don't care who the person is - to say any group is worthy of "ripping the piss" because they are "sick puppies" is what it is. Last I read the rules - calling someone "ladyboy but not in a sexual way" - and then admitting that it was all about someone taking "deliveries in the back" was a violation as well. But you guys say its not. So be it.

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster instead of on the content of the posts just goes to show how much of a double standard you are using.

Don't think so? Fair enough. Guess we will see.

[Takeda Shingen]

I have no issue with you brigging the OP. I pointed out way earlier in this thread that I found his tone and message way off base. I don't care who the person is - to say any group is worthy of "ripping the piss" because they are "sick puppies" is what it is. Last I read the rules - calling someone "ladyboy but not in a sexual way" - and then admitting that it was all about someone taking "deliveries in the back" was a violation as well.

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster instead of on the content of the posts just goes to show how much of a double standard you are using.

Don't think so? Fair enough. Guess we will see.

Right. Your posts about that poster are not about that poster. The fact that you have come and done this publically is also not about this poster. The fact that you are attempting to equate ten pages of concentrated hate speech thinly masked with religious piety to a handful of offhand comments means that I am using a double standard. Okay. I've had worse said about me. Par for the course.

The simple fact is that certain individuals from every 'group' on SubSim see themselves as a minority, and an oppressed one at that. The political left thinks that they are victims of double standards. So does the political right, the atheists and the Christians. The fact that everybody feels that way is a signal to me that we're doing a good job. What irks me is when individuals try to nitpick posts in an effort to have moderators silence the opposition. But hey, dealing with that is part of the job too. :D

Don't think so? That's okay. I won't reciprocate the kind of vague threatening speech in your last sentence. That just wouldn't be cool. Peace to you, bro. I still think you're a good guy.

EDIT: Also, you are looking for 'you're', not 'your'.

[TLAM Strike]

I have seen threads take a turn. This one is making figure eights. :hmmm:

A Circular Run? :hmm2:

[Webster]

Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Black Panthers, KKK members and "identity christians" (along with other types), plus a lot more groups - all worthy of "ripping a piss" just because they are sick puppies.
Don't like it? Guess your just all a bunch of ladyboys taking deliveries in the back.



geez :hmmm:, you sure you didnt forget someone in there?

[krashkart]

geez :hmmm:, you sure you didnt forget someone in there?

Truthers, moon-landing deniers... :know:

:hmm2:
..
...
Oh yeah, and also leprechauns. :huh:

http://omgjeremy.com.s57441.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/dfdvd3ft_74c5s27hcg_b.jpg

[Tribesman]

Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Black Panthers, KKK members and "identity christians" (along with other types), plus a lot more groups - all worthy of "ripping a piss" just because they are sick puppies.
Don't like it? Guess your just all a bunch of ladyboys taking deliveries in the back.

Classic:rotfl2:
Can you get it more backwards?(no pun intended)

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster
Supposed:hmmm:
On your part......
ME ME ME ME ME:har:
your CAPS LOCK habit comes back into play and unfortunately emphasises you again well illustrating your seemingly rather blatent dishonsty on that score.:yep:

instead of on the content of the posts
Yet it appears they are dealing with the content of the posts, rather than what you think you want those posts to be saying.

You really should have thought first before you went off on one, a topic angle dealing with nazi "christians" isn't a good location to be trying to fight your imaginary war on the mythical anti Christians you think you see.

In other news a nice development on the crazy nazi "christian" front.
Apparently that twat from NC who is running the northwestern homeland for real white people is having a problem with some of the other Nazi loons.
In a startling revelation they are now accusing the crazy white supremacist Stormfront website of being part of a global jewish conspiracy to make the nazis look bad, it kinda makesthe OPs past suggestion that Subsim is a Jewish conspiracy pale in comparison:woot:
Nazis don't ya just love em...but not in a gay way:03:

[MH]

I thought it was about gays conspiracy to take over the world to legalise screwing little babies.

Yes.. lets talk about this in civil and intelligent way.

[Tribesman]

Yes.. lets talk about this in civil and intelligent way.
How do you mean?
maybe a starter of "nonce finally jailed".
a couple of :woot::woot: posts .
a smattering of "hanging is too good for him".
then perhaps a cheeky "he should have used Jacksons lawyer" for a funny finish.

