West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Heinz on December 20, 2013, 08:16:09 AM
-
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/18/blind-man-who-survived-fall-onto-subway-tracks-may-have-to-give-up-guide-dog/
NEW YORK – The guide dog that leaped onto subway tracks after his blind owner lost consciousness and fell off a station platform is assured a loving home after his retirement.
Cecil Williams, who has been recovering at a hospital with Orlando still by his side, had been slated to get another working dog in January or February to replace the 11-year-old black Lab.
His medical benefits will cover a new guide dog, but won’t pay for a non-working dog.
Guiding Eyes, based in Yorktown Heights, provides working dogs for free but cannot cover retired dogs’ expenses.
“Orlando is my best buddy, he’s my pal,” Williams said Wednesday during a news conference at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center. “He takes me everywhere I need to go. He’s a very gentle gentleman.”
When word got out that Williams couldn’t afford to keep the black lab as a pet the donations began pouring in.
A pair of anonymous donors will cover all of Orlando’s expenses as he sails into retirement and remains by Williams’ side, 1010 WINS’ Gary Baumgarten reported.
“They told me that somebody was nice enough. So this is what I want to say. Christmas and the spirit of giving it exists here and it’s in New York,” Williams told CBS 2′s Jessica Schneider.
The black lab bravely leapt onto the tracks Tuesday morning after Williams, 61, lost consciousness and tumbled in front of an oncoming train at the 125th Street station.
Witnesses said Orlando began barking frantically and tried to stop Williams from falling from the platform.
“I tried to scream at him to come in because he was near the tracks and then he fell down to the tracks and he pulled the dog in with him and the train was approaching,” witness Ana Quinones said.
“We saw when he fell down to the tracks and his dog fell with him and everyone started freaking out,” said witness Danya Gutierez.
Orlando began nudging and licking his owner, trying to wake him and get him out of harm’s way. Witnesses called for help and the train’s motorman slowed his approach as Williams and Orlando lay in the trench between the rails.
“I yelled at him to stay down as train was coming in,” Quinones said.
“When the train came in, I screamed really loud, because I didn’t know what happened to him,” said Gutierez. “I thought he was hit.”
Both escaped serious injury when the train passed over them.
.
-
Animals sometimes have better behavior then us Human beings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFdvpmRS0_A
-
I'm not reading anything about how witnesses bravely banded together and rescued them by hand.
-
dogs are wack....who wants to walk a dog in the freezing cold or warm ass summer weather? and now many cities expect you to PICK UP IT'S POOP?
Get the fuck outta here.....go get a cat.
-
dogs are wack....who wants to walk a dog in the freezing cold or warm ass summer weather? and now many cities expect you to PICK UP IT'S POOP?
Get the fuck outta here.....go get a cat.
Sound advice for the blind. :laugh:
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
No it's not. You really want me to argue against zoophilia to the point where you can say "Hah, and the same goes for hoomooes!" (preferably in a British accent)? If you can't come up with something solid yourself I can't help you. I am against zoophilia and so are you, I presume. So I don't see the benefit in wasting my time on discussing it (Cause writing these textes is time-consuming, after all. For me, anyway). If someone truly would be in favor of it, I might argue against it. But you're just playing Devil's Advocate here to turn this around on me. Don't think so. Also wouldn't work :) The burden of proof is on you. Most basic scientific principle there is.
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
No it's not. You really want me to argue against zoophilia to the point where you can say "Hah, and the same goes for hoomooes!" (preferably in a British accent)? If you can't come up with something solid yourself I can't help you. I am against zoophilia and so are you, I presume. So I don't see the benefit in wasting my time on discussing it (Cause writing these textes is time-consuming, after all. For me, anyway). If someone truly would be in favor of it, I might argue against it. But you're just playing Devil's Advocate here to turn this around on me. Don't think so. Also wouldn't work :) The burden of proof is on you. Most basic scientific principle there is.
So it is a challenge!
oke. let me get my mind and time straight and I give you mine point of view.
By the way, although I agree with some of the other posters on the basis that we have the same religious point of view.
