General Wants Gay Ban Lifted [Archive] - Page 4 - Debate Policy

shattered

06-03-2007, 12:39 PM

I've read through the last few pages of this thread, and I must say - all you guys that keep putting down on Doniston are taking things a bit too far.

So, young people talk to him about their problems. That doesn't make him gay, or a paedophile, or any of the things you guys keep saying he is.

In fact, there aren't many people out there who'll talk to kids about these VERY REAL problems (re:size etc kids DO GET nervous about such things), and to skirt the issue by dumpin on someone whose actually got a heart, and who actually tries to help is just plain stupid.

:shrug: But, be that way if you want to ...

That's something kids should be talking to their parents about - not some stranger.. Especially now, with the knowledge that discussions of that sort with any minor can get you in trouble with the law, whether warranted or not.

(That fact aside, Doniston's earned every ounce of "dumping" he's received since the day he got here...)

Rahul

06-03-2007, 12:44 PM

That's something kids should be talking to their parents about - not some stranger.. Especially now, with the knowledge that discussions of that sort with any minor can get you in trouble with the law, whether warranted or not.

Well yes, sure, ideally kids should be talking to their parents about it, but sometimes, kids don't have a good enough relationship with their parents in order to be able to do this - sometimes, the parents just aren't there for their kids. These things do happen.

Yes, I do know those type of discussions can get one in trouble with the law, but if it's done in a helpful manner (and the privelege given to the adult by the kid is not abused), and the person really wants to help the kid, then I dont see anything wrong with it ...

shattered

06-03-2007, 12:46 PM

Well yes, sure, ideally kids should be talking to their parents about it, but sometimes, kids don't have a good enough relationship with their parents in order to be able to do this - sometimes, the parents just aren't there for their kids. These things do happen.

Yes, I do know those type of discussions can get one in trouble with the law, but if it's done in a helpful manner (and the privelege given to the adult by the kid is not abused), and the person really wants to help the kid, then I dont see anything wrong with it ...

Agreed.. But on the other hand, if it's truly harmless, and done in confidentiality, why bring it up here, on a public board full of strangers?

Rahul

06-03-2007, 12:49 PM

Agreed.. But on the other hand, if it's truly harmless, and done in confidentiality, why bring it up here, on a public board full of strangers?

I'd have to read the whole thread to give you an informed opinion, Madam ...

:D Rahul

Doniston

06-03-2007, 03:17 PM

That's something kids should be talking to their parents about - not some stranger.. Especially now, with the knowledge that discussions of that sort with any minor can get you in trouble with the law, whether warranted or not.

what idiotic idea do you come up with that either my son, or my young friend is a stranger. More of your less than reasonable mis-defined logic?

(That fact aside, Doniston's earned every ounce of "dumping" he's received since the day he got here...) Fortunately you are in the minority with that opinion.

Doniston

06-03-2007, 03:21 PM

Agreed.. But on the other hand, if it's truly harmless, and done in confidentiality, why bring it up here, on a public board full of strangers? If either you or pale had a brain in your collective heads and paid attention to the yhread, you would realize why and how it became part of the discussion. But that is too much to ask of either of you.

Doniston

06-03-2007, 03:22 PM

Agreed.. But on the other hand, if it's truly harmless, and done in confidentiality, why bring it up here, on a public board full of strangers? If either you or pale had a brain in your collective heads and paid attention to the thread, you would realize why and how it became part of the discussion. But that is too much to ask of either of you.

glockmail

06-04-2007, 02:20 PM

That's nothing compared to what goes on in the girl's locker room.

(Just seeing if you all are paying attention. ;))

*checks his locker-cam*

glockmail

06-04-2007, 02:26 PM

If either you or pale had a brain in your collective heads and paid attention to the thread, you would realize why and how it became part of the discussion. But that is too much to ask of either of you.

I dunno about this stuff Doniston. When I was a kid we never did that kind of thing in a locker room, or anywhere else. The only thing that could even come close was one time when some kid was doing a "circle piss" in the shower, and we were all getting as far away from him as possible.

One kid in HS was caught wacking off in the locker room, and the nickname "hands" stuck with him forever. Also one kid was rumored to have put peanut butter on his pecker and have his dog lick it off, thus earning the nickname "skippy dick". Neither story was ever independently verified.

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 12:34 AM

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 12:35 AM

Oh and as far as the OP goes, there is nothing wrong with letting homsexuals serve in the military. We are all people - our sexual preferences are our own, and shouldn't be judged by others on this basis.

In addition, there is nothing which says homosexuals can't perform their duties equally well in the army.

Jeez -its 2007 guys - GET REAL, please.

The "year" it is does not change the fact that homosexuality is a perverse sickness. Thankfully our military commanders recognize that.

Rahul

06-08-2007, 03:23 AM

The "year" it is does not change the fact that homosexuality is a perverse sickness.

There is nothing perverse nor sick about homosexuals or homosexuality. Not any more than there is anything sick about heterosexuals or hetersexuality or any other sexual preference.

Thankfully our military commanders recognize that.

I was under the impression homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army?

Doniston

06-08-2007, 09:33 AM

Our "brain" compared to yours, displayed by posting cognitive, spelling and grammar, YOU, sir, are the IDIOT here.

AH yes, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that I was talking behind your back by making reference to you? NOT, (ref your rep comment)

Look dummy, I have news for you. You can't talk behind someones back on an open forum, it is there for all to read including the person referenced.

Doniston

06-08-2007, 09:35 AM

nevadamedic

06-08-2007, 09:35 AM

AH yes, and it is perfectly reasonable to say that I was talking behind your back by making reference to you? NOT, (ref your rep comment)

Look dummy, I have news for you. You can't talk behind someones back on an open forum, it is there for all to read including the person referenced.

Cant you two just get along for 24 hours?

Doniston

06-08-2007, 11:23 AM

Cant you two just get along for 24 hours? The honest answer to that is a Flat "No." I will respond to his posts in a civil manner, but not his Reps, (or PMs if any). But I can, and will give hack as I receive. and he already knows that . When he makes a personal remark, I will retaliate as I do with several others. I would much rather not find it necessary

Abbey Marie

06-08-2007, 11:47 AM

*checks his locker-cam*

:laugh2:

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 12:04 PM

There is nothing perverse nor sick about homosexuals or homosexuality. Not any more than there is anything sick about heterosexuals or hetersexuality or any other sexual preference.
You are wrong on every level known to man and nature. It is a LIE to believe otherwise.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. IT IS SICK AND PERVERSE BY EVERY MEASURE OF NATURE AND MORALITY. YOU ARE SICK IN THE HEAD TO THINK OTHERWISE.

I was under the impression homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army?
Only if the sneak in and hide their sickness.

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 12:06 PM

Rahul

06-08-2007, 12:49 PM

You are correct, he is absolutely wrong. But he won't admit it.

Yeah, that's typical for people who conform to the same mindset as he does ...

You are wrong on every level known to man and nature. It is a LIE to believe otherwise.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. IT IS SICK AND PERVERSE BY EVERY MEASURE OF NATURE AND MORALITY. YOU ARE SICK IN THE HEAD TO THINK OTHERWISE.

Nonsense. I am not sick in the head. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and you still haven't substantiated your position.

Only if the sneak in and hide their sickness.

I disagree. Homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army.

OCA

06-08-2007, 02:38 PM

Yeah, that's typical for people who conform to the same mindset as he does ...

Nonsense. I am not sick in the head. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and you still haven't substantiated your position.

I disagree. Homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army.

You think its ok for a guy to fuck another guy in the ass? You serious?

Queers are allowed to serve but cannot practice nor flaunt homosexuality in any, way, shape or form or out they go and rightly so. Thats a fact.

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 03:53 PM

Nonsense. I am not sick in the head. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and you still haven't substantiated your position.
Sorry. Homosexuality is a sickness. It's sick, perverse, vile, and an abomination of nature. If you're a queer, I would suggest you get help instead of trying to convince normal people that you aren't sick. We know you are. "Nature" substantiates that, backed up by "morality."

I disagree. Homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army.
No. Wrong. You don't even live in this country, and you're trying to tell me, a veteran of eight years in the United States Air Force that I'm wrong? Where do you get off?

If your a homo, and you sneak into the U.S. military, then are foung out to be a fag, you're ass is kicked out without another thing said. That is the law pertaining to queers in the U.S. military. Learn it, and stop being ignorant.

Doniston

06-08-2007, 04:44 PM

You are wrong on every level known to man and nature. It is a LIE to believe otherwise. just to correct you. I think you mean he is "BELIEVING a lie You statement as it stands, is quite untrue. Ckeck a dictionary for the definition of a lie.

THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. IT IS SICK AND PERVERSE BY EVERY MEASURE OF NATURE AND MORALITY. YOU ARE SICK IN THE HEAD TO THINK OTHERWISE. You opinion, nothing more.

Only if the sneak in and hide their sickness. Not telling is neither sneaking, or lying. And again, it is simply your opinion that they have a sickness.

Doniston

06-08-2007, 04:53 PM

Sorry. Homosexuality is a sickness. It's sick, perverse, vile, and an abomination of nature. If you're a queer, I would suggest you get help instead of trying to convince normal people that you aren't sick. We know you are. "Nature" substantiates that, backed up by "morality."

No. Wrong. You don't even live in this country, and you're trying to tell me, a veteran of eight years in the United States Air Force that I'm wrong? Where do you get off?

If your a homo, and you sneak into the U.S. military, then are foung out to be a fag, you're ass is kicked out without another thing said. That is the law pertaining to queers in the U.S. military. Learn it, and stop being ignorant. he and I have been saying that all along. You are just getting around to agreeing.

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 06:24 PM

just to correct you. I think you mean he is "BELIEVING a lie You statement as it stands, is quite untrue. Ckeck a dictionary for the definition of a lie.

You opinion, nothing more.

Not telling is neither sneaking, or lying. And again, it is simply your opinion that they have a sickness.

You know what? I just figured this out. YOU'RE AN OLD FAGGOT!! THAT'S why you talk to little boys about erection contests and how big their dick is, and you're in here defending faggots with your last breath. YOU'RE A FUCKING OLD FAGGOT!!

Doniston

06-08-2007, 07:35 PM

You know what? I just figured this out. YOU'RE AN OLD FAGGOT!! THAT'S why you talk to little boys about erection contests and how big their dick is, and you're in here defending faggots with your last breath. YOU'RE A FUCKING OLD FAGGOT!! is this the way you respond to a challenge, to try to change the subject. You have just proven yourself to be the liar you have accused me of being. and as for this garbage, you can beleive what you want. but you have been found out to be the Liar you are.

Pale Rider

06-08-2007, 07:39 PM

is this the way you respond to a challenge, to try to change the subject. You have just proven yourself to be the liar you have accused me of being. and as for this garbage, you can beleive what you want. but you have been found out to be the Liar you are.

Well when all else fails just copy someone else aye doni? You ain't got the originality God gave a brick.

You haven't challenged shit. Even if you did, I can dump your ass in the garbage with half my brain tied behind my back slacker.

Doniston

06-08-2007, 08:58 PM

Well when all else fails just copy someone else aye doni? You ain't got the originality God gave a brick. Paleliar, What in hell does that have to do with you lying to your teeth. or Rep comments, or anything else you can think of.? Are you just trying to add another strawman.

You haven't challenged shit. Even if you did, I can dump your ass in the garbage with half my brain tied behind my back slacker.[/QUOTE] You don't have half a brain. so don't start bragging about your less than half wit

What do you call a challenge? You offered to prove I had sent you neg reps, I challanged you to prove it.

Is a challenge not a challenge to you. or what. You had several posters jumping on your band wagon when you were spouting lies about me in the past. where are they now?

You have been outed as a bonified Liar of the first order.

If not. prove your words. several people have sent neg reps to me. the only way I have responded is making reference to them on the open forum. You are a flat out and out liar. and this is the third time you have claimed that of me. and not once accurate. You have become a disgrace. You are disgusting, not even having the moxie to own up

Missileman

06-08-2007, 09:02 PM

Paleliar, What in hell does that have to do with you lying to your teeth. or Rep comments, or anything else you can think of.? Are you just trying to add another strawman.

You haven't challenged shit. Even if you did, I can dump your ass in the garbage with half my brain tied behind my back slacker You don't have half a brain. so don't start bragging about your less than half wit

What do you call a challenge? You offered to prove I had sent you neg reps, I challanged you to prove it.

Is a challenge not a challenge to you. or what. You had several posters jumping on your band wagon when you were spouting lies about me in the past. where are they now?
You have been outed as a bonified Liar of the first order.

If not. prove your words. several people have sent neg reps to me. the only way I have responded is making reference to them on the open forum. You are a flat out and out liar. and this is the third time you have claimed that of me. and not once accurate. You have become a disgrace. You are disgusting, not even having the moxie to own up

Do you have a brother who uses the nickname Archangel? If not, he's your doppelganger, or you, his.

Rahul

06-09-2007, 01:05 AM

You think its ok for a guy to fuck another guy in the ass? You serious?

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Who the hell am I, or you, to shove your opinion down someone else's throat?

The gay guy might not think it's "OK" to have sex with women, and the "straight" guy might not think it's "OK" to visit a dominatrix and engage in kinky sexual activites.

Point being, what is "OK" or not is subjective in this case. So long as the sexual act takes place between consenting adults, I see no problem with it.

Sorry. Homosexuality is a sickness. It's sick, perverse, vile, and an abomination of nature.

And, gays could say the same thing about heterosexuality. I suggest you stop making foolish statements.

If you're a queer, I would suggest you get help instead of trying to convince normal people that you aren't sick. We know you are.

