Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sweepa

Muslim Riots and calls for Deportation!

Recommended Posts

I swear posts by Chappy, pyro and Dr. Cranium are the only thing saving me from banging my head on my desk when I read this thread. There is hope yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, Gay marriage hurts nobody, but 1st century belief systems over take logic even in this day and age.

 

This.

 

Straights and gays are both covered by de-facto relationship laws, so effectively they already have the same rights as married couples in relation to tax and asset splitting on separation. Who gives a sh*t if they sit through a boring ceremony and wear a ring on their fourth-left finger.

 

The area of exception is IVF. Whilst straights and gays can both adopt children, only straights/male-female-couples can opt for In Vitrio Fertilization. This part I agree with.

Children raised by gay couples will have a tough time due to their circumstances being unusual and not necessarily accepted by the community, but it's better that children be adopted by gay couples than not adopted at all. However, IVF is a solution for reproductive problems, and preferring not to mate with the opposite gender [as nature requires] is NOT a reproductive problem. Enjoying the experience has never been integral to the breeding process, although it's a welcome bonus.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear posts by Chappy, pyro and Dr. Cranium are the only thing saving me from banging my head on my desk when I read this thread. There is hope yet!

 

brown nosing doesn't get u far buddy. try banging ur head on a wall ;)

 

In the end, Gay marriage hurts nobody, but 1st century belief systems over take logic even in this day and age.

 

This.

 

Straights and gays are both covered by de-facto relationship laws, so effectively they already have the same rights as married couples in relation to tax and asset splitting on separation. Who gives a sh*t if they sit through a boring ceremony and wear a ring on their fourth-left finger.

 

The area of exception is IVF. Whilst straights and gays can both adopt children, only straights/male-female-couples can opt for In Vitrio Fertilization. This part I agree with.

Children raised by gay couples will have a tough time due to their circumstances being unusual and not necessarily accepted by the community, but it's better that children be adopted by gay couples than not adopted at all. However, IVF is a solution for reproductive problems, and preferring not to mate with the opposite gender [as nature requires] is NOT a reproductive problem. Enjoying the experience has never been integral to the breeding process, although it's a welcome bonus.

 

some will say "NO, ur wrong, and insist their opinion on you.

but i say that ur entitled to your own opinion.

i do agree with the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, Gay marriage hurts nobody, but 1st century belief systems over take logic even in this day and age.

 

This.

 

Straights and gays are both covered by de-facto relationship laws, so effectively they already have the same rights as married couples in relation to tax and asset splitting on separation. Who gives a sh*t if they sit through a boring ceremony and wear a ring on their fourth-left finger.

 

The area of exception is IVF. Whilst straights and gays can both adopt children, only straights/male-female-couples can opt for In Vitrio Fertilization. This part I agree with.

Children raised by gay couples will have a tough time due to their circumstances being unusual and not necessarily accepted by the community, but it's better that children be adopted by gay couples than not adopted at all. However, IVF is a solution for reproductive problems, and preferring not to mate with the opposite gender [as nature requires] is NOT a reproductive problem. Enjoying the experience has never been integral to the breeding process, although it's a welcome bonus.

 

 

There was a recent article I read (but I can't find it right now) that stated that we are very close to being able to manufacture in a sense sperm cells and eggs from any human. i.e. If you had 2 males you could create a sperm and an egg from their cells and create a biological child of two same sex parents. Same goes for 2 females. This isn't actually all that crazy we all start off basically female and we diverge sexually as we develop in the womb. Male and female bodies are analogus to one another and the cells to create a sperm or an egg aren't confined to one sex or the other.

 

Where would you stand on that if that technology became cheap and viable, could two same sex parents have their own biological child that way? (Privately funded of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, Gay marriage hurts nobody, but 1st century belief systems over take logic even in this day and age.

 

This.

