Daggers Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Good old Daily Mail Keith from Kettering is going to have a job considering UKIP don't run against the most right-wing Tory in the country.
Daggers Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Im against the idea of this being legal, at the end of the day if the world was gay then there wouldn't be a world? so why encourage it. Fvck me - this one has found a whole new vein of stupid, I thought it had been pretty much mined out on this thread. Brilliant!
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 oops. I guess I'm a Jebend (whatever that is) and I should read the threads instead of skimming. Isn't feedback the fuel for future advancement? Jebend is essentially a bellend. It is, however I don't really need to pay attention to how other groups did. Nor when it was written down for us as a basic review did I really need to listen at all.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Jebend is essentially a bellend. It is, however I don't really need to pay attention to how other groups did. Nor when it was written down for us as a basic review did I really need to listen at all. Then I guess there are worse things I could be. Thank you for enlightening my ignorance. not knowing what your presentations were about I'll ignorantly suggest that paying attention to other groups feedback could be far more beneficial than listening to your own feedback repeated in oral form.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Then I guess there are worse things I could be. Thank you for enlightening my ignorance. not knowing what your presentations were about I'll ignorantly suggest that paying attention to other groups feedback could be far more beneficial than listening to your own feedback repeated in oral form. mine was on Biotechnology - other peoples were on other subjects, so not really.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 mine was on Biotechnology - other peoples were on other subjects, so not really. Wierd! Why would it be planned that you had to sit and listen to feedback on topics that are of no interest or significance to you? what fool decided that was the way to go?
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Wierd! Why would it be planned that you had to sit and listen to feedback on topics that are of no interest or significance to you? what fool decided that was the way to go? Because this was a course wide set of presentations - we had the basis overview of what it should relate to, but we could pick our actual topic. So feedback was done in the lectures set aside for the course.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Because this was a course wide set of presentations - we had the basis overview of what it should relate to, but we could pick our actual topic. So feedback was done in the lectures set aside for the course. Still seems a waste of time - from what you've told me.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Bullshit - it won't cause a moral vacuum unless your morality is biblical - in which case you need to get back to killing rape victims (if married) or forcing them to marry their attacker. My gosh you give science a bad name. Where you get your views on religion from are beyond me. Oh no, I've remembered. The Family Guy creators and writers write them for you. Among other bullshit merchant media darlings. None of these views are based in reality of course. Marriage is an old-fashioned model of living and a relic from a more religious past. Really? Do you also believe that cavemen used to whack women over the head with a club and drag them off? I'm sure that stereotype is untrue, and I'd bet that ancient people used to find one mate, raise a family and stick together just like most folk want to do nowadays. Marriage is not outdated at all, only to neanderthals. People who want to get married these days are advised to think twice about it - what efforts it involves, what compromises you have to accept, what the legal ramifications are. Other than that, I'd like to point you to the current divorce rate of around 60%. So, I ask you, what is the point of marriage exactly? Yes, marriage involves effort and compromise, but that's a good thing. Who wants to live in a selfish world? Well, apart from the new age liberal types who are all about 'the self' that is. Divorce rates have shot up because of some peoples attitudes towards life and not because the divorced people are 'seeing the light' and now realise that marriage is unworthy of them as humans. Homosexuality is, in fact, older than any religion or church and that's why I can but laugh at people dismissing gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. Older than any religion you say? Were men bumming in the bushes right from the get-go then? Say if evolution were true, and there are only 10 male and 10 female humans around (and to help the evolutionists out we'll say that they all 'evolved' in exactly the same place at exactly the same time - they'd have had trouble procreating if one had evolved in Scarborough and another had evolved in Tuscany), would you say that they started bumming right away? I wouldn't. Just trying to point out that the statement that homoism 'is older than such and such' is just an opinion and not based on any facts. And I'm also not dismissing gay marriage because of my beliefs. I couldn't give a toss if two gay people get married. Good for them if that's what they want. It's an inherent drive that you cannot extinguish. Some men have tried in the past, but the efforts always failed. Not sure about that. In conclusion, if you just can't give up your anti-homosexual and anti-liberal stances and struggle with modern social life, I suggest you use a time machine and dwell in an existence filled with poverty, illiteracy, a few wars every couple of years as well as religious struggles. Not to mention witchhunts, the lack of life insurances or a proper police force and an average life expectancy of roughly 40 years. Civilization has evolved A LOT in general, but some people are still stuck in times past. Enjoy. So much rubbish to comment on from between every comma and dot that I'm not getting involved. Probably said it all before anyway. The very fact that they are physically able to have sex and enjoy it runs completely counter to what you're saying there. If they were not designed to be able to ****, then they wouldn't, would they? So because we have a hole that poo and waste air is thrust out of, and we also have a shaft at the front that disposes of liquid and helps to make babies, you're saying that that proves being gay is totally natural? Doesn't make sense to me. Had it been a female from Leicester, there's every chance she would have been genitally mutilated at a very young age anyway Are you The Pedo General in disguise? It's your knowledge of religion that makes me wonder. Or another regular trying to get it going? I presume you're saying that Leicester is full of Muslims and they genitally mutilate their women? Of course, the fact is that practice has nothing at all to do with Islam or any other religion. Wouldn't be surprised if the warlords who implemented this crap were from one of those hateful anti-religion groups that've flourished for centuries, and continue to do things to give religion a bad name. But a man like yourself wouldn't know anything about that.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 My gosh you give science a bad name. Where you get your views on religion from are beyond me. Oh no, I've remembered. The Family Guy creators and writers write them for you. Among other bullshit merchant media darlings. None of these views are based in reality of course. I don't watch family guy, Oh and: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. So - if a woman who is married is raped, stone her to death. If a woman who isn't married is raped she has to marry her attacker. Seems to be what I said.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 No, I say bigoted because bigoted means: "Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance." Which you are. You are a bigot and your opinion is bigoted. You're a bigot then. Some of your views, which are based on false claims, towards religious people are by definition bigoted. B-b-b-b-b-bullshit. We're advancing towards actually treating everyone as human beings, how is that losing morals? Bullshit. We're advancing towards wiping out huge numbers of humans. Eugenics ideas are rife in the top levels of science and governments. Advancement my arse. That's rubbish, I'm afraid. A permissive society quickly becomes a nightmare. People need rules, quite frankly. All the pushing back of boundaries is eroding the foundations that society was built on. Take the family unit for example. It's now considered yesterday's concept, and as a consequence youngsters are growing up feral, and our society is in very real danger of just collapsing. The 'free-love' brigade will never understand this point.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'll come back to this lively debate later. Got to page 22, but I've had my fill for now.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 You're a bigot then. Some of your views, which are based on false claims, towards religious people are by definition bigoted. Bullshit. We're advancing towards wiping out huge numbers of humans. Eugenics ideas are rife in the top levels of science and governments. Advancement my arse. No. I harbour no bad views towards religious people, only towards their ideology. Much like Nazis. Really? Care to provide something to back up those claims? Oh, and we are progressing towards equal rights - that is advancement.
