Author Topic: Man's best friend  (Read 1544 times)

K-MACC

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Karma: -773
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #50 on: February 03, 2014, 07:12:47 PM »
Nikky  :-[
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #51 on: February 03, 2014, 07:21:26 PM »
^lol@your post at da-sauce
 

K-MACC

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Karma: -773
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #52 on: February 03, 2014, 07:37:26 PM »
^lol@your post at da-sauce
really I don't post there keep making shit up in your head weirdo
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #53 on: February 03, 2014, 07:54:16 PM »
liar
 

K-MACC

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
  • Karma: -773
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #54 on: February 03, 2014, 08:34:16 PM »
 

KrazySumwhat

  • Guest
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2014, 09:30:47 PM »
DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #56 on: February 03, 2014, 10:54:13 PM »
DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....

what pic?
 

KrazySumwhat

  • Guest
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2014, 01:30:25 AM »
DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....

what pic?
Was just a Japanese girl laying on the ground, clothed out side playing with her cat, and you can see some of her panties, there's this little puppy behind her and it looked like it was looking up her skirt.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 03:33:32 AM by KrazySumwhat »
 

Aladin

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Karma: 10
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2014, 03:23:33 AM »

DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....


Because this is train of thought, if you want 2 post those picture there is plenty room in G-spot.

@ All, just a humble reminder this is TOT so let us respect each other and keep challenge each other on the subject matter.
So we all may benefit.
 

KrazySumwhat

  • Guest
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #59 on: February 04, 2014, 03:34:12 AM »
 So how come the other pic wasn't deleted then? Just sayin.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #60 on: February 04, 2014, 05:01:34 AM »
Some of you epitomise, the depraved nature of what is becoming more common place in society. If I see anyone posting photos alluding to, depicting or trivialising bestiality I will remove the photos. As to the mote serious point, you are a moral person Fraxx but societies bend and flex to suit the social norms. Whilst such things will always remain morally abhorrent to you, the larger masses become swayed by propaganda. Now contrast that with a religious belief, it becomes a standard bearer, ad aherence to, it won't change dependent on the week, month, year. The only time it changes is when the law declares that the religious belief falls foul of what the state wants to impose on the people. When an individual has no belief in a higher power, then there is nothing to adhere to save for their own value system and that, can change very quickly
 

Aladin

  • Muthafuckin' OG
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 488
  • Karma: 10
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #61 on: February 04, 2014, 07:42:41 AM »
Some of you epitomise, the depraved nature of what is becoming more common place in society. If I see anyone posting photos alluding to, depicting or trivialising bestiality I will remove the photos. As to the mote serious point, you are a moral person Fraxx but societies bend and flex to suit the social norms. Whilst such things will always remain morally abhorrent to you, the larger masses become swayed by propaganda. Now contrast that with a religious belief, it becomes a standard bearer, ad aherence to, it won't change dependent on the week, month, year. The only time it changes is when the law declares that the religious belief falls foul of what the state wants to impose on the people. When an individual has no belief in a higher power, then there is nothing to adhere to save for their own value system and that, can change very quickly

Good post. It took me a whole lot of text to essential say the same.
You just summarised it in a view sentences.  :)
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #62 on: February 04, 2014, 01:21:38 PM »
When an individual has no belief in a higher power, then there is nothing to adhere to save for their own value system and that, can change very quickly

booyeka
 

J. B A N A N A S

  • Bananas
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1091
  • Karma: 72
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #63 on: February 04, 2014, 03:05:51 PM »
When an individual has no belief in a higher power, then there is nothing to adhere to save for their own value system and that, can change very quickly

See atheists, without God you are liable to become a corrupt murderer.

Unlike us saved ones, who have never bent Christian values to support our outlook on life and behavior. Checkmate.
 

MUHFUKKA

Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #64 on: February 04, 2014, 03:35:01 PM »
this is one of the weirdest threads i have ever read. i dont think ill ever look at a dog the same :-*

The blood gang embraces Tupac as a member even if YOU dont.
 

Ghost Drebin

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Karma: 29
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #65 on: February 04, 2014, 04:03:26 PM »
this is one of the weirdest threads i have ever read. i dont think ill ever look at a dog the same :-*

Or tight pussy.  I'm scarred for life.
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #66 on: February 04, 2014, 04:23:38 PM »
ANY NORMAL MAN WOULD PREFER TO WATCH A DOG FUCK TIGHT PUSSY OVER A GAY PORNO....I HOPE
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #67 on: February 04, 2014, 04:26:42 PM »
Bananas the elite have always realised that belief in a higher power was going to be problematic if they were to ascend to god's, therefore with regards to your quip, I would suggest that you need only look at the fact that there is clear and present religious persecution going on, a demonising of believing in god so that they can pollute and pervert society to point to the fact that REGARDLESS of what you do or don't believe, the moral fabric has been largely held together by a belief in something greater than the power of the state and as for this libertarian bullshit, yes, in an ideal world we would have that, but the reality is that to ensure that new serenity would stay in place, local communities would insist that a council be elected to look after them and before you know it, you have local government all over again, and then the tentacles once again reach out.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 04:37:26 PM by virtuoso »
 

Fraxxx

Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2014, 01:55:28 PM »
Props for the detailed post!