 

Straights and gays are both covered by de-facto relationship laws, so effectively they already have the same rights as married couples in relation to tax and asset splitting on separation. Who gives a sh*t if they sit through a boring ceremony and wear a ring on their fourth-left finger.

 

The area of exception is IVF. Whilst straights and gays can both adopt children, only straights/male-female-couples can opt for In Vitrio Fertilization. This part I agree with.

Children raised by gay couples will have a tough time due to their circumstances being unusual and not necessarily accepted by the community, but it's better that children be adopted by gay couples than not adopted at all. However, IVF is a solution for reproductive problems, and preferring not to mate with the opposite gender [as nature requires] is NOT a reproductive problem. Enjoying the experience has never been integral to the breeding process, although it's a welcome bonus.

 

 

There was a recent article I read (but I can't find it right now) that stated that we are very close to being able to manufacture in a sense sperm cells and eggs from any human. i.e. If you had 2 males you could create a sperm and an egg from their cells and create a biological child of two same sex parents. Same goes for 2 females. This isn't actually all that crazy we all start off basically female and we diverge sexually as we develop in the womb. Male and female bodies are analogus to one another and the cells to create a sperm or an egg aren't confined to one sex or the other.

 

Where would you stand on that if that technology became cheap and viable, could two same sex parents have their own biological child that way? (Privately funded of course)

 

I doubt the church would ever let it happen, in the same way they put stem cell research back 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the issue of gay marriage isn’t so much about gay marriage, it’s about the fundamental principles and ideals of a truly free and democratic society. A society where people are free to make their own choices as to how they live their lives so long as those choices aren’t harming others or infringing upon others rights to make their own lifestyle choices.

 

If government wants to step in and try and ban something or take away the freedoms of a certain group of individuals then they better have a bloody good reason for doing so, a reason based in fact and evidence, one where they can prove said choices are causing harm to others.

 

Simply pandering to the prejudices of narrow minded or ill informed people just to win votes, political donations or cushy job offers for a life after politics is just not good enough and we should be holding our law makers to a higher standard.

 

So even if you think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong, you should still be supportive of their right to choose and standing up for the underlying principles upon which a free society is based. Not doing so and falling into the business of telling others how they should live is a very slippery slope.

 

 

First they came for the Communists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews

And I did not speak out

Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me

And there was no one left

To speak out for me

Edited by sweepa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is far too hyprocritical..

 

you guys rag on religious people because they are all against gay marriage and you believe everyone should have a choice to do and believe what they want, but the few religious people that have come in here have been chastised about the way they want to live their life??

 

you support people being gay and choosing to want to get married, but you're against the exact same people choosing to believe in a man in a white coat that lives in a land of clouds??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is far too hyprocritical..

 

you guys rag on religious people because they are all against gay marriage and you believe everyone should have a choice to do and believe what they want, but the few religious people that have come in here have been chastised about the way they want to live their life??

 

you support people being gay and choosing to want to get married, but you're against the exact same people choosing to believe in a man in a white coat that lives in a land of clouds??

There is a big difference between calling somebody out for talking bullshit and supporting a law that makes it illegal for gays to marry.

Nobody is demanding that these people be banned from worshipping their magical cloud Santa.

 

Furthermore people get called out all the time on this forum for talking bullshit about cars. Please tell me how calling somebody out on their bullshit claims about how the world works is any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is far too hyprocritical..

 

you guys rag on religious people because they are all against gay marriage and you believe everyone should have a choice to do and believe what they want, but the few religious people that have come in here have been chastised about the way they want to live their life??

 

you support people being gay and choosing to want to get married, but you're against the exact same people choosing to believe in a man in a white coat that lives in a land of clouds??

 

I was hoping someone would try and make that argument :D

 

We're not being hypocritical at all, to quote myself...

 

it’s about the fundamental principles and ideals of a truly free and democratic society. A society where people are free to make their own choices as to how they live their lives so long as those choices aren't harming others or infringing upon others rights to make their own lifestyle choices.