Your personal remarks are uncalled for.

"Nature" substantiates that, backed up by "morality."

Name one thing immoral about gay sex.

No. Wrong. You don't even live in this country, and you're trying to tell me, a veteran of eight years in the United States Air Force that I'm wrong? Where do you get off?

Certainly. You are wrong on this and a great many issues on the Forum.

If your a homo, and you sneak into the U.S. military, then are foung out to be a fag, you're ass is kicked out without another thing said. That is the law pertaining to queers in the U.S. military. Learn it, and stop being ignorant.

Perhaps you'd care to share that law with us.

Gunny

06-09-2007, 10:01 AM

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Who the hell am I, or you, to shove your opinion down someone else's throat?

The gay guy might not think it's "OK" to have sex with women, and the "straight" guy might not think it's "OK" to visit a dominatrix and engage in kinky sexual activites.

Point being, what is "OK" or not is subjective in this case. So long as the sexual act takes place between consenting adults, I see no problem with it.

And, gays could say the same thing about heterosexuality. I suggest you stop making foolish statements.

Your personal remarks are uncalled for.

Name one thing immoral about gay sex.

Certainly. You are wrong on this and a great many issues on the Forum.

Perhaps you'd care to share that law with us.

As usual, your entire argument is wrong, and dishonest.

Homosexuality is unnatural behavior from the simplest form of biology, nature, and what the overwhelmingly vast majority of Man's societies accept.

And your lame attempt at relativism is just that. Murderers probably think it's okay to murder, but we know it is not. What homos think is "normal" is irrelevant since they themselves are not normal.

Doniston

06-09-2007, 10:21 AM

Do you have a brother who uses the nickname Archangel? If not, he's your doppelganger, or you, his. Someone else has suggested that earlier. Do you want to put yourself in the same class with "Shattered"??? 'twas she!

and I don't know who that is. but apparently we agree.

Missileman

06-09-2007, 11:12 AM

Someone else has suggested that earlier.
Great minds think alike!

Do you want to put yourself in the same class with "Shattered"???

I have more in common with Shattered's politics than a lot of people on this board. As far as classification goes, what are my options other than the same class as hers? :poke:

Doniston

06-09-2007, 12:12 PM

Great minds think alike!

I have more in common with Shattered's politics than a lot of people on this board. As far as classification goes, what are my options other than the same class as hers? :poke: Your choice, I guess.

OCA

06-09-2007, 12:41 PM

My personal opinion is irrelevant. Who the hell am I, or you, to shove your opinion down someone else's throat?

Who the hell are queers to shove their vile lifestyle down regular folks' throats?

TheSage

06-09-2007, 01:00 PM

Who the hell are queers to shove their vile lifestyle down regular folks' throats?

Down your throat. You like that, dontcha?:finger3:

Pale Rider

06-09-2007, 01:05 PM

Paleliar, What in hell does that have to do with you lying to your teeth. or Rep comments, or anything else you can think of.? Are you just trying to add another strawman.

You haven't challenged shit. Even if you did, I can dump your ass in the garbage with half my brain tied behind my back slacker. You don't have half a brain. so don't start bragging about your less than half wit

What do you call a challenge? You offered to prove I had sent you neg reps, I challanged you to prove it.

Is a challenge not a challenge to you. or what. You had several posters jumping on your band wagon when you were spouting lies about me in the past. where are they now?

You have been outed as a bonified Liar of the first order.

If not. prove your words. several people have sent neg reps to me. the only way I have responded is making reference to them on the open forum. You are a flat out and out liar. and this is the third time you have claimed that of me. and not once accurate. You have become a disgrace. You are disgusting, not even having the moxie to own up

My God man, you are the stupidest mother fucker this board has got. Wake the fuck up and smell the sons a bitchin coffee!!!

WAY BACK IN THE REP THREAD, I said it didn't look like you've ever negged me. I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT YOU SLACK JAWED, MOUTH BREATHING, RETARD!!!

Find someone else to troll around the board and stink up with your old, senile, bullshit. You're not funny or cute. Now go finish your jug of warm vodka and SHUT THE FUCK UP MUTTONHEAD.

Rahul

06-09-2007, 01:40 PM

As usual, your entire argument is wrong, and dishonest.

You haven't come clean and provided proof of the law Pale Rider postulated, instead resorting to nonsensical statements as usual.

Homosexuality is unnatural behavior from the simplest form of biology, nature, and what the overwhelmingly vast majority of Man's societies accept.

There isnt any evidence of that.

And your lame attempt at relativism is just that. Murderers probably think it's okay to murder, but we know it is not.

Your lame attempt at relativism is just that, :lame2:

Who the hell are queers to shove their vile lifestyle down regular folks' throats?

I disagree. They aren't shoving anything down anyone's throats. The level of your paranoia is simply amazing.

Pale Rider

06-09-2007, 02:44 PM

You haven't come clean and provided proof of the law Pale Rider postulated, instead resorting to nonsensical statements as usual.

There isnt any evidence of that.

Your lame attempt at relativism is just that,

I disagree. They aren't shoving anything down anyone's throats. The level of your paranoia is simply amazing.

Ya know what rah, what you're posting is such a crock of shit, nobody here is really taking you seriously. You're way off in looney land.

Rahul

06-09-2007, 02:49 PM

Ya know what rah, what you're posting is such a crock of shit, nobody here is really taking you seriously. You're way off in looney land.

I am not posting nonsense, and am not way off in looney land, wherever that might be. Your inability to focus on the topic at hand is one of the strangest things I['ve seen.

Gunny

06-09-2007, 02:55 PM

You haven't come clean and provided proof of the law Pale Rider postulated, instead resorting to nonsensical statements as usual.

Come clean? I wasn't aware I was supposed to provide anything for another member.

There isnt any evidence of that.

Are you just plain dumber than a red brick, or what? I just gave you a list of all the areas homosexuality is PROVEN abnormal in and this is your response.

Your lame attempt at relativism is just that, :lame2:

Beats the hell out of yours, hands down.

I disagree. They aren't shoving anything down anyone's throats. The level of your paranoia is simply amazing.

Sure they aren't. They just want a special law that caters solely to their abnormal behavior so they can flaunt their lifestyle in everyone's faces. Other than that, they don't.:lame2:

OCA

06-09-2007, 03:01 PM

You haven't come clean and provided proof of the law Pale Rider postulated, instead resorting to nonsensical statements as usual.

There isnt any evidence of that.

Your lame attempt at relativism is just that, :lame2:

I disagree. They aren't shoving anything down anyone's throats. The level of your paranoia is simply amazing.

You don't even live in America, how the hell would you know anything?

Pale Rider

06-09-2007, 03:14 PM

You don't even live in America, how the hell would you know anything?

I think he's a cow worshipping butt boy.

OCA

06-09-2007, 03:17 PM

I think he's a cow worshipping butt boy.

Them sumbitches worship rats and mice also, let em run around temples and shit and they swim in that Ganges river which people piss and shit in....regularly.

nevadamedic

06-09-2007, 03:17 PM

I think he's a cow worshipping butt boy.

:laugh2:

Pale Rider

06-09-2007, 03:21 PM

Them sumbitches worship rats and mice also, let em run around temples and shit and they swim in that Ganges river which people piss and shit in....regularly.

It's an over populated, filthy country. It's bound to have nuts like rajiv.

Doniston

06-09-2007, 03:26 PM

Who the hell are queers to shove their vile lifestyle down regular folks' throats? bUt they anr not the ones posting you stupid carap. You are. so it is you who is trying to do the shoving. They would leave you alone if you would shut your ass-sucking mouth.

Doniston

06-09-2007, 03:32 PM

My God man, you are the stupidest mother fucker this board has got. Wake the fuck up and smell the sons a bitchin coffee!!!

WAY BACK IN THE REP THREAD, I said it didn't look like you've ever negged me. I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT YOU SLACK JAWED, MOUTH BREATHING, RETARD!!!

Find someone else to troll around the board and stink up with your old, senile, bullshit. You're not funny or cute. Now go finish your jug of warm vodka and SHUT THE FUCK UP MUTTONHEAD. I
don't beleive you ever did so, and even if you had it wouldn't suffice, You are a damned liar, and all your strawmwnt won't get you out of it. If you posted that, show me, otherwise it is just another lie from your willing lips.

EDITED: I just went back and checked the thrhrrad, and miricles of miricles you dod actually address your lie (slightly)

Is this the one you were talking about?:
----------------------------------------------
Pale Rider
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doniston
OK, Jackass, you said it, now prove it.

I thought you did. I don't see any. You're still a jerk off though. Talking with little boys about erection contests and how long their cock is. You should be ashamed of yourself. I think someone should turn your crazy old ass in for suspected pedophilia.
__________________
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin'.
Fletcher ~ From: The Outlaw Josey Wales
----------------------------------------------

In what way is this an admission that you are a lying sack of shit? all you did is say you couldn't see any, and then went of on another of you strawmen. allegations,

It doesn't suffice.

You are stuck with me until you admit you lied.

Gunny

06-09-2007, 03:38 PM

I
don't beleive you ever did so, and even if you had it wouldn't suffice, You are a damned liar, and all your strawmwnt won't get you out of it. If you posted that, show me, otherwise it is just another lie from your willing lips.

You are stuck with me until you admit you lied.

Isn't Paris Hilton on jail for drinking and posting?:laugh2:

OCA

06-09-2007, 03:38 PM

bUt they anr not the ones posting you stupid carap. You are. so it is you who is trying to do the shoving. They would leave you alone if you would shut your ass-sucking mouth.

Wow such a vile and disgusting post, what do the others at the Salvation Army think of your vulgarity............and your typing and spelling skills?:laugh2::laugh2:

Old man, stop before you get fucking pummelled.

Oh and yes they are shoving it down our throats: queer choicers don't really want to get married they want legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is just the vehicle they are driving to get there.

What do you call it when queers get the vote of the people of a state overturned by 1 judge? Thats not "shoving down the throat"?

I realize all that was probably way over your head, I apologize.

Doniston

06-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Isn't Paris Hilton on jail for drinking and posting?:laugh2: Try talking sense

Doniston

06-09-2007, 03:50 PM

Old man, stop before you get fucking pummelled. Now just who's gonna do the plummelling? certainly not you. you couldn't pummell a day old puppy, maybe with your breath, but certainly not physically.

What do you call it when queers get the vote of the people of a state overturned by 1 judge? What do you call it when ANY special interest gets that done" It happens all the time in the Supreme Court.

I realize all that was probably way over your head, I apologize. No you simply assume that and you are very wrong. --- as usual.

OCA

06-09-2007, 04:46 PM

No just who'e gonna do the plummelling? certainly not you. you couldn't pummell a day old puppy, maybe with your breath, but certainly not physically.

What do you call it when ANY special interest gets that done" It happens all the time in the Supreme Court.

No you simply assume that and you are very wrong. --- as usual.

Old man you realize you are doing NOTHING but shit talking, hell not even I, the evil OCA does that, try debating with facts just once, I beg of you.....if not please leave.

OCA

06-09-2007, 04:49 PM

What do you call it when ANY special interest gets that done" It happens all the time in the Supreme Court.

No, SCOTUS in most cases will not overturn votes of the people when they are so overwhelmingly 1 way. Average votes on gay marriage bans was 75% for ban 25% against. Queers keep pushing.

Doniston

06-09-2007, 07:03 PM

[QUOTE=OCA;75002]Old man you realize you are doing NOTHING but shit talking, hell not even I, the evil OCA does that, try debating with facts just once, I beg of you.....if not please leave./QUOTE] As stated before, I have no intention of debating (just discussing) or leaving. If you don't like my comments, don't read them, or don't respond. your choice. (intentional Goof-- Note the missing bracket)

OCA

06-09-2007, 10:02 PM

Rahul

06-10-2007, 06:35 AM

You don't even live in America, how the hell would you know anything?

I don't need to live in America to "know anything". By the way, "know anything" is an exceedingly vague term and it's unclear what exactly you are trying to say here.

Anyway, OCA, the fact remains that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, and ARE allowed to serve. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, so long as the act takes place between two consenting adults (or perhaps three, or four, or more). Emphasis on consenting.

OCA

06-10-2007, 08:15 AM

I don't need to live in America to "know anything". By the way, "know anything" is an exceedingly vague term and it's unclear what exactly you are trying to say here.

Anyway, OCA, the fact remains that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, and ARE allowed to serve. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, so long as the act takes place between two consenting adults (or perhaps three, or four, or more). Emphasis on consenting.

They are allowed to serve but not to practice homosexuality, that is a fact.

Know anything is a specific term, it means you don't know shit which is apparent from your posts.

You completely ignore the facts on queerness which beyond a shadow of a doubt show the queer choice lifestyle to be a dangerous and wreckless lifestlye choice that effects not only queer choicers but regular folks as well.

Ignoring facts is not an effective debating tool.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 10:43 AM

[QUOTE=OCA;75231][QUOTE=Doniston;75086]

You have no intention of debating? Do you realize what the name of this place is? Debating is what we do here you stupid old fart./QUOTE]

Look OBNOXUS, You say you are the face of debate That is apparently how smart you are. There are rules to debate. there are no such rules here, and if there were, I wouldn't be here. The name doesn't fit what happens. if it did you would have been booted long ago. This is a discussion forum Heated, I agree, but a discussion none -the-less.

(Look, no bracket)

Rahul

06-10-2007, 12:33 PM

They are allowed to serve but not to practice homosexuality, that is a fact.

The fact is homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army.

