I find it amusing that you continue to make derogatory comments about something that you repeatedly fail to understand, as has been demonstrated before and here again:This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard in here.
So, if someone believes that God has the right to punish someone in hell, ergo
they can't disapprove of anyone else hurting anyone else in any way, because
that hurt pales in comparison to hell.
You could use the same idiotic argument to say that we can't punish murderers
and pedophiles either. Heck using your argument, anyone who believes in hell
needs to just shut their mouth about Jerry Sandusky and his 40+ child rapes.
^<<^hno:
Horapesnatcher and zeeman just went in together on Mike Jackson's used van. Ho' will park it in front of junior high schools and zee will work the night shift driving through the Happy Valley community
Barman,
I find it amusing how you need to be negatively judging Michael Jackson. One of the most famous person in the history of the world who had his day in court and was aquitted, but you find it necessary to judge him negatively. Again, I must ask who the F do you think your are.
I'm done with this battle, I've have made many valid points and when your dealing with closed minded, hippricatical idiots you end up wasting a lot of time.
Barman, Enfuego and Tartar have gotten their point across. The point being you guys should have purchased the case of vasoline when it was on sale at Walgreens. This way when that duck gets put up your butt it can be removed much easier. Closed minded bitches.
Sorry for all the decent people I have rubbed the wrong way, but I have a difficult time biting my tougue when I witness inappropiate behavior.
This will be my final post in this thread, I've proven my point and please keep an open mind when you hear sore butt hippo's calling consensual sex rape.
Adios Amigo's
I find it amusing that you continue to make derogatory comments about something that you repeatedly fail to understand, as has been demonstrated before and here again:
First of all, you mistated the argument, which does not speak of God's "right to punish someone in hell", which could concievably be a hand slap, but rather torturing billions for all eternity.
Secondly, your conclusions are only ridiculous ideas borne of your own imagination.
So you missed the point completely. Wanna guess again?
Third, obviously they can "disaprove" of anything they want to, whether or not it is
valid, or overblown in the extreme. However when someone disaproves of a light
offence in relation to a far more heinous one that they approve of, then they are
"straining a gnat while swallowing a camel".
Wow, because I know how to spell, that makes me a geek?
Brilliant.
Um, not approving of child rape is not close-minded.
Actually it is in many cases, with many people, depending on the definition of child and rape. Obviously some of the posters in this thread appear quite closed minded. Just review some of your comments, for example. Rather than respond to reasoning with the same, you constantly come back with mantras like the above, which you may think are so clever. I'm sure they are convincing to those who are too lazy for or incapable of rational discussion, and dieing to "hang em high" at the nearest tree.
BTW, some US states and countries throughout history have legally approved of consentual sex between 13 year olds [as well as 14-17 YO] and those older, and not classified it as rape, let alone "child rape". But don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
Actually it is in many cases, with many people, depending on the definition of child and rape. Obviously some of the posters in this thread appear quite closed minded. Just review some of your comments, for example. Rather than respond to reasoning with the same, you constantly come back with mantras like the above, which you may think are so clever. I'm sure they are convincing to those who are too lazy for or incapable of rational discussion, and dieing to "hang em high" at the nearest tree.
BTW, some US states and countries throughout history have legally approved of consentual sex between 13 year olds [as well as 14-17 YO] and those older, and not classified it as rape, let alone "child rape". But don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
X,
Even though you have been referred to as not very bright by some english major in this forum, I get you and I think your very bright. Your above post is right on regarding FZ. Who knows if he understands what your're saying , since he's in denial and he also thinks your not so bright. FZ is probably looking for your spelling errors, but your message probably goes in one ear and out the other.
Thanks for your support, but it's obvious we're wasting our time. Keep up the good work.
No, you're pretty much a geek for the same reason I am......We're just wired that way
I will send you a Klub Kard asap