[Ford Prefect]

You probably didn't need to edit it out; I didn't actually think they would care about that.

[Kazan]

i asked goober... he said he'd consider it a violation of the rules.. absolutely assinine... ZOMG a LINK! omg!!!

i've sent thunder an email challenging that rule.. it's stupid

seriously i can see a rule against inlining the images - that removes choice from people about whether or not they want to look - I can also see enforcing a warning rule (IE warn "NSFW" before linking to content) - but a total linking ban is stupid

it's just assinine

-----------

oh.. Wikipedia breast

[Wild Fragaria]

Ok, here's a picture of me taken at sunset

[Kazan]

white pants taking some risks there

i always laugh when I see chicks in white pants.... what if something spills

[Wild Fragaria]

It's not white, silly.  It's sandy and they are khakis.

[Kazan]

ah.. it's just the picture then

when I was a freshmen in college.. well just before - during freshmen orientation this one chick I was hanging out with during orientation (Jada) had on white pants and they ere such a white white and not a really "pants" material you could see her dark-colored thong through them if you had a sharp eye for detail

[edit]brainfarts are wonderful!

[Mongoose]

And here I thought that this thread was un-salvageable...

Well done all!

[Mathwiz6]

Topless to homosexuality, to pictures?

I love this forum. Can't say anything about anything vaguely religion related without 6 pages of yelling at each other 

[Kazan]

I love this forum. Can't say anything about anything vaguely religion related without 6 pages of yelling at each other 

well if the religious weren't just so damned irrational!  8)

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah, uh, Kazan, that's not a joke just because you put a smiley in front of it. Allow me to demonstrate:

Genocide in Rwanda!   8)

[Unknown Target]

Lol, I actually cracked up at that one...
And here come the flames agian...

[Kazan]

ford i was trying to keep it from starting the conversation again..an as a use of irony

[TrashMan]

Ahhh....where to even begin?


Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The  frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.

Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!


Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are

Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"

--------------
@Wild Fragaria - Nice pic

[Kazan]

homosexuality isn't a condition! how many ****ing times do we have to tell you that - it used to be considered one - MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO!

having a foreskin is currently considered a medical condition in need of rectification as well... that's clearly wrong

homosexuality got delisted Because IT'S NOT A DISEASE! it's just how some people are

it's not your business to tell them they need a "cure" and it's not your business to act like there is any such thing - there isn't!

[Mathwiz6]

Ahhh....where to even begin?


Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The  frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.

Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!


Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are

Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"

--------------
@Wild Fragaria - Nice pic

Agreed, it is pretty pointless.

If homosexuality is a condition, and all people should detest it, and get rid of it, how is that not saying that homosexuality is bad, cos it's homosexuality? How is that not hating a group?

I say religion is bad for (reason (better than "cos it's wrong")). Therefore, it should be shunned, and removed from society? Do I hate religious people now?

[stuff you can skip]

So how is your belief that your actions will promote the survival of the human species any more valid than their belief that there is a higher being, plane of existence, or other system at work that humans cannot understand?

because I can SHOW (quite easily) that religion is harmful
let's think
mmm... crusades... inquisition... half the wars in history.... religious terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings)... insertion of their goddamn bull**** into government aka theocracy.. GENITAL MUTILATION ... and a million other things!

You're serious here? You're not joking here?
Becoause this proves nothing. It only proves that there allways have been and always will be stupid people. Nothing more or nothing less.

Of course, you firmly belive that this is 100% accurate, undenyable proof. Which is not even in the slightest...

How is my accusation any more insulting than your own? And if it is not more insulting than your own accusations, why do you get offended when I do it, but seem to consider it completely acceptable for you to do it to others?

Your accusation is INCORRECT - that's how it's far more insulting.

Because when I say something it tends to be something I can back up with EVIDENCE ... let's see "Christian bigotry"... hmm
Anti-gay legislation? check
anti-atheist fervor? check
christianist lawmaking? check

seriously... it's OBVIOUS - it's staring your right in the face, just open your eyes!

Well, I can back up with evidence that a lot of atheists are biggots.. let'ss see:
Abortion legislation? check
anti-religious fervor? check
atheistic lawmaking? check


Uuu... OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!!!!

why should I like a gruop of people who are responsible for the mutilation of my ****ing genitals?
why should I like a group of people who continuously start wars over their ****ing BASELESS beliefs?
why should I like a group of people as BLINDLY ARROGANT as the religious?

You assert that your god exist and operate your entire lives off that assertion - including making decisions that affect other people - AND YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION!

You're absolutely right - I don't like christians, I am EXTREMELY angry with them.

Let's summarize:

1. By your own words you're EXTREEMY ANGRY at christians (and religious people in general). Thus your objectivity in this case very questionalbe.

2. Religion doesn't require the type of evidence you obviously think it does. That however, doesn't make religious people stupid, arrogant biggots.
You yourself would like to make decisions that affect other people, based on your own prejudice and thoughts, so that would make you equally bad.

Why look... you just called him a stupid, arrogant bigot... Subtle, subtle 

3. Your hatered for religion stems from your genitals...aparently.
Looks like an insult to me.

that's one of those things that christians have a difficult time with in my expirience - realizing that simply believing something doesn't make it true.

The same applies for all people. You beliving religion being evil doesn't make it true....

You think "in god we trust" should get off the money?
You think "under god" should back out of the pledge?

Re-printing all the money would be a real waste jsut to satisfy someones whim.

Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.
Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.

So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group? Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?

And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...