@ Fraxxx

LOL, this thread has got a little off track.
Forget Dogs or animals.

First we have to differentiate between, Promoting and accepting Gay as the norm.
And what people do in the privacy of their home.
As I stated before, what people do in the privacy of their home is their choice (although it is a sin.)
We don't have the right to invade people's privacy.
The public... like any public is regultated by law.
We discuss the public aspect.



The problem with 'sin' is, that hardly two people could agree on what is sin and what's not entirely. Homosexuality, yes they agree, alcohol, they disagree. Or they agree on both but disagree on something else. Cause everyone's personal belief differs from the next man's. You get what I'm aiming at. Religious beliefs are is simply too subjective to be used as an argument. No matter what you would use it for or against in a discussion, there will always be another genuinly religious person who believes otherwise.



Quote

Our religious point of view  is in accordance with the natural moral norm:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, based on love and mutual understanding and made in order to give birth to children.



I'd strongly disagree. First off, 'the norm' is everything with a majority. A variation of anything obviously isn't automatically wrong. That would include A LOT more than homosexual behaviour. So you can't simply state what's the norm in a certain regard like it would take away the validity of varying behaviour/preferences by default.

As for your second point. Marriage ain't an invention of the monotheistic religions. I, personally, would agree on the "based on love and mutual understanding" part. Should be that way IMO. Others would disagree. There are countless marriages exactly NOT based on that. For example, to this day Islam has a strong tradition of marrying women against their will. Do you think those marriages are all not justified? I don't need to know what your answer to that is. Whatever your own perspective on the topic might be, it's just supposed to demonstrate that it's not as simple as claiming what marriage is. Mind you, solely in your personal opinion.

That would also mean that every marriage without kids were a very questionable liason.

Now, I don't see why your claim what marriage is, would hold any more weight in that last aspect, "between a man and a woman", when it costs no real effort to demonstrate that, in reality, neither of the other two is a real precondition.



Quote
And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.
My family had roosters and chickens. It is a shame that we lost touch with nature.
Now it is interesting to see the rooster behaviour.
The Boss-Rooster has his own chickens.
And the other roosters are forbidden to come close to them.
They get to choose between the left-over chickens.
Now there was a case that there was rooster who had different behaviour. He could not tell the difference between rooster and chickens.
And now this is the interesting part.
You know what all the other roosters did... they picked him to death....
I am not saying that we need to do the same and start picking men to death. We got baseball bats for that... (<-- It is  a joke!!)

LOL "What you got against gays?" "Baseball bats!"

Seriously, there is so much observable homosexual behaviour in so many other species, YOU PEOPLE ;) can't go and simply ignore that fact over and over again. Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim. There even might be an evolutional purpose, I'll save that for the next part.

As for the roosters, sorry but that's your interpretation of what happened there. Here's mine (in no way I claim that's how it went down but you can't just watch chicken do chicken stuff and then conclude what is acceptable or right for everyone that is not a chicken): Chicken live in a society defined by pecking order. Let's say that one rooster was really bisexual. Every attempt to engage with another rooster in a sexual fashion must have seemed like an attempt to dominate the other rooster. That one reacted as if challenged for its position in chicken hierarchy and all the other lower-ranked roosters joined in.

You know what that meant IF you were right? That chicken society is designed in a way that leaves no room for that kind of behaviour. But like I mentioned before, there are many, many other species that show different behaviour towards homosexual advances.



I'll definitely adress your other points later, gotta go now.

i don´t need any medicate shit im 100 normal.
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2014, 02:09:16 PM »
Props for the detailed post!

@ Fraxxx

LOL, this thread has got a little off track.
Forget Dogs or animals.

First we have to differentiate between, Promoting and accepting Gay as the norm.
And what people do in the privacy of their home.
As I stated before, what people do in the privacy of their home is their choice (although it is a sin.)
We don't have the right to invade people's privacy.
The public... like any public is regultated by law.
We discuss the public aspect.



The problem with 'sin' is, that hardly two people could agree on what is sin and what's not entirely. Homosexuality, yes they agree, alcohol, they disagree. Or they agree on both but disagree on something else. Cause everyone's personal belief differs from the next man's. You get what I'm aiming at. Religious beliefs are is simply too subjective to be used as an argument. No matter what you would use it for or against in a discussion, there will always be another genuinly religious person who believes otherwise.