But that would be sensible.

[CaptainHaplo]

I still think you're a good guy.

Just to set the record straight for everyone - I have the utmost respect for the Mods here - and I think they are ALL good folks doing a bang up job for the most part. I simply think that they are wrong on this so I'll leave my sig out there as a "protest".

I will say this - I challenged them on it - and you see how they continue to take a very measured, controlled response. That says something good about them and the way they work.

[Madox58]

I have had my dealings with the Mods here myself at times.
I have the utmost respect for them and the job they do.
:salute:

We don't always agree, but then I don't always agree with the Boss (Nancy).
At lest I can turn the computer off.
:har:

(Don't you dare tell her I said that!!!)
:o

[NeonSamurai]

Just to set the record straight for everyone - I have the utmost respect for the Mods here - and I think they are ALL good folks doing a bang up job for the most part. I simply think that they are wrong on this so I'll leave my sig out there as a "protest".

I will say this - I challenged them on it - and you see how they continue to take a very measured, controlled response. That says something good about them and the way they work.

Well I think our treatment of ZeeWolf exemplifies the attitude moderators have to this stuff. Neal has always asked us to take a light touch and only get involved when things are really getting out of hand and going way too far. It took quite a bit of hate filled bile from ZeeWolf before he was given a time out.

What Tribesman said in this thread frankly is not hate speech, for many different reasons (more reasons than I have time to detail right now). He is also applying the main weapon used against people that hate, and that is ridicule. That is what "rip the piss" means... to laugh at them. As for him referring to Zee as possibly being homosexual deep down, I would say it is more than possible (the thought crossed my mind as well). He is absolutely correct when he says that it is very common for the most vocal anti-gay people to actually be gay themselves. They are using a psychological defence called projection, where they project their own internal stuff onto the world around them as they can't accept that which is inside.

Homophobia is fear based more than anything else from my experience.


So at this point I fail to see exactly where the issue lies.

[Armistead]

I've long learned to let people be regardless of their race, religion or sexual preference and take people one at a time, long as they don't harm me or try to force their opinions on me.

I'm more agnostic as I get older, but I don't have a problem with believers, if God tells them to do something, OK, it's only when God tells them to tell me I have to do something that I have issue.

[Skybird]

He is absolutely correct when he says that it is very common for the most vocal anti-gay people to actually be gay themselves. They are using a psychological defence called projection, where they project their own internal stuff onto the world around them as they can't accept that which is inside.

Just to remind you that there is little if no empirical evidence to bolster this claim, amongst psyhcologists this claim is pasisonately discussed, at least it was like that at my time.

The claim is mostly given because the psychoanalytical projection defence mechanism is a known concept to the wide public and nicely serves the purpose of claiming a rethorical victory.

It compares to "women not ready for sex are frigid", and "When she says No, deep inside she means Yes."

Or in short, I think for the most the claim is illustrating a cliche. Or compares to depicting critics of Islam as being "phobic" of it.

[MH]

Well...he might had been molested by bunch of puppies in his childhood.

[mookiemookie]

I think we've lost sight of the real point of this thread.

The marigolds I planted this weekend look great. :up:

[Tribesman]

Or in short, I think for the most the claim is illustrating a cliche.
Run through the really loud ones in the past couple of decades.
Maybe it is only noticed so much as they make such a big song and dance about it it really clatters very publicly when they fall.

Or compares to depicting critics of Islam as being "phobic" of it.
Well if you want to introduce that angle.....
You provide a perfect example of that angle since in one of your displays of your phobia you managed for some strange reason to post an article complaining about black people, it is exactly how those phobias display which is caused the breakdown in the rational thought process.
As it complained about muslims and black people it must be right as it complains about muslims, the fact that it was by a crazy racist arab religious extremist is irrelevant and what he was actually saying is irrelevant as it complains about muslims and complaining about muslims is good.

Lets run through the circular logic you display when you let your phobia run wild.
all muslims are bad
look at he fundamentalist nutty ones
look at what the fundy nutty ones say their scripture means
the modern fundy nutty ones are the only true muslims
the fundy nutty ones say they are so it must be true
the only muslims are the fundy nutty ones
all muslims are bad.