I don't necessary agree with them the way they attack you for not being spirtual.
I do value your input from your perspective. And respect your opinion.
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Yep.
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
No it's not. You really want me to argue against zoophilia to the point where you can say "Hah, and the same goes for hoomooes!" (preferably in a British accent)? If you can't come up with something solid yourself I can't help you. I am against zoophilia and so are you, I presume. So I don't see the benefit in wasting my time on discussing it (Cause writing these textes is time-consuming, after all. For me, anyway). If someone truly would be in favor of it, I might argue against it. But you're just playing Devil's Advocate here to turn this around on me. Don't think so. Also wouldn't work :) The burden of proof is on you. Most basic scientific principle there is.
So it is a challenge!
oke. let me get my mind and time straight and I give you mine point of view.
By the way, although I agree with some of the other posters on the basis that we have the same religious point of view.
I don't necessary agree with them the way they attack you for not being spirtual.
I do value your input from your perspective. And respect your opinion.
Okay, then. Now I'm expecting something good. :)
https://www.youtube.com/v/hCyl2XqGjlI
-
dogs are wack....who wants to walk a dog in the freezing cold or warm ass summer weather? and now many cities expect you to PICK UP IT'S POOP?
Get the fuck outta here.....go get a cat.
real fuckin spit tho
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
No it's not. You really want me to argue against zoophilia to the point where you can say "Hah, and the same goes for hoomooes!" (preferably in a British accent)? If you can't come up with something solid yourself I can't help you. I am against zoophilia and so are you, I presume. So I don't see the benefit in wasting my time on discussing it (Cause writing these textes is time-consuming, after all. For me, anyway). If someone truly would be in favor of it, I might argue against it. But you're just playing Devil's Advocate here to turn this around on me. Don't think so. Also wouldn't work :) The burden of proof is on you. Most basic scientific principle there is.
"there is no logical reason to be against it"
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
Are you saying that a man having sex with another man is just as low as a human having sex with a dog? If you said both were unnatural I would agree, but surely you can see the levels in lowness?
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
Are you saying that a man having sex with another man is just as low as a human having sex with a dog? If you said both were unnatural I would agree, but surely you can see the levels in lowness?
if the dog is consenting, whats the difference?
if its a female dog, it could be good, depending on whether the pussy's tight 8)
-
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
Why is that a low Fraxxx. If nobody gets hurt in the process and they don't bother you with it, who cares.
Or do we have got a norm? And if so, who decides these norms?
And how can they change?
That is a philosophical question my friend.
No it's not. You really want me to argue against zoophilia to the point where you can say "Hah, and the same goes for hoomooes!" (preferably in a British accent)? If you can't come up with something solid yourself I can't help you. I am against zoophilia and so are you, I presume. So I don't see the benefit in wasting my time on discussing it (Cause writing these textes is time-consuming, after all. For me, anyway). If someone truly would be in favor of it, I might argue against it. But you're just playing Devil's Advocate here to turn this around on me. Don't think so. Also wouldn't work :) The burden of proof is on you. Most basic scientific principle there is.
"there is no logical reason to be against it"
Who are you quoting? I definitely didn't say that regarding sex with animals.
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
If you now can also at least try to tell me HOW exactly you got me, I will gladly destroy your attempt to do so. *wink*
-
Justifying Beastiality and railing against Homosexuality... At least it's a step up from justifying Pedophilia and railing against Homosexuality.
-
dogs are wack....who wants to walk a dog in the freezing cold or warm ass summer weather? and now many cities expect you to PICK UP IT'S POOP?
Get the fuck outta here.....go get a cat.
Sound advice for the blind. :laugh:
no.
-
Justifying Beastiality and railing against Homosexuality... At least it's a step up from justifying Pedophilia and railing against Homosexuality.
SHOW ME WHERE IM JUSTIFYING BESTIALITY OR PEDOPHILIA?
WOULD U RATHER FUCK A MAN'S ASS OR A DOG'S PUSSY??
