Rincewind Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 I think it was Matt who mentioned about two different types of gay where he works. There are probably more than one type of straight. There are the ones who go out at night get pissed and show off their manliness by shouting comments in bars 'If you take me home I'll make you breakfast' 'Get a hold of this babe' Then there are those who just carry on with their lives quietly, marry discuss football, sport and women in the pub but make no big deal over it. Which are you?
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 On the total number of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals in society. It's a logical presumption considering humanity. Perhaps you could think of it in terms of poor McDonald's burgers and poor Sally Burgers. There's sure to be more por McDonald's burgers because they make so many more. Do you need further help with the matter? silly me I assumed you were talking proportionately but I should have known you were only making a superficial and pointless comment
indierich06 Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 I think it was Matt who mentioned about two different types of gay where he works. There are probably more than one type of straight. There are the ones who go out at night get pissed and show off their manliness by shouting comments in bars 'If you take me home I'll make you breakfast' 'Get a hold of this babe' Then there are those who just carry on with their lives quietly, marry discuss football, sport and women in the pub but make no big deal over it. Which are you? Do those work much for you Ken?
Alf Bentley Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 Who are talking about exactly when you say the homophones are out in force? The hair to the throne. I don't want to make you splutter on your cornflakes, but, deer as you are to him, he reckons you're a cereal offender with your constant talk about bear arses. What does it matter what people do with their mail or if they like to get up in the knight. I'm a "maid up" type myself, but if some prefer the warmth of the son or to take a different root, who are we to see it as a tall tail requiring deep morning? What blood group are you? I'm a typo, and believe me, the homophones are out in force!
Rincewind Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 Do those work much for you Ken? Maybe a bit extreme but my point remains, we are all different it is not gay V straight just different people. I don't care for the over macho type. Acting tough just show that they are men like some who dislike over effeminate types showing off their female side.
Captain... Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 The hair to the throne. I don't want to make you splutter on your cornflakes, but, deer as you are to him, he reckons you're a cereal offender with your constant talk about bear arses. What does it matter what people do with their mail or if they like to get up in the knight. I'm a "maid up" type myself, but if some prefer the warmth of the son or to take a different root, who are we to see it as a tall tail requiring deep morning? What blood group are you? I'm a typo, and believe me, the homophones are out in force! Very good, although technically "hair" and "heir" aren't homophones, unless you don't talk proper. Have you ever read any of Jasper Fforde's books? I think you would enjoy the Thursday Next and Nursery Crimes series they are full of grammar based puns and literary references.
Alf Bentley Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 Very good, although technically "hair" and "heir" aren't homophones, unless you don't talk proper. Have you ever read any of Jasper Fforde's books? I think you would enjoy the Thursday Next and Nursery Crimes series they are full of grammar based puns and literary references. OK, OK! It's as plain as the air on my Ed that we shouldn't get too hairy-fairy about all this, given the substantive issue under discussion. Believe me, I talk quite enough shite without reading the sort of books like what you is suggesting...
ADK Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 The hair to the throne. I don't want to make you splutter on your cornflakes, but, deer as you are to him, he reckons you're a cereal offender with your constant talk about bear arses. What does it matter what people do with their mail or if they like to get up in the knight. I'm a "maid up" type myself, but if some prefer the warmth of the son or to take a different root, who are we to see it as a tall tail requiring deep morning? What blood group are you? I'm a typo, and believe me, the homophones are out in force! Very good.
Guest Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 Who are talking about exactly when you say the homophones are out in force? Is that a mobile that doesn't do conference calls?
BoneDog Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 All religion is bollocks. The day will come when religious people will be embarrassed to say they believe in God, and I can't wait for it. No it won't. If history is anything to go by, they might be forced to say they don't believe in God, or be killed for it, but people will believe in God until the very last day. It will outlast all other beliefs, including the Neo-Darwinian one which is a flash in the pan like the flat-earth theory.
Mark_w Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 No it won't. If history is anything to go by, they might be forced to say they don't believe in God, or be killed for it, but people will believe in God until the very last day. It will outlast all other beliefs, including the Neo-Darwinian one which is a flash in the pan like the flat-earth theory. Who has caused the majority of the Muslim/Christian/Jewish suffering then?
AndWhat? Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 No it won't. If history is anything to go by, they might be forced to say they don't believe in God, or be killed for it, but people will believe in God until the very last day. It will outlast all other beliefs, including the Neo-Darwinian one which is a flash in the pan like the flat-earth theory. Oh, I'm sure people will always believe in god, I just think one day they will be so ridiculed for it that they will be embarrassed to admit it.
