bluemonday Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ask nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 For fucks sake Rog with stuff like that you are making LDV's statements look quite sane and logical.Sane and logical. You just spent a good while talking about how being criticial of homophobia in other cultures is being racist. I don't know what you think logic is. Rog appears to be more intelligent and logical than you. However, his views and morality are just absolutely appalling. She didn’t criticise him for being a homosexualShe didn't directly criticise him for being homosexual. That is not why it is homophobic. She moved away from simply pondering on why someone dies at 33 to issues of civil partnership and commenting on the effect of such deaths on civil partnership. She also then brought up another death, Kevin McGee, simply because he was gay, in a partnership, and died. The deaths bore no relation to one another. I mean if the young husband of a woman committed suicide and a week later another young husband in a straight couple died on the couch after going clubbing, would we then start to wonder whether the image of marriage had been affected or 'taken a blow'? Of course it is homophobic. But she CAN write that shit in the Daily Mail. I don't like it, she was stupid for writing it, and made out to be stupid for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 For fucks sake Rog with stuff like that you are making LDV's statements look quite sane and logical.Sane and logical. You just spent a good while talking about how being criticial of homophobia in other cultures is being racist. I don't know what you think logic is. Rog appears to be more intelligent and logical than you. However, his views and morality are just absolutely appalling. Yes but I enjoy over doing it with you because your answers amuse me and there is no malice in you. Rog is an entire differnt object Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Where and when have I EVER advocated the genocide of 'Palestinians'? http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...st&p=174104 Cheers Mr S was looking for that as you posted. I agree promiscurity is wrong, as I was saying to the wifes sister in bed this morning how decedent society is these days and if she could please unlock the handcuffs before she inflates the sheep. Isn’t it odd how people choose to read a thing the way that they want it to read. How about reading it in the way it was intended? Let’s look at how the same construct is used and used in the way it was intended. First guy --- “I see Joe Blow tried to kick your head in last night”. Second guy – “ He tried but he chose the wrong guy”. Maybe nasty people are inclined to always look for a nasty interpretation on everything in the belief that others are as nasty as themselves. So let’s take what was written. “Whatever you say Adolf.Every post you make makes me wonder if Hitler had the right idea afterall” My reply --- “Maybe he did but chose the wrong race! ” See? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying...... No wait............ Oh now I get it. Like humour, but different......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Isn’t it odd how people choose to read a thing the way that they want it to read. How about reading it in the way it was intended? Considering the context of your preceding post ("nuke the bastards"), I'm surprised you expected it to be taken any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Isn’t it odd how people choose to read a thing the way that they want it to read. How about reading it in the way it was intended? Considering the context of your preceding post ("nuke the bastards"), I'm surprised you expected it to be taken any other way. Considering it was in relation to the terrorist scum who had for years been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas it would have been an entirely proportionate response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ah, so you were talking about the nuclear weapons that only affect terrorists. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the ones that indiscriminately wipe out everything and everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ask nicely. I'll accept that as your answer and I'll add it to the immeasurable contempt you're already compiling for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Wow I'm gutted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Ah, so you were talking about the nuclear weapons that only affect terrorists. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the ones that indiscriminately wipe out everything and everybody. It depends on the yield and how they're deployed. A one kiloton nuke, although not what you’d want on your birthday cake in place of candles, is an entirely feasible device to neutralise a nest of terrorists even within a city and with relatively little collateral damage if it were detonated below ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Sounds like you've been playing too many computer games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Sounds like you've been playing too many computer games. LOL! You'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Considering it was in relation to the terrorist scum who had for years been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas it would have been an entirely proportionate response.You have to be even-handed. The Israeli government is an even worse terrorist force than the Palestinians. Both wrong, however. Although it is ridiculous to get singularly annoyed about civilians being killed by Palestinian terrorists. It depends on the yield and how they're deployed. A one kiloton nuke, although not what you’d want on your birthday cake in place of candles, is an entirely feasible device to neutralise a nest of terrorists even within a city and with relatively little collateral damage if it were detonated below ground. Erm...no! There would still be a large number of civilians killed or injured. It is not practical at all unless you want this 'collateral'. Nuclear weapons are not feasible at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Simple question. What has Stephen Gately dying got to do with all this, or indeed the price of fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.