You completely ignore the facts on queerness which beyond a shadow of a doubt show the queer choice lifestyle to be a dangerous and wreckless lifestlye choice that effects not only queer choicers but regular folks as well.

I disagree. Two homosexuals having sex with each other does not disrupt my life in any way.

You have it backwards as usual. :)

OCA

06-10-2007, 05:53 PM

I disagree. Two homosexuals having sex with each other does not disrupt my life in any way.

Disagree all you want, only when you get AIDS which is rampant in India you'll get zero sympathy from anyone because you condone behavior that spreads it.

Pale Rider

06-10-2007, 06:46 PM

The fact is homosexuals are allowed to serve in the Army.
Well... you're trying the old liberal trick here, "maybe if I repeat it enough times, it will become true." It won't. Faggots have to SNEAK into the military, because if they're found out to be a homo, there ass is out the door. THAT is the truth of the matter. I know. I live in America. I served in the United States Air Force. You didn't, and you won't convince ANYONE here you know shit by just repeating a lie. You'll only succeed in making yourself look ignorant.

I disagree. Two homosexuals having sex with each other does not disrupt my life in any way.

You have it backwards as usual. :)
Homosexual sex is destructive, and cost all tax payers money in the form of increased medical costs, i.e., insurance. Yes, faggot butt sex costs everybody.

Gunny

06-10-2007, 07:12 PM

Try talking sense

:lol:

This coming from YOU.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 08:53 PM

TO THE BOLD-FACED LIAR "PALE RIDER" (and OCA) I have received your threat on a neg rep, and I have reported it to Jimmy. now we will see if either you or OCA have the right to make such threats. (Yah, he has also made such an infurence) If you do, then I want no further part in this forum, because you are being given undo power to commit mayhem on this Forum. Actually, IMHO you two are the ones which should be banned, and permanently.

shattered

06-10-2007, 08:57 PM

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:07 PM

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:19 PM

Is this what you got left Donny? To create lies out of thin air and post them on the board in hopes you may make a dent in me?

You KNOW i've never repped you either way, its not my style, i'd rather beat the piss out of you(mission accomplished long ago) out in the open than to be a fag and neg you secretly.

Donny, you have exactly 15 fucking minutes to produce a neg rep from me to you, any neg rep with any comment, you have my permission to cut and paste any neg rep from me to you on the board. After you are unable to produce one, and you will be unable to produce one, I will spend every waking minute I have on DP campaigning to ensure you receive a lifetime ban. I will phone people, I will pm people, I will start threads, lots of threads on reasons why you should be lifed.

You are a detriment to DP, you add absolutely zero content, you are a waste of bandwith.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:26 PM

FUCK YOU YOU OLD FAGGOT LOVING ALCOHOLIC, I'VE NEVER REPPED YOU POS OR NEG, NOW GO AND KINDLY FUCK YOURSELF! that is true, you have never reped me, but as per usual you misunderstand. the post was to both of you, The Rep was from Palerider, but you did make the referenced infurence a few days ago,

and as for your PM (just received,) You started this with lies about me, which you have continued, as late as yesterday. and I could care less how LONG a member you have been, that is no exuse for the lies and inuendos you have made towards me.

Now you have said (in your PM, that I have lied about you. I challange you to prove that I have ever lied about you , at least that you didn't misundrstand such as the one you just responded to.

and of course, in your PM, you said you would do everything in your power to have me permanently banned? Well, I leave the Final Judgement to Jimmy, Certainly not to you, and I await his honest judgement.

shattered

06-10-2007, 09:28 PM

as per usual you misunderstand. the post was to both of you, The Rep was from Palerider, but you did make the referenced infurence a few days ago,

and as for your PM (just received,) You started this with lies about me, which you have continued, as late as yesterday. and I could care less how LONG a member you have been, that is no exuse for the lies and inuendos you have made towards me.

Now you have said (in your PM, that I have lied about you. I challange you to prove that I have ever lied about you , at least that you didn't misundrstand such as the one you just responded to.

and of course, in your PM, you said you would do everything in your power to have me permanently banned? Well, I leave the Final Judgement to Jimmy. Certainly not to you.

My guess is that it's your own ignorance getting you in trouble - these are your words:

TO THE BOLD-FACED LIAR "PALE RIDER" (and OCA) I have received your threat on a neg rep

Anyone that read that would assume that you're saying they BOTH neg-repped you.

I've told you before - get a proof reader before hitting "submit". YOU are your own worst enemy.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:31 PM

as per usual you misunderstand. the post was to both of you, The Rep was from Palerider, but you did make the referenced infurence a few days ago,

and as for your PM (just received,) You started this with lies about me, which you have continued, as late as yesterday. and I could care less how LONG a member you have been, that is no exuse for the lies and inuendos you have made towards me.

Now you have said (in your PM, that I have lied about you. I challange you to prove that I have ever lied about you , at least that you didn't misundrstand such as the one you just responded to.

and of course, in your PM, you said you would do everything in your power to have me permanently banned? Well, I leave the Final Judgement to Jimmy, Certainly not to you, and I await his honest judgement.

No inference either you old fucking drunk, either I sent you a threatening neg rep or I didn't send you a threatening neg rep, its a fucking yes or no question, you have exactly 1 minute to answer.

You lied by saying or even inferring I even neg repped you.....ever, or even threatened you..........ever.

You sir are a fucking lying old man with no honor.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:32 PM

My guess is that it's your own ignorance getting you in trouble - these are your words:

TO THE BOLD-FACED LIAR "PALE RIDER" (and OCA) I have received your threat on a neg rep

Anyone that read that would assume that you're saying they BOTH neg-repped you.

I've told you before - get a proof reader before hitting "submit". YOU are your own worst enemy. and I have told you before, Clean your own plate before trying to eat off of mine. You are almost as bad as these two.( not quite, but pretty damned close) the original three amigos

shattered

06-10-2007, 09:33 PM

and I have told you before, Clean your own plate before trying to eat off of mine. You are almost as bad as these two.

No, I'm pretty clear in my posts. I mean exactly what I say when I submit them.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:35 PM

and I have told you before, Clean your own plate before trying to eat off of mine. You are almost as bad as these two.

You are pathetic, you get caught fucking up plain as day and you then try to pass it on to someone else, you are like the child getting asked to clean up something "but mommy what about David's mess? Why doesn't David have to clean up his mess?". Always trying to deflect your inadequacies onto others.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:43 PM

No inference either you old fucking drunk, either I sent you a threatening neg rep or I didn't send you a threatening neg rep, its a fucking yes or no question, you have exactly 1 minute to answer. Ihave already answered that.

You lied by saying or even inferring I even neg repped you.....ever, or even threatened you..........ever. This is just another lie on your part. If I don't get banned or the thread closed, I will post it the quote wherein you did so infur (not that you reped me, I have alreadyanswered that, but that you did infur I would be banned, just as you have with others.)

shattered

06-10-2007, 09:45 PM

Ihave already answered that.

This is just another lie on your part. If I don't get banned or the thread closed, I will post it the quote wherein you did so infu (not that you reped me, I have alreadyanswered that, but that you did infur I would be banned, just as you have with others.)

Again.. You said: as per usual you misunderstand. the post was to both of you, The Rep was from Palerider, but you did make the referenced infurence a few days ago,

This implies that he threatened to neg rep you. Again, it will read that way to everyone reading this thread.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:49 PM

Ihave already answered that.

This is just another lie on your part. If I don't get banned or the thread closed, I will post it the quote wherein you did so infur (not that you reped me, I have alreadyanswered that, but that you did infur I would be banned, just as you have with others.)

So inferring a ban is a threat? Are you shitting me? This is what has got your panties in a bunch? You are way too thinskinned to be here.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:51 PM

No, I'm pretty clear in my posts. I mean exactly what I say when I submit them. That isn't the point, and you know it. You are constantly judging others and giving you biased advice to everyone with whom you disagree. However I must admit you seem to have cleaned up your language. For that: KUDOs.

shattered

06-10-2007, 09:54 PM

That isn't the point, and you know it. You are constantly judging others and giving you biased advice to everyone with whom you disagree. However I must admit you seem to have cleaned up your language. For that: KUDOs.

You can't be that dumb.. Do you know how bad you have to piss me off to get me to start hauling out 4-letter words? I do it infrequently. Yet you always seem to think I'm attacking you. What does *that* tell you.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:54 PM

Again.. You said: as per usual you misunderstand. the post was to both of you, The Rep was from Palerider, but you did make the referenced infurence a few days ago,

This implies that he threatened to neg rep you. Again, it will read that way to everyone reading this thread.

This is correct Donny and believe me it has to be 100% correct for me to be quoting Shattered.

Donny, Donny, Donny...I know old man that you thought you were going to dent me by cooking up some rep threat shit, real or inferred, but I gotta tell you this has blown up on you worse than blowing up a claymore in your own foxhole. This might possibly be the stupidest move ever next to a cooked pm by a douchebag named Dirt here at DP.

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:54 PM

You are pathetic, you get caught fucking up plain as day and you then try to pass it on to someone else, you are like the child getting asked to clean up something "but mommy what about David's mess? Why doesn't David have to clean up his mess?". Always trying to deflect your inadequacies onto others.It is no longer up to me. it isn't my inadequacies in question butt the Lies and deceits perpetrated by you and Palerider.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:55 PM

You can't be that dumb.. Do you know how bad you have to piss me off to get me to start hauling out 4-letter words? I do it infrequently. Yet you always seem to think I'm attacking you. What does *that* tell you.

Donny's skin is thinner than phyllo dough.

OCA

06-10-2007, 09:56 PM

It is no longer up to me. it isn't my inadequacies in question butt the Lies and deceits perpetrated by you and Palerider.

Jesus Christ, are you and Lily one in the same? Can you prove these lies and deceit?

Doniston

06-10-2007, 09:56 PM

You are pathetic, you get caught fucking up plain as day and you then try to pass it on to someone else, you are like the child getting asked to clean up something "but mommy what about David's mess? Why doesn't David have to clean up his mess?". Always trying to deflect your inadequacies onto others.It is no longer up to me. it isn't my inadequacies in question but the Lies and deceits perpetrated by you and Palerider.

As a matter of interest. If this thread gets moved to the Steel Cage, I will make one final post as indicated and then drop the conversation.

OCA

06-10-2007, 10:02 PM

It is no longer up to me. it isn't my inadequacies in question butt the Lies and deceits perpetrated by you and Palerider.

As a matter of interest. If this thread gets moved to the Steel Cage, I will make one final post as indicated and then drop the conversation.

I swear to God! You double post like once a day, simply edit your original post with the "no longer up to me" line in it.

Truely this board is way over your head.

"One final post"....you are running because you know you are wrong, Donny its not nice to lie and make false accusations concerning board actions about others. You see I can speculate on your persona all day long if I choose but what I can't do is say "Donny threatened me through pm, rep etc. etc. without you actually ever doing it....you understand the difference, eh Donny?

Gunny

06-10-2007, 10:10 PM

Rahul

06-10-2007, 11:28 PM

Disagree all you want, only when you get AIDS which is rampant in India you'll get zero sympathy from anyone because you condone behavior that spreads it.

India is not the topic of discussion. Furthermore, homosexuals can have safe sex the same way as heterosexuals can.

Well... you're trying the old liberal trick here, "maybe if I repeat it enough times, it will become true." It won't.

What lies? I said the US military allows gays to serve. That statement in itself is not a lie.

Homosexual sex is destructive, and cost all tax payers money in the form of increased medical costs, i.e., insurance.

Are you saying unprotected heterosexual sex does not cost all tax payers money? If it does, should we ban that too? Why, or why not?

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 12:10 AM

It is no longer up to me. it isn't my inadequacies in question but the Lies and deceits perpetrated by you and Palerider.

As a matter of interest. If this thread gets moved to the Steel Cage, I will make one final post as indicated and then drop the conversation.

You are an ICREDIBILY ignorant old man. You are a complete waste of bandwidth here. You should move along to somewhere else, like here... http://www.moveon.org/... I'm sure they'd be much more interested in your stories about talking with little boys about erection contests and cock size. We don't like that kind of perverted, warped, pedophile behavior around here. You do NOT fit in here. Just leave.

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 12:16 AM

What lies? I said the US military allows gays to serve. That statement in itself is not a lie.
You all want to play games don't you? That's so predictable from you liberal foriegnors. NO, queers can NOT serve OPENLY in the US military. What part of that don't you understand?

Are you saying unprotected heterosexual sex does not cost all tax payers money? If it does, should we ban that too? Why, or why not?
That's exactly what I'm saying. Faggots having their sick butt sex causes more AIDS cases than regular hetero penis/vagina sex, as nature intended it. This increase in the spread of AIDS due to homo sex straps the medical insurance community with treatment costs that they in turn pass on to EVERYBODY in the form of higher premiums. Now what part about THAT don't you understand?

Rahul

06-11-2007, 03:33 AM

You all want to play games don't you?

I don't play games with you or others.

That's so predictable from you liberal foriegnors.

Your spelling skills may need improvement, FYI.

NO, queers can NOT serve OPENLY in the US military. What part of that don't you understand?

I don't much agree with the way you describe homosexuals. Further, they can serve in the Army,so your point is moot.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

You are wrong.

Faggots having their sick butt sex causes more AIDS cases than regular hetero penis/vagina sex, as nature intended it.

How about two homosexuals using a condom, and a man who is having sex with a prostitute without using protection? Perhaps you could advise who you believe is at higher risk of contracting HIV.

This increase in the spread of AIDS due to homo sex straps the medical insurance community with treatment costs that they in turn pass on to EVERYBODY in the form of higher premiums. Now what part about THAT don't you understand?