Quote

Our religious point of view  is in accordance with the natural moral norm:
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, based on love and mutual understanding and made in order to give birth to children.



I'd strongly disagree. First off, 'the norm' is everything with a majority. A variation of anything obviously isn't automatically wrong. That would include A LOT more than homosexual behaviour. So you can't simply state what's the norm in a certain regard like it would take away the validity of varying behaviour/preferences by default.

As for your second point. Marriage ain't an invention of the monotheistic religions. I, personally, would agree on the "based on love and mutual understanding" part. Should be that way IMO. Others would disagree. There are countless marriages exactly NOT based on that. For example, to this day Islam has a strong tradition of marrying women against their will. Do you think those marriages are all not justified? I don't need to know what your answer to that is. Whatever your own perspective on the topic might be, it's just supposed to demonstrate that it's not as simple as claiming what marriage is. Mind you, solely in your personal opinion.

That would also mean that every marriage without kids were a very questionable liason.

Now, I don't see why your claim what marriage is, would hold any more weight in that last aspect, "between a man and a woman", when it costs no real effort to demonstrate that, in reality, neither of the other two is a real precondition.



Quote
And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.
My family had roosters and chickens. It is a shame that we lost touch with nature.
Now it is interesting to see the rooster behaviour.
The Boss-Rooster has his own chickens.
And the other roosters are forbidden to come close to them.
They get to choose between the left-over chickens.
Now there was a case that there was rooster who had different behaviour. He could not tell the difference between rooster and chickens.
And now this is the interesting part.
You know what all the other roosters did... they picked him to death....
I am not saying that we need to do the same and start picking men to death. We got baseball bats for that... (<-- It is  a joke!!)

LOL "What you got against gays?" "Baseball bats!"

Seriously, there is so much observable homosexual behaviour in so many other species, YOU PEOPLE ;) can't go and simply ignore that fact over and over again. Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim. There even might be an evolutional purpose, I'll save that for the next part.

As for the roosters, sorry but that's your interpretation of what happened there. Here's mine (in no way I claim that's how it went down but you can't just watch chicken do chicken stuff and then conclude what is acceptable or right for everyone that is not a chicken): Chicken live in a society defined by pecking order. Let's say that one rooster was really bisexual. Every attempt to engage with another rooster in a sexual fashion must have seemed like an attempt to dominate the other rooster. That one reacted as if challenged for its position in chicken hierarchy and all the other lower-ranked roosters joined in.

You know what that meant IF you were right? That chicken society is designed in a way that leaves no room for that kind of behaviour. But like I mentioned before, there are many, many other species that show different behaviour towards homosexual advances.



I'll definitely adress your other points later, gotta go now.



great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia
 

Ghost Drebin

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 720
  • Karma: 29
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #70 on: February 05, 2014, 02:35:35 PM »

great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia

But is the pussy tight?
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #71 on: February 05, 2014, 02:43:46 PM »
Pussy tighter than breath like 16
 

Fraxxx

Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #72 on: February 06, 2014, 03:52:31 AM »

And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.


Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim.


great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia
 

At this point I'd say you're trolling.

Quote
I try one more time cause it's not that hard to understand, after all. Sadly enough, I already wrote all of this more than one time.

"I never said that it's okay, cause it's natural. I just disproved your claim of homosexuality being unnatural and therefore wrong. You wanted to make that a disqualifier not the other way around."

You get the principle, don't you? If you don't understand this, you should have said so the first time I wrote it. Do you want me to explain it some more?

i don´t need any medicate shit im 100 normal.
 

Sccit

  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24659
  • Thanked: 239 times
  • Karma: 155
  • אליאור
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2014, 10:54:39 AM »

And it is natural law. Don't get it twisted.


Just for example, all the other great apes engage in homosexual activity, as well. So there goes your "natural law" claim.


great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia
 

At this point I'd say you're trolling.




why is it trolling? ur tryna justify homosexuality by claiming it takes place in nature, are u not?
 

Jack Trippa 3z company ho

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
  • Karma: 24
Re: Man's best friend
« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2014, 08:09:10 PM »
Good for you virtuoso. This little fuck needs his creepy ass beat for real. Keep your depraved shit in your own threads where normal people can avoid it. The fact you're allowed to post on this site is enough to make me not want to. I'm almost always opposed to bannings, but this degenerate gets off on posting shit that he knows normal people are thoroughly disgusted by. Anybody defending this punk needs to re-gauge your moral compass for real.

Little advice for you, creep: take your ass outside and get some exercise which will exorcise the demons which have taken hold of you. You're neck deep in satan's grasp son. I pray God has mercy on you.