Rincewind Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 God's will be invented in other forms. First there were the stars, then replica stone, man built idols now spirits and invisible friend. If you like I will rename my conscience God. Because that is what makes me decide what I should do and how to think reason and live my life. I answer to no higher being and do their command through others who claim to speak for a God.
BoneDog Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 I've asked him who caused it, looks like he's chosen not to reply. Shame. I certainly haven't chosen not to reply. This is the first time I've read this thread through, didn't come back in after my earlier posts and only read the first page again earlier today. I'll go back and answer in the next half hour.
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 For as long as we don't know what the universe is and why it exists people will always need god in some form to fill in the existential gaps. People can and do successfully distract themselves from these uncertainties but I bet even the most hardened atheist will have second thoughts as they take their last breath.
Guest Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 For as long as we don't know what the universe is and why it exists people will always need god in some form to fill in the existential gaps. People can and do successfully distract themselves from these uncertainties but I bet even the most hardened atheist will have second thoughts as they take their last breath. The facts say it's the other way round and many more non-believers suddenly believe at the point of death. Perhaps they just want to cover all eventualities.
BoneDog Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 Can't believe some of you didn't know about the cross cutting by naked lesbos. It's right up Commie Street. If you must see a video or photo just type 'Femen cross ukraine' or similar into Google. What a naughty motley crew they are. Wankers. And who caused the majority of that suffering might I ask? Politicians pretending to be Christians or Muslims for the most part. But their victims are always mostly Christians, Muslims and Jews. They don't discriminate. Started way before Jesus and the Romans loved to partake. When their empire was crumbling they conjured up the greatest fake at the 325ad council. Destroyed real Christianity and made sure power stayed with Rome or whoever it is that rules Vatican City. Everyone knows about their later deeds and if you think the people pulling the strings were Christians then I say you're incorrect. Satanists for sure. More modern - Lenin and his cronies. Stalin and his zionist regime of New Yorkers. Killed millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims whilst trying to turn Europe commie. Saudi royal family. Al Qaeda. All of these groups and more are hurting religion and religious people and all are ultra-connected. I think Christians tend to go with the New Testament of which there is less killings,slavery,inbreeding and similar stuff but the downside is that there is still the fairy tale element and invisible friend. I suspect Islam is much the same. The bad parts are more to do with control and imposing rules through fear than teaching love for your fellow Man. The twisted parts of the Old Testament were inserted by corrupt dictator type priests, money lenders and kings who were pretenders. Many historians have done research on how the books were changed, even before the time of Jesus. I thought, you know, that's a bit rich, talking about having "no clue about history", when it comes from a shameless Holocaust denier. And then immediately BOOM, right on time: Ahhh, there were are, normality is resumed. There you go people, any problems with gay and lesbian equality, or indeed anything else, the Zionists did it. I didn't say that though. When you call me a holocaust denier you muddy the waters. I know about Jewish suffering during WW2 (and before/since), it just wasn't exactly as you think it was, and if you say that zionists had nothing to do with the killing of Jews then you are incorrect. Top Zionists have always used everyday Jewish people all over the world, along with everyone else, as their pawns. Heathens have also suffered at the hands of those three groups. Burnt at the stake, stoned to death and crucified to name three methods in the name of a loving god. The people who burn other people at the stake are/were not Christians. Probably gangsters with a dog collar or something. Oh, I'm sure people will always believe in god, I just think one day they will be so ridiculed for it that they will be embarrassed to admit it. Ridiculed by who though? Mostly by people who love cesspit society, follow fads and fashions and don't really understand religion because of thousands of years propaganda. When these people ridicule me it is not hard to ridicule them back. No offence by the way, most of my friends and family ridicule religion quite alot but I still like them.