Totally random selection of looking at a random page.
[/stuff you can skip]
 I don't need to swear to insult someone. I can call you a pile of ****, or, I can say that something is not a pile of ****, and compare you to what your idea of it is.  Pretty easy, and simple.

  easier to disprove than prove something.

[Bobboau]

Ok, here's a picture of me taken at sunset

/*lusts*/

[aldo_14]

Ahhh....where to even begin?


Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The  frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.

Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!


Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are

Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"

One insult?  you said homosexuals were 'ill' without any form of rational reasoning; that's like saying we need to fix Jews, or black people, or all the other historical oppressed and suppressed minorities.  The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.

*which I guess shows some of the rewards of the animal museum, because the old homophobic recourse of stating 'it's against nature' can be comprehensively shown to be bollocks
What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality?  Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?

As an admittedly Godwin's Law*aside, the Nazis shared your view that homosexuality was a defect that had to be 'cured' ("We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated."); they just had more 'conviction' and decided to go the whole hog with putting people in concentration camps when they were unable to force people into conformity. Perhaps you would like electroshock therapy centres, maybe where the 'patient' has their eyes held open by calipers while watching hardcore porn 24 hours a day?  Much cheaper than all this drug malarky, after all - use the money for actual real medical diseases that people can say exist.

*http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi3.htm

[TrashMan]

I admitt, desease and sickness are a really bad choice of words (especialyl due to many negative conotations associated with these words)..and they don't fit either.(Desease is something you contract for instance..)

Condition is the most suitable word.

Now, homosexuality was removed from the list, not becoause all those doctors were sure it doesn't belong there, but becouse they weren't sure it does. There's still much we don't know and indeed, further study is required into the matter, so it's safer and more jsut  to remove it from the list.

However, so far nothing can be proven either way.

The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.

Long-term I don't belive it's good for humanity, neither from a genetic nor from a moral standpoint.
Before you jump on me like a mad monkey, prove me wrong...

What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality?  Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?

It stands to reason that there probably is a way to alter genes in that effect yes. If someone wants to take that therapy I'm not gonan stop him. His choice.
But your analogy is incorrect as heterosexuality clearly isn't a genetic fluke or malformation or condition.

As an admittedly Godwin's Law*aside, the Nazis shared your view that homosexuality was a defect that had to be 'cured' ("We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated."); they just had more 'conviction' and decided to go the whole hog with putting people in concentration camps when they were unable to force people into conformity. Perhaps you would like electroshock therapy centres, maybe where the 'patient' has their eyes held open by calipers while watching hardcore porn 24 hours a day?  Much cheaper than all this drug malarky, after all - use the money for actual real medical diseases that people can say exist.

Comparing me with a Natzi coause I don't share your view? Cute...
Wardens and tortures in Noth Koran prisions probably look like angels compared to you... Happy with this comparison?

----------
NOTE - you don't even have to bother to reply to this post, as I won't be reading this thread anymore.
I've lost too much time on this allready, especially considered I have several mod project that need finishing...

[Bobboau]

any law or cultural practice that forces people to act against there nature is not good for the species, because it causes potentially harmful traits to remain in the gene pool longer.

if homosexuality is bad for the species, then you should be even more in favor of homosexual rights, because if homo sexuality is bad for humanity, then it will be bred out of us a lot faster if individuals with this supposedly survival/reproductive inhibiting trait are permitted to express it and thus incur the survival/reproductive evolutionary hit on there genome. I have long speculated that the higher occurance of homosexuality in humans may have been due to the many homophobic cultures that forced gays to act straight, including taking a wife(/husband) and having kids, as opposed to taking a same sex partner and having no kids as they otherwise would have. however, it's more likely a far more deep seated phenomenon, as the two most closely related animals have totally different sexual habits than each other, but which we seem to have tendencies for both.

and he is comparing you to Nazis not because you don't share his view, but because you do share the view that homosexuality is a desiese needing a solution, that gays need to be cured, this was a Nazi position, it was the biggest group they went after next to Jews.

[Ghostavo]

I admitt, desease and sickness are a really bad choice of words (especialyl due to many negative conotations associated with these words)..and they don't fit either.(Desease is something you contract for instance..)

Condition is the most suitable word.

Now, homosexuality was removed from the list, not becoause all those doctors were sure it doesn't belong there, but becouse they weren't sure it does. There's still much we don't know and indeed, further study is required into the matter, so it's safer and more jsut  to remove it from the list.

However, so far nothing can be proven either way.

And in spite of that you jump on the "gays are ev1l!!!" wagon, why?

The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.

Long-term I don't belive it's good for humanity, neither from a genetic nor from a moral standpoint.
Before you jump on me like a mad monkey, prove me wrong...

This has got to be the mother of all non-sensical arguments. I won't even enter the "moral standpoint" argument, but to argue of all things that being gay is bad for humanity from a genetic standpoint has to to be the most idiotic argument ever made. Seriously! How can you say that prefering a partner from the same gender for sex, which makes it impossible to have a child (without using some weird funky technology which I'm not aware of, even in vitro needs sperm), is bad for the race's genetic makeup?

What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality?  Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?

It stands to reason that there probably is a way to alter genes in that effect yes. If someone wants to take that therapy I'm not gonan stop him. His choice.
But your analogy is incorrect as heterosexuality clearly isn't a genetic fluke or malformation or condition.

And being gay is genetic? Is it malformation? Or a condition? It's a ****ing choice gender preference. For you to see how much sense this does to me, imagine me writing that all people who don't like blue above all other colours have a genetic error, or have a mental condition. Yes, that's how much sense that argument makes.

Gay being bad from a genetic standpoint, that's something I've never heard...