Daggers Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 ...our society is in very real danger of just collapsing. The 'free-love' brigade will never understand this point. You back on the weed?
The Doctor Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 Older than any religion you say? Were men bumming in the bushes right from the get-go then? Say if evolution were true, and there are only 10 male and 10 female humans around (and to help the evolutionists out we'll say that they all 'evolved' in exactly the same place at exactly the same time - they'd have had trouble procreating if one had evolved in Scarborough and another had evolved in Tuscany), would you say that they started bumming right away? I wouldn't. Just trying to point out that the statement that homoism 'is older than such and such' is just an opinion and not based on any facts. And I'm also not dismissing gay marriage because of my beliefs. I couldn't give a toss if two gay people get married. Good for them if that's what they want. ****, I missed this. Firstly - there is no if, it is true. Only a ****ing retard thinks otherwise. Secondly - homosexuality has been around in nature for far longer than than we've been making up magic sky pixies. There's a strong genetic basis for it and it's found in over 100,000 species - so then, based in genome, 100,000 species - existed before species split off and new species evolved, existed before anatomically modern humans evolved. Therefore it has to have existed before magic sky people were invented.
acooling08 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 On the subject of homosexuality. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/academic-takes-swipe-at-david-attenborough-wildlife-documentaries-for-ignoring-gay-animals-8487212.html The moment TV shows two male chimps humping is the moment I change the channel
Charl91 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 On the subject of homosexuality. http://www.independe...ls-8487212.html The moment TV shows two male chimps humping is the moment I change the channel But you normally like watching animals have sex? Pervert.
Rincewind Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 Say if evolution were true, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/lessonsummary.php?&thisaudience=13-16&resource_id=429
Charl91 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 if it was true and I was gay, I’d embrace it, and I’d tell you guys about it and I’d celebrate it. If Hulk Hogan is alright with gay people, then it's alright with me!
Rincewind Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 Surely Magic Sky People evolved. In the minds of writers. Gods in the night sky (star constellations) to super beings building millions of stars and an expanding universe.
MikeyT Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 I would like to add that I don't read the mail and that I saw this posted by another page on Facebook. http://www.dailymail...ived-craze.html Conservative MP Sir John Stanley has been branded homophobic after claiming that being gay was just a passing fad. The married MP said homosexuality was a 'normal phase' for youngsters before they became heterosexuals in later life. Sir John, 71, made his comments following the the controversial Commons vote which legalised same-sex marriages In a letter to constituents in his Kent seat of Tonbridge and Malling, he explained why he was one of 175 MPs to vote against the bill. The legislation was passed with a majority of 225 votes on Tuesday. Sir John, a former minister in the Thatcher governments in the eighties, is married with two children. He is retiring at the next general election. Among the three reasons Sir John gave for his opposition to the bill were Government interference over the issue and his belief that gay marriage would not achieve equality in law. But he caused controversy when he wrote: 'Enshrining gay marriage into law will be unhelpful and positively damaging to young people going through the perfectly normal phase of being attracted to other young people of the same sex before arriving at a heterosexual orientation subsequently.' Nic Evans and his partner Steve who own The Swan pub in Edenbridge, Kent, had a civil partnership ceremony last August. They were horrified by their MP's views. Nic, 49, told the Daily Star: 'I find it really disappointing when I discover comments which I believe are homophobic.He's been there since 1974 and is obviously one of the old guard of the Tories.' He added:'We're just lucky we're part of a community here in Edenbridge where it's never been an issue.
Bettsj2 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 If Hulk Hogan is alright with gay people, then it's alright with me! The Hulkster is ok with gays?? I need to see some evidence.
Charl91 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 The Hulkster is ok with gays?? I need to see some evidence. Here you go "It's tough because a lot of my friends in normal life, a lot of my friends in the entertainment business, and a lot of my friends in the wrestling business are gay. It has nothing to do with the quality of person or how nice they are and I've seen how they've been discriminated against … Just to say something spiteful and hurtful, I don’t get it…if it was true and I was gay, I’d embrace it, and I’d tell you guys about it and I’d celebrate it." or http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-11-hulk-hogan-responds-to-gay-affair-allegations.So there you go. Hulk Hogan has gay friends, therefore being gay = cool. /End thread
acooling08 Posted 9 February 2013 Posted 9 February 2013 But you normally like watching animals have sex? Pervert.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.