Though your adherence to the crazy conspiracies of Bat which defy all logic or reason might make a better example of islamophobia in play

In fairness though your phobia thing does go on to other religions, we had the atheist(humanist) politician who was somehow part of a secret catholic plot by the vatican to take over europe for errrr...the muslims, we had the evil protestants forcing you to pay taxes simply for being German.

[NeonSamurai]

Just to remind you that there is little if no empirical evidence to bolster this claim, amongst psyhcologists this claim is pasisonately discussed, at least it was like that at my time.

The claim is mostly given because the psychoanalytical projection defence mechanism is a known concept to the wide public and nicely serves the purpose of claiming a rethorical victory.

It compares to "women not ready for sex are frigid", and "When she says No, deep inside she means Yes."

Or in short, I think for the most the claim is illustrating a cliche. Or compares to depicting critics of Islam as being "phobic" of it.

I agree and disagree. In this case I was referring to the most rancid promoters. There has definitely been a trend among very public and vocal anti-gay people, of engaging in gay relationships in secret. Do I think everyone who hates or fears 'fags' are secretly gay? No, but I would not be surprised if a number of them feel this way because of their own internal uncertainties. Others feel this way because of dogma or tradition.

As for empirical evidences, of course there is none, there can't possibly be any given the nature of the beast. How can you quantify and measure such a thing empirically? This is aside from the fact that I reject concepts of empirical evidence as being non-scientific (you cannot prove things with facts, only disprove them).

As for Islam, I think there are plenty of people that are phobic, in that their fear and issues are largely irrational, even if they do present a rational front for it.

Anyhow forgive me if my posts are not up to my usual standards, I am very busy and also rather sleep deprived. Both of which limit my ability to give carefully thought out statements.

[Hottentot]

Well...he might had been molested by bunch of puppies in his childhood.

Finally! Someone who has understood the dangers of those insidious little goblins! Sure, they might look at you with their cuuuuute big puppy eyes and wag their tail for you, but the moment you look elsewhere, they are contemplating conspiracies of most sinful in nature!

Don't believe me? I have a proof of their evilness (http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/716/510.mp4/)!

The truth is out there man! :o

(Fair video content warning: includes more "cute" than "NSFW" but if you are hyper sensitive about young male dog doing what it finds natural, then don't click.)

[AVGWarhawk]

I think we've lost sight of the real point of this thread.

The marigolds I planted this weekend look great. :up:

Speaking of marigolds. Frank Perdue feeds his chickens marigold pedals and buds. Apparently the colors of the buds provide a specific hue to the skin of the chicken.

Facts that you just don't need to know in life but all the same your covered on Jeopardy if you are asked. :up:

[mookiemookie]

Finally! Someone who has understood the dangers of those insidious little goblins! Sure, they might look at you with their cuuuuute big puppy eyes and wag their tail for you, but the moment you look elsewhere, they are contemplating conspiracies of most sinful in nature!

Don't believe me? I have a proof of their evilness (http://imageshack.us/clip/my-videos/716/510.mp4/)!

The truth is out there man! :o

(Fair video content warning: includes more "cute" than "NSFW" but if you are hyper sensitive about young male dog doing what it finds natural, then don't click.)

You aren't kidding. Look at this vicious attack on a baby!

http://i.minus.com/i5hLN1fwNE3OD.gif

[Hottentot]

You aren't kidding. Look at this vicious attack on a baby!

We must ban the killer...puppies? I mean clearly their vicious, um milk teeth are, er, a threat to the...

Aw, toss this! Look, the point is that we must ban something, so get on with it already!

[Sailor Steve]

We must ban the killer...puppies? I mean clearly their vicious, um milk teeth are, er, a threat to the...

Aw, toss this! Look, the point is that we must ban something, so get on with it already!
I vote we ban you, just for being funny. :O:

[Hottentot]

Seeing how many people I have probably offended on the General Games Discussion, you wouldn't even need an excuse. :O:

[Tribesman]

Say what you like about Kim young un, but he knows how to deal with puppies in the free peoples democtratic paradise.
I tell ya when him and chew yung rim get together them puppies better beware

[Takeda Shingen]

Seeing how many people I have probably offended on the General Games Discussion, you wouldn't even need an excuse. :O:

Best AAR I've read in a long time, that was.