Nonsense. AIDS can be spread through unprotected sexual contact of any kind, not just homosexual, so your claim is again moot.

Missileman

06-11-2007, 07:18 AM

What lies? I said the US military allows gays to serve. That statement in itself is not a lie.

It is definitely a FALSE statement. The U.S. military currently does NOT ALLOW gays to serve. Any gays in the military are there without the knowledge or consent of the military.

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 09:16 AM

I don't play games with you or others.

Your spelling skills may need improvement, FYI.

I don't much agree with the way you describe homosexuals. Further, they can serve in the Army,so your point is moot.

You are wrong.

How about two homosexuals using a condom, and a man who is having sex with a prostitute without using protection? Perhaps you could advise who you believe is at higher risk of contracting HIV.

Nonsense. AIDS can be spread through unprotected sexual contact of any kind, not just homosexual, so your claim is again moot.

This WHOOOOOOLE reply is one big gob of SHIT, and doesn't even deserve any reply other than to tell you to go fuck yourself. You're an IDIOT... :fu:

Doniston

06-11-2007, 10:44 AM

I swear to God! You double post like once a day, simply edit your original post with the "no longer up to me" line in it.

Truely this board is way over your head.

"One final post"....you are running because you know you are wrong, Donny its not nice to lie and make false accusations concerning board actions about others. You see I can speculate on your persona all day long if I choose but what I can't do is say "Donny threatened me through pm, rep etc. etc. without you actually ever doing it....you understand the difference, eh Donny? I will repsond to your stupidity in depth and extensively, later today, since i have not yet been "BANNED" (or the thread closed) HEH HEH.

Doniston

06-11-2007, 10:51 AM

I swear to God! You double post like once a day, simply edit your original post with the "no longer up to me" line in it.

Truely this board is way over your head.

"One final post"....you are running because you know you are wrong, Donny its not nice to lie and make false accusations concerning board actions about others. You see I can speculate on your persona all day long if I choose but what I can't do is say "Donny threatened me through pm, rep etc. etc. without you actually ever doing it....you understand the difference, eh Donny? Kindly note that I said one final post "IF" the thread ends up in the Steel cage. "Dummy". read what is said, not what you want it to say. I have early said I will NOT engage in the stupidity which is mandated by the rules allowed in the Steel Cage. It is bad enought in the rest of the forum.

"REPEAT"(for your special edification.) "I will NOT engage in ANY discussion occurring in the Steel Cage" -- Got it??? this time???

Rahul

06-11-2007, 12:55 PM

This WHOOOOOOLE reply is one big gob of SHIT, and doesn't even deserve any reply other than to tell you to go fuck yourself. You're an IDIOT... :fu:

Your vulgar gestures and personal remarks are off topic and not required.

Perhaps you could address the post for a change.

Hagbard Celine

06-11-2007, 01:13 PM

Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy in general, not just the military

In another post, I said how much I hate those rainbow stickers on cars. Like I really want to know who is gay.

But, since some people insist on telling us what their sexual preferences are... let me suggest a few of my own (this should be fun!)

BONDAGE
ZOO-PHILE (this one could have a picture of a pony)
SCAT LOVER (a white bumper sticker with a brown streak down the middle)
FETISH
FOOT WORSHIPPER

but here's the one that would offend people the most

S T R A I G H T

Ooh! Scat lover. That's the one for me!

shattered

06-11-2007, 05:30 PM

Kindly note that I said one final post "IF" the thread ends up in the Steel cage. "Dummy". read what is said, not what you want it to say. I have early said I will NOT engage in the stupidity which is mandated by the rules allowed in the Steel Cage. It is bad enought in the rest of the forum.

"REPEAT"(for your special edification.) "I will NOT engage in ANY discussion occurring in the Steel Cage" -- Got it??? this time???

Eh? But, you'll spew the same gibberish in normal threads where it technically doesn't belong?

Hypocrite. :cuckoo:

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 05:50 PM

Your vulgar gestures and personal remarks are off topic and not required.

Perhaps you could address the post for a change.

I do address the topic, and then you regurgitate some tepid line of moronic gibberish. You are a bigot against heterosexuality, and talk nothing but nonsense in defense of homosexuality.

Give me something worth arguing against and I will. Other than that, you just "saying" isn't worth spit.

Get an education, and give the "I'm a mod" act a rest. You're just a peon, cherry here. Remember that.

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 05:51 PM

Kindly note that I said one final post "IF" the thread ends up in the Steel cage. "Dummy". read what is said, not what you want it to say. I have early said I will NOT engage in the stupidity which is mandated by the rules allowed in the Steel Cage. It is bad enought in the rest of the forum.

"REPEAT"(for your special edification.) "I will NOT engage in ANY discussion occurring in the Steel Cage" -- Got it??? this time???

Knock it off idiot. Either get back on topic or shut the hell up.

Doniston

06-11-2007, 05:51 PM

Eh? But, you'll spew the same gibberish in normal threads where it technically doesn't belong?

Hypocrite. :cuckoo: Look bitch, if you would pay attention to what was being responded to. you wouldn't come up with such stupid comments. I can't ever call you a hypocrit 'cause you just don't seem to know any better.

Edited: and then you turn around and send me a rep stating almost precisely what I said above..(Just changing the name) Are you so far out of it you can't even be original??? I would say get lost, bit you already are. and I'm not about to challenge you to a battle of wits.--- you're not even half prepared.

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 05:58 PM

Look bitch, if you would pay attention to what was being responded to. you wouldn't come up with such stupid comments. I can't ever call you a hypocrit 'cause you just don't seem to know any better.

I asked you to knock it off old man. Now I've reported this post. I do NOT want this thread moved because YOU fucked it up.

Either clean up your act, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

shattered

06-11-2007, 05:59 PM

Look bitch, if you would pay attention to what was being responded to. you wouldn't come up with such stupid comments. I can't ever call you a hypocrit 'cause you just don't seem to know any better.

Look, dickwad. If you would pay attention to the words I speak to you, you would know that I'm perfectly aware of what's being responded to where, and you wouldn't come up with such stupid comments. I can call you a hypocrite because your posts label you as such.

Doniston

06-11-2007, 06:08 PM

Knock it off idiot. Either get back on topic or shut the hell up. A Ha. the liar speaks again. when you admit to your lying ways, I might pay attention to you, but not before. Since I doubt you have the guts to admit it, even tho it has been proven, I don't think I will be paying any attention to you, ever. You are a lying A hole.

shattered

06-11-2007, 06:12 PM

A Ha. the liar speaks again. when you admit to your lying ways, I might pay attention to you, but not before. Since I doubt you have the guts to admit it, even tho it has been proven, I don't think I will be paying any attention to you, ever. You are a lying A hole.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/ack.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/smiledig_20833.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/smilies-29231.png

Doniston

06-11-2007, 06:17 PM

I asked you to knock it off old man. Now I've reported this post. I do NOT want this thread moved because YOU fucked it up.

Either clean up your act, or SHUT THE FUCK UP! You said you would get me banned. I"m still here. and apparently you are no where near as influential as you would have us beleive. Why don't you just crawl back into OCA's hip pocket???

Doniston

06-11-2007, 06:25 PM

Look, dickwad. If you would pay attention to the words I speak to you, you would know that I'm perfectly aware of what's being responded to where, and you wouldn't come up with such stupid comments. I can call you a hypocrite because your posts label you as such. There seems to be an echo here. HEH HEH. I don't really know what a dickwad is, but I could retaliate bu calling you some much more fitting names. But I don't need to do that. I, You, and the rest of the board know exactly what you are., and it sure aint pretty

shattered

06-11-2007, 06:27 PM

There seems to be an echo here. HEH HEH. I don't really know what a dickwad is, but I could retaliate bu calling you some much more fitting names. But I don't need to do that. I, You, and the rest of the board know exactly what you are., and it sure aint pretty

I believe you started it with "Look, bitch.", dumbfuck (do you know what THAT one means?). NOW you'll just take whatever I decide to dish back.

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 06:29 PM

You said you would get me banned. I"m still here. and apparently you are no where near as influential as you would have us beleive. Why don't you just crawl back into OCA's hip pocket???

Well... we'll see old man. I've reported this post too. You're out of control here, and it needs to stop. Maybe if you just sobered up you'd realize that.

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 06:45 PM

Doniston - if you wish to debate the issue at hand, please do. But if your intent is to just bust balls and have the thread moved, please move on to another subject. Thanks!

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:00 PM

[cancelled)

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:01 PM

Doniston - if you wish to debate the issue at hand, please do. But if your intent is to just bust balls and have the thread moved, please move on to another subject. Thanks! i askedyou a question by pm. I think you have just answered it. Partiality is anything bit dead here, right. a Couple of months ago I asked to be removed from your forum. It appears to have been the proper choice. Those three, Shattered, Pale ride, and OCA are the culprits here but you chastise me. and say nothing to them. So be it, kindly remove me from you membership. By permanent Banning if that is what it takes. Because I will continue to give as good as I get from these bastards and their female bastardett.

glockmail

06-11-2007, 07:05 PM

i askedyou a question by pm. I think you have just answered it. Partiality is anything bit dead here, right. a Couple of months ago I asked to be removed from your forum. It appears to have been the proper choice. Those three, Shattered, Pale ride, and OCA are the culprits here but you chastise me. and say nothing to them. So be it, kindly remove me from you membership. By permanent Banning if that is what it takes. Because I will continue to give as good as I get from these bastards and their female bastardett.

I'll say goodbye then, old friend. :bye1:

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:06 PM

I'll say goodbye then, old friend. :bye1:The "BYE' returned. HEH HEH

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 07:21 PM

glockmail

06-11-2007, 07:22 PM

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 07:33 PM

Hopefully we're back on topic now... :cool:

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:34 PM

Doniston, it's really not as much as you make of it. The issue here is quite clear, yet you prefer to go off on tangents and look to rile others up. You are free to participate anywhere on the board you like. I was asked to look at this thread to prevent it from being moved, and that's what I did. If you can't handle a little criticism, I don't know what to tell you. I'm just asking you to 'participate' in the dialogue as opposed to derailing the thread. What you do from there is up to you, nobody is holding you down and forcing you to do anything you don't want to. Look. if you are only going to look at it from their side, then ban me damn it, because I will continue to return fire at them whenever I am attacked They started this some tome ago by ganging up on me but it just doesn't work, all their lies and inuendows are there to be se4em.

Now you say you were asked to look into this. where were you when I asked you to look into their actions a couple of days ago. Go ahaead, keep your little ol friends, they aren't worth keeping they constantly say other are lying, when it is they who are the liars. , as far as I can see. and you appartently are of the same ilk. So shove it, AND BAN ME

glockmail

06-11-2007, 07:37 PM

.... So shove it, AND BAN ME

"You can check out any time you like/ but you can never leave...."

shattered

06-11-2007, 07:39 PM

"You can check out any time you like/ but you can never leave...."

He checked out once.. He just came back for "personal reasons".:laugh2:

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 07:39 PM

Look. if you are only going to look at it from their side, then ban me damn it, because I will continue to return fire at them whenever I am attacked They started this some tome ago by ganging up on me but it just doesn't work, all their lies and inuendows are there to be se4em.

Now you say you were asked to look into this. where were you when I asked you to look into their actions a couple of days ago. Go ahaead, keep your little ol friends, they aren't worth keeping they constantly say other are lying, when it is they who are the liars. , as far as I can see. and you appartently are of the same ilk. So shove it, AND BAN ME

No. If you purposely become a nuisance you will just be chewed up and spit out alive. Are you really that addicted that you can't just walk away, you need to be banned to stop? Do you know how childish that sounds?

glockmail

06-11-2007, 07:45 PM

He checked out once.. He just came back for "personal reasons".:laugh2: I think he has the hots for you. :poke:

shattered

06-11-2007, 07:46 PM

I think he has the hots for you. :poke:

*sigh* MUST I start flipping you off again, thus making Pale a little grouchy cuz his thread flew off topic again? :cool:

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:48 PM

No. If you purposely become a nuisance you will just be chewed up and spit out alive. Are you really that addicted that you can't just walk away, you need to be banned to stop? Do you know how childish that sounds? No, I am that angry, I came[me back because iyou posted some rules that would be followed. Well, All you have done is pay lip service to it. You have banned a number of posters for faress than you seem to think I have done. so ban me, or don't you have the guts to do it. Shall I start refering to you as Gutless? No wonder these jerks get away with murder. you are as badas they are. I wondered when I read some of you rather noncommital answere to questions you were sked. Now I see you were just gutless. Treat me as you have done to others, and ban me.

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 07:53 PM

No, I am that angry, I came[me back because iyou posted some rules that would be followed. Well, All you have done is pay lip service to it. You have banned a number of posters for faress than you seem to think I have done. so ban me, or don't you have the guts to do it. Shall I start refering to you as Gutless? No wonder these jerks get away with murder. you are as badas they are. I wondered when I read some of you rather noncommital answere to questions you were sked. Now I see you were just gutless. Treat me as you have done to others, and ban me.

Tsk, tsk. Such a sore sport. How old are you again? Have you graduated high school yet? I thought so... but your grammar, punctuation and spelling are that of a grade school dropout.

I suppose you think calling me gutless will hurt me? Do you think I'll lose sleep this evening on account of your harsh words?

Donny, you have issues, serious mental issues. I've watched your posts and demeanor since you arrived here and I've come to the conclusion that you are just mentally challenged.

But just because you demand it, is why you won't be banned. We'll just take the time now to pick on the poor little retarded kid.