 

just to reiterate

Your free to make your own choices so long as those choices don't cause harm or infringe upon others rights to make their own lifestyle choices.

 

And harming others and infringing on others rights to make their own lifestyle choices is something that organized religions do in spades.

From wars to suicide bombings, setting back science and medical research by decades to influencing laws on social issues, trying to censor what people can watch/read/say/listen too, the treating of women as second class citizens and the indoctrination of children. The list just goes on and on and on.

 

Got dragged to a christening on the weekend and damn what a horrifying experience it was. Now that I'm much older and having studied things like sales and marketing extensively (and it's associated areas such as psychology, anthropology, NLP, body language etc), it was easy to spot the manipulative tactics (such as the constant positive reaffirmations and the "get them saying yes" tactics to name a couple) the church uses to indoctrinate young impressionable minds who have yet to learn to be skeptical of what adults tell them. it was paramount to brainwashing. I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong.

 

I challenge anyone to prove that gays getting married causes harm or infringes upon others rights to make their own lifestyle choices. It doesn't hurt anyone. Religion on the other hand....

Edited by sweepa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

 

There was a recent article I read (but I can't find it right now) that stated that we are very close to being able to manufacture in a sense sperm cells and eggs from any human. i.e. If you had 2 males you could create a sperm and an egg from their cells and create a biological child of two same sex parents. Same goes for 2 females. This isn't actually all that crazy we all start off basically female and we diverge sexually as we develop in the womb. Male and female bodies are analogus to one another and the cells to create a sperm or an egg aren't confined to one sex or the other.

 

Where would you stand on that if that technology became cheap and viable, could two same sex parents have their own biological child that way? (Privately funded of course)

I'd encourage the research, but I wouldn't support its implementation unless it were to address a real problem our species were facing.

The happiness of a few homosexuals pales in comparison to the risk presented [by adding an unnatural element to the gene pool] in relation to changes in disease resistance, introduction of ailments, deformation, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

 

There was a recent article I read (but I can't find it right now) that stated that we are very close to being able to manufacture in a sense sperm cells and eggs from any human. i.e. If you had 2 males you could create a sperm and an egg from their cells and create a biological child of two same sex parents. Same goes for 2 females. This isn't actually all that crazy we all start off basically female and we diverge sexually as we develop in the womb. Male and female bodies are analogus to one another and the cells to create a sperm or an egg aren't confined to one sex or the other.

 

Where would you stand on that if that technology became cheap and viable, could two same sex parents have their own biological child that way? (Privately funded of course)

I'd encourage the research, but I wouldn't support its implementation unless it were to address a real problem our species were facing.

The happiness of a few homosexuals pales in comparison to the risk presented [by adding an unnatural element to the gene pool] in relation to changes in disease resistance, introduction of ailments, deformation, etc.

 

I don't believe there would be any risks. As long as the sperm and ovum are properly formed and the DNA is intact. Though I'm not a biologist/geneticist. I think the biggest risk would be gene/dna damage in the sperm/ovum, but I'm pretty sure that can easily be screened for.

 

The big advantage of this tech would go to injured people, infertile people, people maimed in war, etc. I've gone a fair bit off topic here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

 

There was a recent article I read (but I can't find it right now) that stated that we are very close to being able to manufacture in a sense sperm cells and eggs from any human. i.e. If you had 2 males you could create a sperm and an egg from their cells and create a biological child of two same sex parents. Same goes for 2 females. This isn't actually all that crazy we all start off basically female and we diverge sexually as we develop in the womb. Male and female bodies are analogus to one another and the cells to create a sperm or an egg aren't confined to one sex or the other.

 

Where would you stand on that if that technology became cheap and viable, could two same sex parents have their own biological child that way? (Privately funded of course)

I'd encourage the research, but I wouldn't support its implementation unless it were to address a real problem our species were facing.