Vacamion Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 When you call me a holocaust denier you muddy the waters. But you DID deny the holocaust, in the f'Quenelle thread. I remember it well because I couldn't believe that you (even you!) would post something like that and I seriously thought you had lost your marbles at the time. I just went and found it again: The showers were used for showering people when they arrived at camps. I've heard historians and judges mention no evidence for poison showers. The Soviets built some 'gas chambers' after the war but I thought there was no evidence of death showers used by Germans? Apart from some contradictory (according to historians) and 'technically impossible' witness statements made since the war. Weren't Jews rounded up to be sent to camps the same as Germans were, and just like a million Japanese were rounded up and sent to camps in the US? Concentration camps were common all over the world pre-1930's. The best evidence I've seen for a genocide in German camps is historians saying things like "The genocide didn't happen in the Auschitz camp, it happened in the two farmhouses outside the camp, probably." Nazis and zionists had agreed to send Jews to German camps with a view to sending them abroad (against most German Jews wishes of course, but the zionists didn't care about that, they just wanted their new country which was not possible without a massive, forced, emigration). Have you seen some of the intellectuals speaking in the world media about killing all Germans, and totally destroying Germany from as far back as 1933? You probably haven't as it's not in the WW2 event timelines. It wasn't bullshit. Jewish (or more likely hardcore Zionists who cared not for Jewish people as a whole) intellectuals were talking of destroying Germany way before Hitler rounded up anyone for the camps. German Jews, and even German zionists, were speaking out about the lies in the pre-war propaganda against Germany. Jews were still getting ration vouchers in Germany at the same time as German citizens. There were no extermination orders that any historian can point to even though they have mountains of orders for everything else that went on during the war. Anybody who knows the history of Germany and the propaganda aimed at her in the 5-10 years before WW2 know the reasons that Hitler was so popular in 1933. Germany was ruined at that time and the vultures were making their intentions for the country very clear in world media. Some of you sound like you still believe Hoss's 'confession' and other evidence at the Nuremberg trials! Travesty. I think you posted something similar in another thread at least once, too. So, given that you denied the Holocaust, in my book that makes you a Holocaust denier. The only thing being muddied here is the truth. By you. I didn't really want to bang on about it, because we didn't hear very much from you after your outburst and I thought you had maybe reflected on what you wrote and thought better of it, but no, the reference to "Zionists' wet dream" earlier in this thread suggested that you still feel it is accceptable to blame "the Zionist conspiracy" for the world's ills and worse, you appear to continue to deny that the holocaust was carried out by and at the behest of the Nazis against European Jews and involved the systematic and industrialised murder of millions of them. The suggestion in your last response: it just wasn't exactly as you think it was, and if you say that zionists had nothing to do with the killing of Jews then you are incorrect. Top Zionists have always used everyday Jewish people all over the world, along with everyone else, as their pawns. manages to not be quite as overtly offensive, in that it only hints at what you have expressed openly before, but, by suggesting that the holocaust was a conspiracy of Zionists, still manages to be really quite odiously wrong, all the same. Shocker.
The Doctor Posted 2 April 2014 Posted 2 April 2014 You know nothing of either of those two religions by the sounds of it. I highly doubt you've read either of those books you enjoy deriding. Get a grip on yourself, and not in a gay way. Some of you people won't be happy until we've got naked lesbians cutting down crosses with chainsaws like happened in Ukraine. It matters not to you people that the cross they cut down was a monument to a million Christians who were genocided. Perhaps you'd also enjoy a Pussy Riot type campaign in English churches where they barge in and start acting like they're still in playschool to make a political point in front of the old dears who are there trying to peacefully think about their deceased loved ones and other serious (to some people) matters. You literally have no clue about history regarding Christians, Muslims and Jews. These three groups have gone through more suffering than any group on earth, and some of you can't wait to keep bashing at them. You are a zionists wet dream. Nudity and power-tools... who wouldn't be happy to see that? Got to laugh at the idea of christians & muslims going through more suffering than anyone given they've historically been the ones persecuting others and causing the sufferings
Guest MattP Posted 3 April 2014 Posted 3 April 2014 I think it was Matt who mentioned about two different types of gay where he works. There are probably more than one type of straight. There are the ones who go out at night get pissed and show off their manliness by shouting comments in bars 'If you take me home I'll make you breakfast' 'Get a hold of this babe' Then there are those who just carry on with their lives quietly, marry discuss football, sport and women in the pub but make no big deal over it. Which are you? It's actually hard to miss the point as much as you manage on a consistent basis. The old thing about monkeys and a million typewriters springs to mind.
Rincewind Posted 3 April 2014 Posted 3 April 2014 Not really. You have met and worked with two kinds of gay I have met and worked with two kinds of straight. I'm not keen on the over the top gay either but I doubt they would change just because I objected. I know someone who is gay and when we were in a group once we were talking about women and relationships and he said I swing the other way. He's as normal as you and I would not have guessed. He is also a Catholic.
Guest MattP Posted 3 April 2014 Posted 3 April 2014 Don't believe you, he's probably Leicesters biggest campaigner on homelessness and homosexuality combined. He even invites them to his gatherings.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.