Doniston

06-11-2007, 07:54 PM

No, I am that angry, I came[me back because iyou posted some rules that would be followed. Well, All you have done is pay lip service to it. You have banned a number of posters for far less than you seem to think I have done. so ban me, or don't you have the guts to do it. Shall I start refering to you as Gutless? No wonder these jerks get away with murder. you are as bad as they are. I wondered when I read some of you rather noncommital answere to questions you were sked. Now I see you were just gutless. Treat me as you have done to others, and ban me. here it is again. If you don't have the guts to ban me, why don't you take a poll and see of the others think you should take that action.

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 07:55 PM

here it is again. If you don't have the guts to ban me, why don't you take a poll and see of the others think you should take that action.

I don't need a poll to tell me that 75% of the board wouldn't even notice you missing, and the overall IQ here would increase 10 fold.

shattered

06-11-2007, 07:57 PM

Shall I post it again?

Dumber than a load of http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/bricks.gif

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 07:57 PM

here it is again. If you don't have the guts to ban me, why don't you take a poll and see of the others think you should take that action.

I tell ya what jerk off, why don't you start your VERY OWN THREAD on just that topic, and leave my thread the fuck alone?

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 08:00 PM

Little donny boy - you can try reporting the same message over and over and over as you're trying. But it takes you like and hour to type a few sentences, and takes me about 5 seconds to toss it into the rubbish.

Doniston

06-11-2007, 08:01 PM

I tell ya what jerk off, why don't you start your VERY OWN THREAD on just that topic, and leave my thread the fuck alone? The liar spews again. Aas I sid beforeyou are a disgrace to your service and your uniform if indeed it was you uniform.

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 08:05 PM

The liar spews again. Aas I sid beforeyou are a disgrace to your service and your uniform if indeed it was you uniform.

Are you still here rambling? Don't you have any children you can go expose weiners with and compare?

Pale Rider

06-11-2007, 08:06 PM

I guess I'll just let you go... nobody can make you look any dumber than you're doing yourself.

You must be about 3/4 the way through that half gallon of cheap vodka by now aye.

jimnyc

06-11-2007, 08:09 PM

Did you say something little donny boy?

glockmail

06-11-2007, 08:28 PM

*sigh* MUST I start flipping you off again, thus making Pale a little grouchy cuz his thread flew off topic again? :cool: Do what makes you happy, red. :pee:

OCA

06-11-2007, 08:36 PM

Tsk, tsk. Such a sore sport. How old are you again? Have you graduated high school yet? I thought so... but your grammar, punctuation and spelling are that of a grade school dropout.

I suppose you think calling me gutless will hurt me? Do you think I'll lose sleep this evening on account of your harsh words?

Donny, you have issues, serious mental issues. I've watched your posts and demeanor since you arrived here and I've come to the conclusion that you are just mentally challenged.

But just because you demand it, is why you won't be banned. We'll just take the time now to pick on the poor little retarded kid.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Sorry Jimmy, I just can't kick retards around and this old guy is about as fucking retarded as they come. I picture him in some old golf slacks circa Jack Nicklaus 1969 Masters.....and they are piss stained, he's spilled some night train down his wife beater and is sucking on some old buffalo wings he fished out of the dumpster behind Hooters.

Nope, just ain't gonna make fun of retards.

OCA

06-11-2007, 08:39 PM

OCA

06-11-2007, 08:42 PM

Are you still here rambling? Don't you have any children you can go expose weiners with and compare?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Hey Donny, this is what it used to be like in the old days! Jesus this reminds of the time Jimmy ripped into this bitch by the name of wonderwench or something in my first few weeks at USMB, he's bending you over the same way only this time it looks like Jimmy is getting sloppy fourths or so!:laugh2:

Thank God I can take the night off and sit back and laugh tonight.

Gunny

06-11-2007, 08:54 PM

I do address the topic, and then you regurgitate some tepid line of moronic gibberish. You are a bigot against heterosexuality, and talk nothing but nonsense in defense of homosexuality.

Give me something worth arguing against and I will. Other than that, you just "saying" isn't worth spit.

Get an education, and give the "I'm a mod" act a rest. You're just a peon, cherry here. Remember that.

:clap:

Rahul

06-11-2007, 11:39 PM

You are a bigot against heterosexuality, and talk nothing but nonsense in defense of homosexuality.

I am not a bigot. Do you always indulge in name calling when you are critical of someone's argument?

Give me something worth arguing against and I will. Other than that, you just "saying" isn't worth spit.

How about proving that unprotected heterosexual contact does not spread HIV to the same degree that protected homosexual contact supposedly does?

Get an education,

I am educated enough.

and give the "I'm a mod" act a rest. You're just a peon, cherry here. Remember that.

Perhaps you could explain what exactly it is by "peon cherry".

Anyway, there isn't any reason to ban homosexuals from joining the Army and they are free to do so regardless of your statements.

:beer:

Pale Rider

06-12-2007, 12:56 AM

I am not a bigot. Do you always indulge in name calling when you are critical of someone's argument?
Call 'em like I see 'em.

How about proving that unprotected heterosexual contact does not spread HIV to the same degree that protected homosexual contact supposedly does?
Per capita, homosexuals spread for more cases of AIDS than heteros. That's already been proven here. If you missed it, that's your problem. I'm not going to baby sit you and what do and don't read on this board.

I am educated enough.
You don't act like it.

Perhaps you could explain what exactly it is by "peon cherry".
http://dictionary.reference.com/....... figure it out.

there isn't any reason to ban homosexuals from joining the Army and they are free to do so regardless of your statements. :beer:
Your certainly free to your opinion that homos should be able to join the US military, but however, that does not change the FACT that NO, they are NOT allowed to "openly" serve in the military. The only way they can get in, and stay in, is to lie and deceive, otherwise they are kicked out.

Now, before you say I'm wrong again, every single person on this board knows I'm right, and that you are wrong, so you just repeating a lie again isn't going to change the facts. You'll only make yourself look ignorant.

nevadamedic

06-12-2007, 01:06 AM

Call 'em like I see 'em.

Per capita, homosexuals spread for more cases of AIDS than heteros. That's already been proven here. If you missed it, that's your problem. I'm not going to baby sit you and what do and don't read on this board.

You don't act like it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/....... figure it out.

Your certainly free to your opinion that homos should be able to join the US military, but however, that does not change the FACT that NO, they are NOT allowed to "openly" serve in the military. The only way they can get in, and stay in, is to lie and deceive, otherwise they are kicked out.

Now, before you say I'm wrong again, every single person on this board knows I'm right, and that you are wrong, so you just repeating a lie again isn't going to change the facts. You'll only make yourself look ignorant.

Gay not homo

Rahul

06-12-2007, 02:06 AM

Call 'em like I see 'em.

You haven't seen anything and are posting off topic.

Per capita, homosexuals spread for more cases of AIDS than heteros. That's already been proven here. If you missed it, that's your problem. I'm not going to baby sit you and what do and don't read on this board.

I did not ask you that. Here is what I asked you again, for your reference:

How about proving that unprotected heterosexual contact does not spread HIV to the same degree that protected homosexual contact supposedly does?

Perhaps you could answer the question being asked and not make your own ones up as you go.

Your certainly free to your opinion that homos should be able to join the US military, but however, that does not change the FACT that NO, they are NOT allowed to "openly" serve in the military.

They are allowed to serve, which is what counts.

The only way they can get in, and stay in, is to lie and deceive, otherwise they are kicked out.

Unfortunately the current laws do not allow them to be openly homosexual, and these laws should be changed.

Pale Rider

06-12-2007, 04:30 PM

You haven't seen anything and are posting off topic.
I've seen enough, and I follow the suggestions of mods, not you. Drop the "I'm a mod act."

Perhaps you could answer the question being asked and not make your own ones up as you go.
Any and all questions you or anyone else want answered already have been answered, many, many times over. Don't be lazy, start reading.

They are allowed to serve, which is what counts.
No. They're not. If a homo walks up to a military induction office and says, "I'm a queer, and I want to join," they'll point him towards the door and tell him to get out.

Unfortunately the current laws do not allow them to be openly homosexual, and these laws should be changed.
Now you're starting to get it, and no, the laws shouldn't be changed. It would be a huge problem logistically. They would all have to be separated in basic training, and one by one put through with the girls.

Gunny

06-12-2007, 08:13 PM

You haven't seen anything and are posting off topic.

I did not ask you that. Here is what I asked you again, for your reference:

Perhaps you could answer the question being asked and not make your own ones up as you go.

They are allowed to serve, which is what counts.

Unfortunately the current laws do not allow them to be openly homosexual, and these laws should be changed.

As usual, you are wrong with just about every word.

Saying homosexuals are allowed to serve is intellectual dishonesty. There are homosexuals in the military who hide their aberrant sexual behavior. Homosexuality is defined by military law as "sexually deviant behavior." Since everyone acts straight, everyone is presumed straight. When homosexuals are exposed, they are immediately discharged as much for their own safety as any other reason.

What people like you refuse to accept as a factor, but is THE factor is homosexuality and/or homosexuals are not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of alpha-male military personnel. The are not accepted, nor trusted. THAT causes a breech in unit cohesion. ANYTHING that causes a breech in unit cohesion is detrimental to the good order and discipline of the US military.

And the fact that YOU have no problem with some pole-smoker is completely irrelevant those facts.

Gunny

06-12-2007, 08:15 PM

I've seen enough, and I follow the suggestions of mods, not you. Drop the "I'm a mod act."

Any and all questions you or anyone else want answered already have been answered, many, many times over. Don't be lazy, start reading.

No. They're not. If a homo walks up to a military induction office and says, "I'm a queer, and I want to join," they'll point him towards the door and tell him to get out.

Now you're starting to get it, and no, the laws shouldn't be changed. It would be a huge problem logistically. They would all have to be separated in basic training, and one by one put through with the girls.

Notice how his last two statements you quoted are direct contradictions?

I've also noticed if it really sucks for the US, or is a false accusation against the US, he's all for it.

Rahul

06-12-2007, 08:59 PM

What people like you refuse to accept as a factor, but is THE factor is homosexuality and/or homosexuals are not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of alpha-male military personnel.

Where are your sources? Any figures to back this up?

The are not accepted, nor trusted. THAT causes a breech in unit cohesion. ANYTHING that causes a breech in unit cohesion is detrimental to the good order and discipline of the US military.

I disagree. Why should one not trust homosexuals? There is no good reason. You are simply biased, that is all.

Gunny

06-12-2007, 09:44 PM

Where are your sources? Any figures to back this up?

Yeah. I'm my source. I spent 20 years in the Marines and I saw what went on, I know how the rules affected us, and I saw what happened when homosexuals were found out.

We had to provide them with guards to keep the other Marines from beating them to death.

I'm sure that's not good enough for the likes of YOU, but tough shit. It's how it is.

I disagree. Why should one not trust homosexuals? There is no good reason. You are simply biased, that is all.

Real simple. Homosexuality itself is a character flaw based on bad judgement. I don't want anyone like that anywhere near me with a loaded weapon.

And that's a damned-sight better reason than your horseshit that an aberrant minority based on behavior should be treated as something special.

Simple fact: Homosexuals that wish to serve the US and the US armed forces FIRST are ALREADY in the military.

Homosexuals who wish to be homosexuals first and serve second, are not, and present no valid argument as to why they should be. If they aren't there to serve the Nation FIRST, then they don't need to be there.

Rahul

06-12-2007, 11:19 PM

Real simple. Homosexuality itself is a character flaw based on bad judgement. I don't want anyone like that anywhere near me with a loaded weapon.

Nonsense. Homosexuality is not a flaw in one's character, rather, one's sexual preference. Do you always engage in character assasinations when someone chooses a different path than you do in life?

And that's a damned-sight better reason than your horseshit that an aberrant minority based on behavior should be treated as something special.

It is not a better reaason. It is simply denying facts.

Simple fact: Homosexuals that wish to serve the US and the US armed forces FIRST are ALREADY in the military.

And, your point is ... ?

Homosexuals who wish to be homosexuals first and serve second, are not, and present no valid argument as to why they should be.

The valid argument is that one's sexual preferences have got nothing to do with one's performance in any field.

Gunny

06-13-2007, 07:29 PM

Nonsense. Homosexuality is not a flaw in one's character, rather, one's sexual preference. Do you always engage in character assasinations when someone chooses a different path than you do in life?

Choosing an unnatural sexual lifestyle is a character flaw, and shows flawed judgement. Nothing nonsensical about it. Matter of fact, it makes perfectly good sense.

I am assassinating no one's character. I'm calling homomsexuals what they are -- abnormal. Statements of fact are not insults.

It is not a better reaason. It is simply denying facts.

YOU are the one denying the facts here, as you do in every thread you've posted in so far.

And, your point is ... ?

The valid argument is that one's sexual preferences have got nothing to do with one's performance in any field.

That argument gets crushed the second you include societal, religious, and common-sense beliefs, not to mention a natural abhorrance of abnormality possessed by most human beings which whether or not you like it or want to accept it, are REAL factors you cannot dismiss with some clinical observation.

Missileman

06-13-2007, 07:42 PM

Real simple. Homosexuality itself is a character flaw based on bad judgement. I don't want anyone like that anywhere near me with a loaded weapon.

So the majority (all?) of the homosexuals in the military are incapable of sound judgement? C'mon Gunny...that's a pile of rubbish and you know it. Rationale and sound judgement aren't linked to sexual orientation. In my 21 years, I ran into busloads of straights who couldn't be trusted to guard an empty parking lot.