The happiness of a few homosexuals pales in comparison to the risk presented [by adding an unnatural element to the gene pool] in relation to changes in disease resistance, introduction of ailments, deformation, etc.

 

I don't believe there would be any risks. As long as the sperm and ovum are properly formed and the DNA is intact. Though I'm not a biologist/geneticist. I think the biggest risk would be gene/dna damage in the sperm/ovum, but I'm pretty sure that can easily be screened for.

 

The big advantage of this tech would go to injured people, infertile people, people maimed in war, etc. I've gone a fair bit off topic here.

 

I can't see it being any riskier than IVF. We are doing similar with stem cells these days, chopping and changing them to form various cell types., i think this years nobel prize winner was researching something like this.

 

It is an ethical minefield though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to me I don't think we should hurt anyone about their believes and their religion. But in this movie some crappy people trying to hit them on their religion for the sake of money or whatever. I am not protecting them but I am just saying that personally i feel its wrong because they have their own religious rights. If we are superpower then we don't have right to cross anyone religious rights and hurt their believes. Because of a single person we have become bad in the eyes of billions Muslims in all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to me I don't think we should hurt anyone about their believes and their religion. But in this movie some crappy people trying to hit them on their religion for the sake of money or whatever. I am not protecting them but I am just saying that personally i feel its wrong because they have their own religious rights. If we are superpower then we don't have right to cross anyone religious rights and hurt their believes. Because of a single person we have become bad in the eyes of billions Muslims in all over the world.

 

Well according to me, you don't know what "religious rights" means.

 

Furthermore, who gives a toss if we "become bad in the eyes of billions of Muslims". Remember those planes that crashed, and those train bombings? Muslims.

But don't worry my Muslim friend, as they only kill infidels and Muslims who happen to be eating in the same cafe as Infidels.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear posts by Chappy, pyro and Dr. Cranium are the only thing saving me from banging my head on my desk when I read this thread. There is hope yet!

 

brown nosing doesn't get u far buddy. try banging ur head on a wall wink.png

 

AAAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to me I don't think we should hurt anyone about their believes and their religion. But in this movie some crappy people trying to hit them on their religion for the sake of money or whatever. I am not protecting them but I am just saying that personally i feel its wrong because they have their own religious rights. If we are superpower then we don't have right to cross anyone religious rights and hurt their believes. Because of a single person we have become bad in the eyes of billions Muslims in all over the world.

 

Well according to me, you don't know what "religious rights" means.

 

Furthermore, who gives a toss if we "become bad in the eyes of billions of Muslims". Remember those planes that crashed, and those train bombings? Muslims.

But don't worry my Muslim friend, as they only kill infidels and Muslims who happen to be eating in the same cafe as Infidels.

 

remember that white dude with the famous mo who gassed millions of jews?? or even more recently that white dude that shot and killed like 70 students who were trapped on an island?? OR the white dude who shot and killed like 12 people??

 

White people have done terrible things as well man, its not fair to discriminate against all because of the acts of a few..

Edited by harris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear posts by Chappy, pyro and Dr. Cranium are the only thing saving me from banging my head on my desk when I read this thread. There is hope yet!

 

brown nosing doesn't get u far buddy. try banging ur head on a wall wink.png

 

AAAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

 

Lol that was ages ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to me I don't think we should hurt anyone about their believes and their religion. But in this movie some crappy people trying to hit them on their religion for the sake of money or whatever. I am not protecting them but I am just saying that personally i feel its wrong because they have their own religious rights. If we are superpower then we don't have right to cross anyone religious rights and hurt their believes. Because of a single person we have become bad in the eyes of billions Muslims in all over the world.

 

Well according to me, you don't know what "religious rights" means.

 

Furthermore, who gives a toss if we "become bad in the eyes of billions of Muslims". Remember those planes that crashed, and those train bombings? Muslims.

But don't worry my Muslim friend, as they only kill infidels and Muslims who happen to be eating in the same cafe as Infidels.