Pale Rider

06-13-2007, 08:31 PM

So the majority (all?) of the homosexuals in the military are incapable of sound judgement? C'mon Gunny...that's a pile of rubbish and you know it. Rationale and sound judgement aren't linked to sexual orientation. In my 21 years, I ran into busloads of straights who couldn't be trusted to guard an empty parking lot.

If they were capable of sound judgement, then that begs the question, why are they acting out homosexual acts? Isn't that bad judgement?

Gunny

06-13-2007, 08:36 PM

So the majority (all?) of the homosexuals in the military are incapable of sound judgement? C'mon Gunny...that's a pile of rubbish and you know it. Rationale and sound judgement aren't linked to sexual orientation. In my 21 years, I ran into busloads of straights who couldn't be trusted to guard an empty parking lot.

Choosing an aberrant lifestyle is most certainly linked to sound judgement.

Gunny

06-13-2007, 08:36 PM

If they were capable of sound judgement, then that begs the question, why are they acting out homosexual acts? Isn't that bad judgement?

Seems that way to me.

Missileman

06-13-2007, 08:55 PM

Pale Rider

06-13-2007, 09:28 PM

Missileman

06-13-2007, 10:00 PM

Obviously, when a man makes a conscience decision to stick his johnson up another mans brown eye, that is an ultimate display of bad judgement. If he's able to make such bad judgements on that, then I'm with Gunny, I don't want that sombitch anywhere near me with a loaded weapon. That's baaaaad news.

It's your opinion that it's bad judgement, nothing more. And let's concede for the moment that it is indeed bad judgement. Exercising bad judgement on one issue doesn't make someone totally bereft of rationale. If that were the case, then you couldn't trust anyone who had gotten drunk and into a bar fight, gotten a really bad sun burn, tried to drive through the impassable mudhole, or a myriad of other lapses in judgement, including skydiving, bungee jumping, riding a motorcycle without a helmet...I could go on forever. I added the last three to include examples of repeated lapses in judgement to preclude any argument about homosexuals making the same "bad judgement" over and over again.

Rahul

06-14-2007, 01:43 AM

That argument gets crushed the second you include societal, religious, and common-sense beliefs, not to mention a natural abhorrance of abnormality possessed by most human beings which whether or not you like it or want to accept it,

Homosexuality doesn't defy common sense any more than other forms of sex do, and neither is it "abnormal". How do you define abnormal, anyway?

are REAL factors you cannot dismiss with some clinical observation.

Of course you can. You just choose not to. :)

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 02:49 AM

It's your opinion that it's bad judgement, nothing more.

It is, without doubt, uncategorically, irrefutably, bad judgement, on a scale of massive proportions. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. And a loaded weapon is the last thing a person making such a horrendous decision should have in their hands.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 02:52 AM

Homosexuality doesn't defy common sense any more than other forms of sex do, and neither is it "abnormal". How do you define abnormal, anyway?

This is probably the BIGGEST line of CRAP we hear when arguing about homosexuality. It isn't worth the effort it takes to read it, but you homo enablers try and use it anyway. It's horse shit, and will always be horse shit. Period.

Please tell us that's not all you have, because by the time you start using pathetic statements like that, we know we've won, and you lose.

Rahul

06-14-2007, 06:30 AM

This is probably the BIGGEST line of CRAP we hear when arguing about homosexuality. It isn't worth the effort it takes to read it, but you homo enablers try and use it anyway.

I disagree. Homosexuality is not any more "normal" or "abnormal" than other forms of sex between adult humans. Furthermore, you still haven't come clean with your defintion of "normal".

It's horse shit, and will always be horse shit. Period.

Flaming comments do little to further the tone of debate.

Please tell us that's not all you have, because by the time you start using pathetic statements like that, we know we've won, and you lose.

Perhaps you could address the argument being made instead of skirting around it.

Missileman

06-14-2007, 07:16 AM

It is, without doubt, uncategorically, irrefutably, bad judgement, on a scale of massive proportions. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. And a loaded weapon is the last thing a person making such a horrendous decision should have in their hands.

It's your opinion only. If you really think otherwise, you have no idea what a fact is.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 11:55 AM

I disagree. Homosexuality is not any more "normal" or "abnormal" than other forms of sex between adult humans. Furthermore, you still haven't come clean with your defintion of "normal".
You can disagree until the end of time, but you'll always be wrong. That's the end of that.

Perhaps you could address the argument being made instead of skirting around it.
There is nothing more to debate. You are off in looney land somewhere. Stay there, we don't need your kind here.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 11:58 AM

It's your opinion only. If you really think otherwise, you have no idea what a fact is.

Obviously I am the sane one in this debate Mm. It is you who is trying to make us believe that two men butt fucking each other is somehow.... NORMAL, when the fact of the matter is, it's the sickest act one human can commit against another of the same sex. So go ahead... you and your other homo enabler rajiv believe what you want. We, the "majority", the "normal people", ALL know you're wrong.

Rahul

06-14-2007, 12:37 PM

You can disagree until the end of time, but you'll always be wrong. That's the end of that.

Perhaps you could advise why. Until now, you haven't offered any convincing reasons that prove you are right and I am wrong.

OCA

06-14-2007, 02:26 PM

Perhaps you could advise why. Until now, you haven't offered any convincing reasons that prove you are right and I am wrong.

Rajiv as you are a newbie it is up to you to search the board on this subject and review all the posts that contain facts that prove Pale right, these things are not going to be reposted for every newbie, its not our fault that you are a day late and a dollar short.

glockmail

06-14-2007, 02:40 PM

Missileman

06-14-2007, 03:53 PM

Is he still calling queers normal? Even after been proven wrong so many times?:pee:

Quote me or shut the fuck up cupcake!

Missileman

06-14-2007, 04:04 PM

Obviously I am the sane one in this debate Mm. It is you who is trying to make us believe that two men butt fucking each other is somehow.... NORMAL, when the fact of the matter is, it's the sickest act one human can commit against another of the same sex. So go ahead... you and your other homo enabler rajiv believe what you want. We, the "majority", the "normal people", ALL know you're wrong.

I've never said that homosexuality is normal. I defy you to quote me one single instance where I've said it is. Feel free to go back through every post I've ever posted here or on USMB...you won't find one. FYI, abnormal doesn't automatically equal immoral OR wrong OR incapable of rational thought processes. But we haven't been talking about normal vs. abnormal, we've been discussing bad judgement. I guess the motorcycle helmet argument left you with no recourse but to try to change the subject.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 07:14 PM

Perhaps you could advise why. Until now, you haven't offered any convincing reasons that prove you are right and I am wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one trying to convince others that an unnatural act is natural. You are. "YOU" haven't said anything to convince "ME," and that's the way it is.

Pale Rider

06-14-2007, 07:20 PM

I've never said that homosexuality is normal. I defy you to quote me one single instance where I've said it is. Feel free to go back through every post I've ever posted here or on USMB...you won't find one. FYI, abnormal doesn't automatically equal immoral OR wrong OR incapable of rational thought processes. But we haven't been talking about normal vs. abnormal, we've been discussing bad judgement. I guess the motorcycle helmet argument left you with no recourse but to try to change the subject.

Chill out man, it's your buddy rajiv that's trying to say it's normal. And abnormal may not "automatically" equal bad decision making skills, but it certainly does about what we're talking about, to the point to call into question all decisions made by that person, "in my opinion."

glockmail

06-14-2007, 08:36 PM

Chill out man, it's your buddy rajiv that's trying to say it's normal. And abnormal may not "automatically" equal bad decision making skills, but it certainly does about what we're talking about, to the point to call into question all decisions made by that person, "in my opinion." That's what she does during this time of the month. It's normal. :laugh2:

Gunny

06-14-2007, 10:23 PM

Obviously, if all homosexuals were incapable of sound judgement and rationale, then none of them would make it through basic training, let alone spend years serving well.

You are trying to judge THEIR actions using YOUR biases...doubt that's going to work very well.

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I said choosing a homosexual lifestyle is evidence of unsound judgement. A perfectly logical statement given they are choosing an abnormality over normal.

That doesn't mean they are incapable of sound judgement. I am unwilling to test the theory with one behind my back carrying a rifle.

Gunny

06-14-2007, 10:26 PM

It's your opinion that it's bad judgement, nothing more. And let's concede for the moment that it is indeed bad judgement. Exercising bad judgement on one issue doesn't make someone totally bereft of rationale. If that were the case, then you couldn't trust anyone who had gotten drunk and into a bar fight, gotten a really bad sun burn, tried to drive through the impassable mudhole, or a myriad of other lapses in judgement, including skydiving, bungee jumping, riding a motorcycle without a helmet...I could go on forever. I added the last three to include examples of repeated lapses in judgement to preclude any argument about homosexuals making the same "bad judgement" over and over again.

No, it's fact. Homosexuals relationships are NOT normal relationships. We've had this argument how many times? You've been wrong every time.

At every level it is considered abnormal, period. As pale says, any man who chooses to stick it in another man is exercising exceedingly poor, and abnormal judgement.

Gunny

06-14-2007, 10:27 PM

Homosexuality doesn't defy common sense any more than other forms of sex do, and neither is it "abnormal". How do you define abnormal, anyway?

Of course you can. You just choose not to. :)

Are you STILL here? I was hoping a 8541 took you the fuck out.

Missileman

06-14-2007, 11:44 PM

No, it's fact. Homosexuals relationships are NOT normal relationships. We've had this argument how many times? You've been wrong every time.

Same challenge to you that I posed to Pale and Cupcake. Quote where I've called homosexuality normal. It's never happened.

At every level it is considered abnormal, period. As pale says, any man who chooses to stick it in another man is exercising exceedingly poor, and abnormal judgement.

So now it's abnormal judgement? :lame2: Trying to merge bad judgement with abnormal behavior? Let's keep them separate issues please, neither is dependently linked to the other. You can have bad judgement without abnormal behavior and vice versa.

Rahul

06-14-2007, 11:44 PM

Rajiv as you are a newbie it is up to you to search the board on this subject and review all the posts that contain facts that prove Pale right, these things are not going to be reposted for every newbie, its not our fault that you are a day late and a dollar short.

I am not Rajiv, and neither am I a day late nor a dollar short. There haven't been any facts provided in this thread, only name calling and vulgar statements amongst more.

The burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one trying to convince others that an unnatural act is natural. You are. "YOU" haven't said anything to convince "ME," and that's the way it is.

I have already told you that homosexuality is just a sexual preference, and no more or less harmful than any others.

Why would two grown men having sex with each other not be able to perform their duties as efficiently as heterosexual couples?

Are you STILL here? I was hoping a 8541 took you the fuck out.

Of course I'm here. I still haven't seen a convincing reason as to why gays should not be allowed to serve in the military, BTW.

Missileman

06-14-2007, 11:49 PM

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I said choosing a homosexual lifestyle is evidence of unsound judgement. A perfectly logical statement given they are choosing an abnormality over normal.

That doesn't mean they are incapable of sound judgement. I am unwilling to test the theory with one behind my back carrying a rifle.

And how many times in your career might your back have been covered by a "properly-closeted" homosexual? Were you personally aware of the sexual tendencies of everyone you ever fought with?

mrg666

06-15-2007, 01:16 AM

hey if the ban was lifted you would have a massive whole new strain of troops

Pale Rider

06-15-2007, 04:47 AM

I have already told you that homosexuality is just a sexual preference, and no more or less harmful than any others.
Yes, it is, a very destructive choice to engage in homosexuality. It's been proven, and posted here. Time and time again.

Why would two grown men having sex with each other not be able to perform their duties as efficiently as heterosexual couples?
In question is their judgement. Not their efficiency. Poor judgement can totally wipe out any efficiency one may have in certain instances, and in the military, that one instance of poor judgement could cost people their lives.

Rahul

06-15-2007, 06:56 AM

Yes, it is, a very destructive choice to engage in homosexuality. It's been proven, and posted here. Time and time again.

Nonsense. There isn't anything destructive about sexual acts between consenting adults, no matter what those acts are.

In question is their judgement. Not their efficiency.

Why would two men having sex with each other have improper judgement as compared to a man having sex with a woman?

glockmail

06-15-2007, 10:32 AM

.....
So now it's abnormal judgement? :lame2: Trying to merge bad judgement with abnormal behavior? Let's keep them separate issues please, neither is dependently linked to the other. You can have bad judgement without abnormal behavior and vice versa.

Let's let the Military decide to link them if they choose. Queerness is bad judgement as well as abnormal behavior.

Pale Rider

06-15-2007, 03:04 PM

Nonsense. There isn't anything destructive about sexual acts between consenting adults, no matter what those acts are.
Sorry, but you are wrong, totally wrong. Just saying nonsense will not change that. It may make you feel better, but you're still wrong. The homosexual lifestyle has been proven very destructive, time and time again.

Why would two men having sex with each other have improper judgement as compared to a man having sex with a woman?
That is quite possibly the stupidest question ever asked on this board. I now realize I'm arguing with a complete idiot. No wonder no one else is responding to you.

However, I did find your picture...

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/8645/yikesyb9.jpg

Gunny

06-15-2007, 06:16 PM

Same challenge to you that I posed to Pale and Cupcake. Quote where I've called homosexuality normal. It's never happened.

So now it's abnormal judgement? :lame2: Trying to merge bad judgement with abnormal behavior? Let's keep them separate issues please, neither is dependently linked to the other. You can have bad judgement without abnormal behavior and vice versa.

Let's review. You are saying you do not call homosexuality normal. Yet, you do not consider choosing to engage in abnormal behavior as bad judgment.

There is NO evidence of bad judgement; therefore, it does not exist, without the act that manifests it.

Gunny

06-15-2007, 06:17 PM

I am not Rajiv, and neither am I a day late nor a dollar short. There haven't been any facts provided in this thread, only name calling and vulgar statements amongst more.

I have already told you that homosexuality is just a sexual preference, and no more or less harmful than any others.

Why would two grown men having sex with each other not be able to perform their duties as efficiently as heterosexual couples?

Of course I'm here. I still haven't seen a convincing reason as to why gays should not be allowed to serve in the military, BTW.

I'm quite sure not. When your head is so full of shit your ears are clogged up, you hear nothing.

Gunny

06-15-2007, 06:20 PM

And how many times in your career might your back have been covered by a "properly-closeted" homosexual? Were you personally aware of the sexual tendencies of everyone you ever fought with?

As previously stated, homosexuals currently serving, wish to serve FIRST, at the expense of their aberrant sexual behavior. THAT, IMO, is displaying GOOD judgement.

And you know as well as I that could not possibly answer that question. By default, everyone who served with me was heterosexual unless proven otherwise. Once proven otherwise, they're gone.

Missileman

06-15-2007, 07:16 PM

Let's review. You are saying you do not call homosexuality normal. Yet, you do not consider choosing to engage in abnormal behavior as bad judgment.

There is NO evidence of bad judgement; therefore, it does not exist, without the act that manifests it.

I am saying that abnormal behavior isn't necessarily the result of bad judgement and that bad judgement doesn't necessarily lead to abnormal behavior.

Rahul

06-15-2007, 09:26 PM

Sorry, but you are wrong, totally wrong. Just saying nonsense will not change that. It may make you feel better, but you're still wrong. The homosexual lifestyle has been proven very destructive, time and time again.

There isn't any evidence that I am wrong, or that the homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be quite destructive.

That is quite possibly the stupidest question ever asked on this board. I now realize I'm arguing with a complete idiot. No wonder no one else is responding to you.

Insults are not required, and neither are vulgar pictures. Perhaps you could answer the question being posed of you for a change.

Pale Rider

06-15-2007, 10:59 PM

There isn't any evidence that I am wrong, or that the homosexual lifestyle has been proven to be quite destructive.
Yes, there is hundreds of pages on the internet of studies, facts and figures proving homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle. Educate yourself. Your blatant ignorance is old.

Insults are not required, and neither are vulgar pictures. Perhaps you could answer the question being posed of you for a change.
You haven't asked a question worth answering for five pages. As a matter of fact, you haven't made a statement worth reading for five pages either. You're so far out in left field, this is truly a joke.

Rahul

06-16-2007, 09:41 AM

Yes, there is hundreds of pages on the internet of studies, facts and figures proving homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle.

Perhaps you could provide some proof instead of making vague statements. Or is it that you don't have any, because there isn't any? :D

Educate yourself.

Follow thy own advice.

Your blatant ignorance is old.

I could say the same about you.

You haven't asked a question worth answering for five pages.

There isn't anything left to ask of someone who believes all homosexuals have bad judgement and doesn't provide a reason for it.

Gunny

06-16-2007, 09:50 AM

Perhaps you could provide some proof instead of making vague statements. Or is it that you don't have any, because there isn't any? :D

Follow thy own advice.

I could say the same about you.

There isn't anything left to ask of someone who believes all homosexuals have bad judgement and doesn't provide a reason for it.

What does it take with you? A freakin' baseball bat upside your dirty little turban? Justification has been REPEATEDLY provided to you in each and every thread you have chosen to drag your lying ass into and yet you just come with a "Where's your proof?" response.

Yet you wonder why no one bothers with your dumb ass.

Try finding some 12-years-old on MySpace that might believe you.

glockmail

06-16-2007, 10:53 AM

I am saying that abnormal behavior isn't necessarily the result of bad judgement and that bad judgement doesn't necessarily lead to abnormal behavior.

Why not let the guys that do the hiring and must take responsibility for their policies make their own policies?

Rahul

06-16-2007, 01:02 PM

What does it take with you?

Proof.

A freakin' baseball bat upside your dirty little turban?

Insults and slurs are a common debating tactic for those who have nothing left to offer to the debate.

Justification has been REPEATEDLY provided to you in each and every thread you have chosen to drag your lying ass into and yet you just come with a "Where's your proof?" response.

Maybe you could provide a quote to back your statements up. Or, are you just spouting off randomly, with no proof whatsoever?

Pale Rider

06-16-2007, 01:52 PM

Proof.

Here's the deal... "WE" have "NATURE" on our side. We are not claiming something that is UNNATURAL is NATURAL. "YOU" are. So even though we have provided VOLUMES of "PROOF" already, that you are ignoring, THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT FALL ON US.

YOU - PROVE - US - WRONG. OK?

Gunny

06-16-2007, 02:19 PM

Proof.

No, that DOESN'T work.

Insults and slurs are a common debating tactic for those who have nothing left to offer to the debate.

You sound like a broken record, and your attempted deflection is STILL rejected. Trying to pass off lies as the truth is a common debating tactic for brainwashed sheep.

Maybe you could provide a quote to back your statements up. Or, are you just spouting off randomly, with no proof whatsoever?

And as we see here, your simplistic, bullshit tactic is demand what you ahve already been provided. You've got several pages of posts directed to destroying your argument. Re-read them all until you understand them.

Rahul

06-17-2007, 12:30 AM

[B]Here's the deal... "WE" have "NATURE" on our side.

Are men who participate in homosexual activites not products of nature?

We are not claiming something that is UNNATURAL is NATURAL. "YOU" are.

But, you haven't articulated a definition for "natural" or "unnatural" thus far. Will you?

So even though we have provided VOLUMES of "PROOF" already, that you are ignoring, THE BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT FALL ON US.

Of course it does. You are the one claiming homosexuality is dangerous, abnormal and a host of other things. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. :)

Pale Rider

06-17-2007, 02:26 AM

Are men who participate in homosexual activites not products of nature?
So is a murderer. Neither is right.

But, you haven't articulated a definition for "natural" or "unnatural" thus far. Will you?
If you don't know that a man is made for women, and vise versa, then you are quite possible the dumbest fuck on earth. Your questions on this matter are insane.

Of course it does. You are the one claiming homosexuality is dangerous, abnormal and a host of other things. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. :)
Good God man, what in the FUCK is wrong with your eyes? It's been posted OVER and OVER and OVER again.... READ for Christs sake... FUCK!

Please show us you have a brain.

Rahul

06-17-2007, 07:43 AM

So is a murderer. Neither is right.

Homosexual conduct is not murder and cannot be equated to murder.

If you don't know that a man is made for women, and vise versa, then you are quite possible the dumbest fuck on earth. Your questions on this matter are insane.

My questions are not insane at all. Your evading them does not make them insane.

Who are we to judge a woman who wishes to indulge in sexual contact with another woman, or a man wishing to indulge in sexual contact with another man? Provided they are both consenting adults, what exactly is wrong with it?

Please show us you have a brain.

You are dodging questions and engaging in insults meaning you have nothing left to offer to the debate, seemingly.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 01:19 PM

I am saying that abnormal behavior isn't necessarily the result of bad judgement and that bad judgement doesn't necessarily lead to abnormal behavior.

Depends. VOLUNTARY abnormal behavior REQUIRES judgement.

Without the abnormal behavior, there is no evidence of bad judgement.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 01:22 PM

Homosexual conduct is not murder and cannot be equated to murder.

My questions are not insane at all. Your evading them does not make them insane.

Who are we to judge a woman who wishes to indulge in sexual contact with another woman, or a man wishing to indulge in sexual contact with another man? Provided they are both consenting adults, what exactly is wrong with it?

You are dodging questions and engaging in insults meaning you have nothing left to offer to the debate, seemingly.

No one has evaded even one of your questions. It's more like we're tired of answering the same questions over and over and you continuing to pretend we haven't. Perhaps you think such an intllectually dishonest and childish game is getting you somewhere, but let me assure you, it is not.

Pale Rider

06-17-2007, 03:28 PM

No one has evaded even one of your questions. It's more like we're tired of answering the same questions over and over and you continuing to pretend we haven't. Perhaps you think such an intllectually dishonest and childish game is getting you somewhere, but let me assure you, it is not.

Amen to that Gunny. I'm done trying to explain even the most obvious and simple facts to this moron rajiv, only for him to turn around and put on the ignorant act time and time again. No more. It's an exercise in futility.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 03:58 PM

Depends. VOLUNTARY abnormal behavior REQUIRES judgement.

Disagree: What judgement would be involved for a married couple to have sex on rubber sheets after covering themselves in vegetable oil? I could list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that are voluntary and don't require judgement.

Without the abnormal behavior, there is no evidence of bad judgement.

I disagree here too. A motorcylist riding down the road without a helmet is exhibiting bad judgement...hardly abnormal behavior.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 04:18 PM

Disagree: What judgement would be involved for a married couple to have sex on rubber sheets after covering themselves in vegetable oil? I could list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that are voluntary and don't require judgement.

Sure it requires a judgement. They have to DECIDE they are going to do it.

I disagree here too. A motorcylist riding down the road without a helmet is exhibiting bad judgement...hardly abnormal behavior.

Not in this state. It's completely legal, and whether or not the judgement is bad is subjective to personal opinion.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 04:38 PM

whether or not the judgement is bad is subjective to personal opinion.

DING DING DING! I just love it when an argument finally sinks in. :laugh2:

Gunny

06-17-2007, 05:03 PM

DING DING DING! I just love it when an argument finally sinks in. :laugh2:

Trying to play dishonest semantics now, are we?

It's quite obvious that homosexuality is abnormal behavior and it requires judgement to engage in a homosexual lifestyle/homosexual acts. That is consciously deciding to engage in abnormal behavior. Bad judgement.

The flaw to your comparison is not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is not considered abnormal behavior, nor even bad judgement by all. It does not defy the laws of nature, biology, history, nor societal belief.

You're trying to compare a fact to an opinion, and it isn't selling HERE.:poke:

Missileman

06-17-2007, 06:29 PM

Trying to play dishonest semantics now, are we?

It's quite obvious that homosexuality is abnormal behavior and it requires judgement to engage in a homosexual lifestyle/homosexual acts. That is consciously deciding to engage in abnormal behavior. Bad judgement.

The flaw to your comparison is not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is not considered abnormal behavior, nor even bad judgement by all. It does not defy the laws of nature, biology, history, nor societal belief.

You're trying to compare a fact to an opinion, and it isn't selling HERE.:poke:

Semantics, my ass! Bad judgement is bad judgement. And as you so eloquently put it, bad judgement is subjective and a matter of opinion. Don't crawfish now!

Gunny

06-17-2007, 06:46 PM

Semantics, my ass! Bad judgement is bad judgement. And as you so eloquently put it, bad judgement is subjective and a matter of opinion. Don't crawfish now!

I'm not crawfishing in the least. You ARE trying to play semantics. You're attempting to disregard the difference between opinion and fact to make your argument.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 07:14 PM

I'm not crawfishing in the least. You ARE trying to play semantics. You're attempting to disregard the difference between opinion and fact to make your argument.

I am very much aware of the difference. What you are purporting as fact is nothing more than your opinion.

And if, as you suggest, some bad judgements are fact and some are a matter of opinion whose standards do we use to decide which is which?

Gunny

06-17-2007, 07:23 PM

I am very much aware of the difference. What you are purporting as fact is nothing more than your opinion.

And if, as you suggest, some bad judgements are fact and some are a matter of opinion whose standards do we use to decide which is which?

Homosexuality being abnormal behavior is fact, not just my opinion.

Your question is irrelevant as it is not a factor when the abnormal behavior is a fact.

The only standards that affect opinions are law and societal norms.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 07:27 PM

Homosexuality being abnormal behavior is fact, not just my opinion. Agreed...but it's your opinion that it's bad judgement to engage in it.

As I stated, I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with bad judgement.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 07:56 PM

Agreed...but it's your opinion that it's bad judgement to engage in it.

As I stated, I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with bad judgement.

Not quite. Logic dictates that one should not engaged in abnormal behavior, not my opinion.

No you can't. Any behavior requires the decision to carry it out.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 08:07 PM

No you can't. Any behavior requires the decision to carry it out.

Decision to carry it out doesn't always equal bad judgement.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 08:38 PM

Decision to carry it out doesn't always equal bad judgement.

Re-read. I did not say "decision to carry out" = bad judgement.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 08:50 PM

Re-read. I did not say "decision to carry out" = bad judgement.

I said "As I stated, I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with bad judgement."

To which you replied, "No you can't. Any behavior requires the decision to carry it out."

Did you miss the word bad the first time, or have you changed your mind?

Gunny

06-17-2007, 09:14 PM

I said "As I stated, I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with bad judgement."

To which you replied, "No you can't. Any behavior requires the decision to carry it out."

Did you miss the word bad the first time, or have you changed your mind?

Nope. I just didn't reply to your specific type of behavior; rather ALL conscious behavior that requires a decision to carry it. That would include "bad" behavior.

Regardless, any conscious act of bad behavior REQUIRES the decision to carry it out. That decision to consciously engage is bad behavior is due to bad judgement.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 09:37 PM

Nope. I just didn't reply to your specific type of behavior; rather ALL conscious behavior that requires a decision to carry it. That would include "bad" behavior.

Regardless, any conscious act of bad behavior REQUIRES the decision to carry it out. That decision to consciously engage is bad behavior is due to bad judgement.

Are we talking about abnormal behavior or bad behavior? They aren't the same thing and need to be adressed separately. Up to this point we'd been discussing abnormal behavior.

Gunny

06-17-2007, 09:50 PM

Are we talking about abnormal behavior or bad behavior? They aren't the same thing and need to be adressed separately. Up to this point we'd been discussing abnormal behavior.