 

remember that white dude with the famous mo who gassed millions of jews?? or even more recently that white dude that shot and killed like 70 students who were trapped on an island?? OR the white dude who shot and killed like 12 people??

 

White people have done terrible things as well man, its not fair to discriminate against all because of the acts of a few..

 

Great job of missing the point.

 

Point:

  • The Islamic extremists and fundamentalist Muslims already think badly of us
  • 911 and the London bombings support the notion that "Muslims think badly of us"
  • Who cares if extra things make them think badly of us, since they already think badly of us
  • Bruce14 sounds like a Muslim moonlighting as an unbiased party with zero posts, so I felt like calling him out in way which clearly didn't strike a chord with your sense of humour

As for the rest of your point... what was the issue? I made a clear distinction between the thing I was supposed to be writing about in that paragraph (Muslims), the things that weren't relevant to what I was writing about (white hate crimes, sandwiches, dinosaurs, etc), and then wrote about the thing I was supposed to write about.

 

It's great that you want to have a wank about how bad white people have been over the years - and let's face it we've got a fairly spectacular history of war and violence - but I just don't see how it was related to the topic. Would you like me to mention bestiality or something next time? Spice the sentance up a little? ;)

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus man, im not 'having a wank' over how bad white people have been, im simply pointing out that you are grouping a whole religion together as 'islamic extremists that want to kill all infidels' based on the actions of a few muslims.. which would be the same as thinking that all white people want to kill everyone because a few white people have killed a few other white people in the past.. It DEFINITELY relates to what you said, i have no idea why you felt you needed to mention bestiality and dinosaurs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm beastyality...

 

For sure there's just as many Australian extremists as there are muslim extremists ay? .... I think not so it's not really judging on a small group of Muslims, it's quite a f**king large 'few'

 

However no single person should be judged based on race/religion. I do know I'm f**king sick to death of getting f**king ripped off my sudenese 'spelling' taxi drivers in perth. What's with their beird to? They all look like Bin laden. Two weeks of 4 taxis a day and not one single Australian/Caucasian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus man, im not 'having a wank' over how bad white people have been. im simply pointing out that you are grouping a whole religion together as 'islamic extremists that want to kill all infidels' based on the actions of a few muslims..

I opened with the line "The Islamic extremists and fundamentalist Muslims already think badly of us". What made you think I was talking about the passive ones?

 

The wank comment was just me poking fun at your unrelated and overly PC reply. Reminds me of discussions with hipsters, not that I'm suggesting you're one of them.

 

which would be the same as thinking that all white people want to kill everyone because a few white people have killed a few other white people in the past.. It DEFINITELY relates to what you said

Well that's a point of opinion. I thought I wrote content to the effect that "the dangerous Muslims already hate us enough to kill, so it really can't get worse, and who cares if the passive ones get upset", but you seem to have an entirely different take on the exact same words.

 

i have no idea why you felt you needed to mention bestiality and dinosaurs..

Doesn't seem like Off-Topic without at least one goat-f**king joke. :(

 

I have a dry sense of humour. To explain the joke, my unrelated examples were both a contrast to your comment I considered unrelated, as well as the primary definition of the word 'discriminate', which has nothing to do with race and simply means to distinguish between things.

Edited by pmod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm beastyality...

 

For sure there's just as many Australian extremists as there are muslim extremists ay? .... I think not so it's not really judging on a small group of Muslims, it's quite a f**king large 'few'

 

However no single person should be judged based on race/religion. I do know I'm f**king sick to death of getting f**king ripped off my sudenese 'spelling' taxi drivers in perth. What's with their beird to? They all look like Bin laden. Two weeks of 4 taxis a day and not one single Australian/Caucasian.

 

They're not Sudanese ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However no single person should be judged based on race/religion.

 

Not race, but religion, yes. Ideas of anti-discrimination usually only apply to things that you cannot choose freely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×