Did you not interject the word "bad" into it? If not, feel free to replace "bad behavior" with "abnormal behavior." Either way, the point is the same. To consciously engage in abnormal behavior requires bad judgement.

You certainly cannot say that it was good judgement to engage in abnormal behavior.

Any conscious decision to engage in any type of behavior always requires a decision to engage.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 10:04 PM

Did you not interject the word "bad" into it?
No, I did not bring the term bad behavior into the argument. We have been discussing abnormal behavior and bad judgement.

If not, feel free to replace "bad behavior" with "abnormal behavior." Either way, the point is the same. To consciously engage in abnormal behavior requires bad judgement.

I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with BAD judgement. As you already acknowledged, whether judgement is bad or not is a matter of opinion.

You certainly cannot say that it was good judgement to engage in abnormal behavior.

If I can reasonably demonstrate that there are abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with BAD judgement, does that mean that it was GOOD judgement, or is it possible that it had nothing to do with judgement at all?

Gunny

06-17-2007, 10:23 PM

No, I did not bring the term bad behavior into the argument. We have been discussing abnormal behavior and bad judgement.

I can list hundreds of abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with BAD judgement. As you already acknowledged, whether judgement is bad or not is a matter of opinion.

You cannot list even one abnormal behavior that requires a conscious decision to engage in that does not require judgement.

I did not acknowledge that whether or not judgement is bad is a matter of opinion except in one specific instance. And I believe the point I made was that whether or not the behavior is abnormal is what is a matter of opinion since it is not a proven fact that not wearing a motorcycle helmet is abnormal behavior.

If I can reasonably demonstrate that there are abnormal behaviors that have nothing to do with BAD judgement, does that mean that it was GOOD judgement, or is it possible that it had nothing to do with judgement at all?

Make sure you read what I have argued carefully before you do. I have specifically made a point of excluding involuntary abnormal behavior.

And you cannot provide even one instance of voluntary behavior that does not require judgement in or to engage in it.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 10:56 PM

Make sure you read what I have argued carefully before you do. I have specifically made a point of excluding involuntary abnormal behavior.

And you cannot provide even one instance of voluntary behavior that does not require judgement in or to engage in it.

Why do you keep trying to pretend that we aren't discussing BAD judgement?

Gunny

06-17-2007, 11:00 PM

Why do you keep trying to pretend that we aren't discussing BAD judgement?

I'm not. In the context of what we are discussing, whether or not the behavior and/or judgement is bad is only relevant in specific terms, but not in general cause and effect.

If it suits you, feel free to confine your argument to only bad judgement.

Missileman

06-17-2007, 11:29 PM

I'm not. In the context of what we are discussing, whether or not the behavior and/or judgement is bad is only relevant in specific terms, but not in general cause and effect.

If it suits you, feel free to confine your argument to only bad judgement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's your specific argument that voluntary abnormal behavior is a result of bad judgement isn't it?

Rahul

06-18-2007, 12:21 AM

Not quite. Logic dictates that one should not engaged in abnormal behavior, not my opinion.

So, what logic dictates that homosexuality is abnormal? Maybe you could expound on this logic.

Pale Rider

06-18-2007, 01:05 AM

So, what logic dictates that homosexuality is abnormal? Maybe you could expound on this logic.

You know what rajiv.... that question so fucking STUPID... the only response it really deserves is SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU IGNORANT MORON!

Rahul

06-18-2007, 02:48 AM

You know what rajiv....

I am not Rajiv.

that question so fucking STUPID...

Do you always deride questions you are unable to answer?

the only response it really deserves is SHUT THE FUCK UP IGNORANT MORON!

These are the type of insults which do get reported, BTW.

OCA

06-18-2007, 05:12 AM

So, what logic dictates that homosexuality is abnormal? Maybe you could expound on this logic.

One man sticking his cock into another man's shit pit, I ask YOU to expound further on how THAT is normal.

I'm not sure i've ever run across someone so ignorant in my 3+ years here.

Gunny

06-18-2007, 06:01 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's your specific argument that voluntary abnormal behavior is a result of bad judgement isn't it?

Voluntarily engaging in abnormal behavior REQUIRES bad judgement.

Rahul

06-18-2007, 06:04 AM

One man sticking his cock into another man's shit pit, I ask YOU to expound further on how THAT is normal.

What if the aforementioned bodily cavity belonged to a woman? Would you also condemn men performing the same act with women? Why, or why not?

Gunny

06-18-2007, 06:04 AM

So, what logic dictates that homosexuality is abnormal? Maybe you could expound on this logic.

Just not going to give up being a liar, huh?

This:

Not quite. Logic dictates that one should not engaged in abnormal behavior, not my opinion.

does NOT say:

So, what logic dictates that homosexuality is abnormal? Maybe you could expound on this logic.

No wonder you can't debate. You can't even COMPREHEND what you're reading.

Rahul

06-18-2007, 06:06 AM

No wonder you can't debate. You can't even COMPREHEND what you're reading.

Can you comprehend the fact that homosexuality is just as "normal" or "abnormal" as other sexual acts between consenting adults?

Gunny

06-18-2007, 06:11 AM

Can you comprehend the fact that homosexuality is just as "normal" or "abnormal" as other sexual acts between consenting adults?

Since it is not at all normal at ANY level, NO.

The adults are trying to have an intelligent conversation. Be a good rajiv and run along and take your stupidity with you.

Pale Rider

06-18-2007, 07:41 AM

These are the type of insults which do get reported, BTW.

OOOOOOOooooohhh.... I'm fucking scared now johnny quest. :fu:

gabosaurus

06-18-2007, 11:33 AM

OOOOOOOooooohhh.... I'm fucking scared now johnny quest.

If I had that hidden mystery room in my basement like you do, I'd be "fucking scared" as well.

Rahul

06-18-2007, 12:39 PM

Since it is not at all normal at ANY level, NO.

There isn't any evidence at all of that.

OCA

06-18-2007, 03:44 PM

What if the aforementioned bodily cavity belonged to a woman? Would you also condemn men performing the same act with women? Why, or why not?

Please do not answer a question with a question.

But no I would not condone that act, any gal who loves it in the ass is definitely not a girl you want to be taking home and any guy who loves the ass more than the pussy has some problems, probably a small dick.

Anyway please explain how a guy shoving his johnson into another guy's shit pit is normal since you claim it to be normal.

OCA

06-18-2007, 03:47 PM

There isn't any evidence at all of that.

Again two guys fucking each other up the ass, this is normal to you? Did you not take biology, human sexuality or any human anatomy classes.

Come on, you can't possibly be this ignorant, you dotheads are supposed to be some of the smartest people on earth.

Gunny

06-18-2007, 04:47 PM

There isn't any evidence at all of that.

Sure there is. You just refuse to see it because you're a nimrod.

Nature -- a true homosexual in nature dies without procreating, and without engaging in sex. That is abnormal since the ...

Biological function -- of sexual relations is procreation/perpetuation of the species.

That would mean that nature dictates sexual relations be between a male and a female in order to fulfill biological function.

No society has ever accepted homosexuality as normal behavior, even it tolerated homosexuality.

No religion has ever accepted homosexuality as normal except those invented by homosexuals.

No logical-thinking person accepts homosexuality as normal behavior, even those that are willing to tolerate it.

You are wrong because you are dumb and a liar. Go away.

Abbey Marie

06-18-2007, 05:54 PM

Honestly, if you polygraphed gays, even they would probably have to say it is abnormal. They might defend it, and/or feel they were born that way, but it's definitely outside the norm.

Missileman

06-18-2007, 09:04 PM

Voluntarily engaging in abnormal behavior REQUIRES bad judgement.

And for the purpose of clarity, when you say bad judgement, you're talking about ignoring possible bad or negative consequences?

Gunny

06-18-2007, 09:14 PM

And for the purpose of clarity, when you say bad judgement, you're talking about ignoring possible bad or negative consequences?

Now you're taking this somewhere other than confines of the argument. Clarification:

Voluntarily engaging in abnormal behavior REQUIRES bad judgement.

Bad judgement itself does not necessarily lead to abnormal behavior, and/or bad or negative consequences.

Missileman

06-18-2007, 09:21 PM

Now you're taking this somewhere other than confines of the argument. Clarification:

Voluntarily engaging in abnormal behavior REQUIRES bad judgement.

Bad judgement itself does not necessarily lead to abnormal behavior, and/or bad or negative consequences.

I'm trying to get your definition of bad judgement is all...it's one of the two terms we've been discussing. Was "ignoring possible bad or negative consequences" unacceptable? If so, please provide yours.

Gunny

06-18-2007, 09:36 PM

I'm trying to get your definition of bad judgement is all...it's one of the two terms we've been discussing. Was "ignoring possible bad or negative consequences" unacceptable? If so, please provide yours.

Within the context of bad judgement being required to voluntarily engage in factual, abnormal behavior it is intentionally doing what is known to be wrong.

Dude, if you want play chess, just set up the board.:laugh2:

Missileman

06-18-2007, 09:53 PM

Within the context of bad judgement being required to voluntarily engage in factual, abnormal behavior it is intentionally doing what is known to be wrong.

Dude, if you want play chess, just set up the board.:laugh2:

Would you consider a married couple who like to dabble in S&M to be engaged in normal or abnormal behavior? How about free divers? Firewalkers?

Gunny

06-18-2007, 10:19 PM

Would you consider a married couple who like to dabble in S&M to be engaged in normal or abnormal behavior? How about free divers? Firewalkers?

Married couple engaging in S&M are engaging in seuxally deviant behavior, and yes I would consider it abnormal, and yet I would consider it bad judgement.

You'll have to define exactly what the latter two do.

nevadamedic

06-18-2007, 11:31 PM

Married couple engaging in S&M are engaging in seuxally deviant behavior, and yes I would consider it abnormal, and yet I would consider it bad judgement.

You'll have to define exactly what the latter two do.

S&M is vile and disgusting.

OCA

06-19-2007, 05:09 AM

S&M is vile and disgusting.

So is homosexuality.

Rahul

06-19-2007, 06:29 AM

But no I would not condone that act, any gal who loves it in the ass is definitely not a girl you want to be taking home and any guy who loves the ass more than the pussy has some problems, probably a small dick.

So, you are the one that is the sole judge of who has "problems", and who doesn't? It seems you are against all sexual acts, except sex in the missionary position.

Anyway please explain how a guy shoving his johnson into another guy's shit pit is normal since you claim it to be normal.

I did not say it was normal, per se. I said it's no more or less normal to them as heterosexuality is to us. Further, we have no right to judge two consenting adults based upon what they do with each other in their bedrooms. The point about S&M was brought up, and the logic is essentially the same.

Again two guys fucking each other up the ass, this is normal to you? Did you not take biology, human sexuality or any human anatomy classes.

None of those classes detailed sex from a position other than missionary, but those are all acts considered to be "normal".

Come on, you can't possibly be this ignorant, you dotheads are supposed to be some of the smartest people on earth.

Name calling and insults are completely uncalled for.

Sure there is. You just refuse to see it because you're a nimrod.

I wonder how many times I have been insulted already today.

Nature -- a true homosexual in nature dies without procreating, and without engaging in sex. That is abnormal since the ...

So, if a heterosexual couple dies without procreating, they are abnormal?

Biological function -- of sexual relations is procreation/perpetuation of the species.

How about those couples where the woman is infertile? Or the man is disabled?

No society has ever accepted homosexuality as normal behavior, even it tolerated homosexuality.

You are not the sole judge of what is normal and abnormal.

You are wrong because you are dumb and a liar. Go away.

And, more insults. Do you always resort to insults when debating?

Missileman

06-19-2007, 07:16 AM

Married couple engaging in S&M are engaging in seuxally deviant behavior, and yes I would consider it abnormal, and yet I would consider it bad judgement.

You're going to have to explain exactly why it's wrong, especially in the context of a married couple.

You'll have to define exactly what the latter two do.

Free diving is seeing how far you can go down on a single breath. Firewalking is self-explanatory.

Pale Rider

06-19-2007, 08:42 AM

You're going to have to explain exactly why it's wrong, especially in the context of a married couple.

It's find it totally baffling why you homo supporters need such obvious things "explained" to you. As if there were some sort of mystery about it.

Missileman

06-19-2007, 03:55 PM

It's find it totally baffling why you homo supporters need such obvious things "explained" to you. As if there were some sort of mystery about it.

You tell me what's wrong with a married couple enjoying each other sexually if it's so obvious. That you don't find it appealing is hardly proof or for that matter even an argument that it's wrong.

Gunny

06-19-2007, 04:30 PM

So, you are the one that is the sole judge of who has "problems", and who doesn't? It seems you are against all sexual acts, except sex in the missionary position.

I did not say it was normal, per se. I said it's no more or less normal to them as heterosexuality is to us. Further, we have no right to judge two consenting adults based upon what they do with each other in their bedrooms. The point about S&M was brought up, and the logic is essentially the same.

None of those classes detailed sex from a position other than missionary, but those are all acts considered to be "normal".

Name calling and insults are completely uncalled for.

I wonder how many times I have been insulted already today.

So, if a heterosexual couple dies without procreating, they are abnormal?

How about those couples where the woman is infertile? Or the man is disabled?

You are not the sole judge of what is normal and abnormal.

And, more insults. Do you always resort to insults when debating?

As usual, you have nothing but intellectual dishonesty to respond with. OBVIOUSLY, to anyone that isn't YOU, I am not the judge of anything. Science and society are.

Bottom line: You're wrong. Shut up and get back in your corner, pissant.