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
If you now can also at least try to tell me HOW exactly you got me, I will gladly destroy your attempt to do so. *wink*
WHY ARE U JUDGING PEOPLE WHO ENJOY BESTIALITY (KRAZY) IF IT DOESN'T HURT ANY1?
ACCORDING TO YOU, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON"
-
I could never buy/own a dog. All them porno's i seen would make it fucked up.
Soo... you mean to say that you watched many pornos involving dogs?
Soo... you mean to say that you are surprised about that (you know we are talking about Krazy, right?)
Well... I kind of... try to see the best in people and all that... I mean... dogs? That's a new low! :-\
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
If you now can also at least try to tell me HOW exactly you got me, I will gladly destroy your attempt to do so. *wink*
WHY ARE U JUDGING PEOPLE WHO ENJOY BESTIALITY (KRAZY) IF IT DOESN'T HURT ANY1?
ACCORDING TO YOU, "THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON"
I don't know how you come to this conclusion. Repeat it as often as you want but I still never made a case neither for nor against zoophilia. I doubted that the percentage of women that are happy with accidentally being mounted by a dog would be very high.
But that's similar to your claim I would have said 'natural' equaled 'acceptable'. Since I don't think that you're stupid, I must assume that you do this on purpose.
-
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT CAUSES NO ONE ANY HARM?
-
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT CAUSES NO ONE ANY HARM?
That was one point, yes. Consent was another one. Why would you assume that a such a vast majority of interspecies sexual encounters met the requirements that allowed to make the same point for zoophilia in principle.
And why the hell are we argueing this in the first place? Like I said before:
"So if you want someone to advocate the legalization of sex with animals you gotta go look somewhere else. It doesn't change the fact that you can't come up with anything reasonable against homosexuality in particular one bit."
-
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT CAUSES NO ONE ANY HARM?
That was one point, yes. Consent was another one. Why would you assume that a such a vast majority of interspecies sexual encounters met the requirements that allowed to make the same point for zoophilia in principle.
And why the hell are we argueing this in the first place? Like I said before:
"So if you want someone to advocate the legalization of sex with animals you gotta go look somewhere else. It doesn't change the fact that you can't come up with anything reasonable against homosexuality in particular one bit."
thats what i'm sayin, dogs consent to it all the time and theres no harm in it..."you cant come up with a reasonable argument against it"...in essence, you agree that it's okay for dogs to fuck human pussu. dont worry, i'm not here to judge.
-
dog pussy is tight
my chihuahuas are eternal.
-
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SAY THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT CAUSES NO ONE ANY HARM?
That was one point, yes. Consent was another one. Why would you assume that a such a vast majority of interspecies sexual encounters met the requirements that allowed to make the same point for zoophilia in principle.
And why the hell are we argueing this in the first place? Like I said before:
"So if you want someone to advocate the legalization of sex with animals you gotta go look somewhere else. It doesn't change the fact that you can't come up with anything reasonable against homosexuality in particular one bit."
thats what i'm sayin, dogs consent to it all the time and theres no harm in it..."you cant come up with a reasonable argument against it"...in essence, you agree that it's okay for dogs to fuck human pussu. dont worry, i'm not here to judge.
Reeewind!
a) "Why would you assume that such a vast majority of interspecies sexual encounters met the requirements that allowed to make the same point for zoophilia in principle?"
b) "Repeat it as often as you want but I still never made a case for or against zoophilia."
Cause only because you can't let go of the idea that homosexuality or more precisely male homosexuality *cough*hypocrite*cough* is basically the same as zoophilia, it doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden, somehow miraculously obligated to find cons against the latter. As if the hypothetical case that I couldn't, would mean you're automatically right about homosexuality. That wouldn't even be the case if you were right about the two being principally the same. Logical fallacy.
You made the claim, you'll still have to come up with something reasonable against homosexuality itself. Burden of proof. Unlike homosexuality, no backdoor to that principle.
And of course, the dog is not to blame then. The responsibility would more lay
-
Im not assuming anything, I'm just saying that if, according to you, homosexuality is ok because of no harm done and consent, then consensual dog sex falls under the same category... That is all.
-
SHOW ME WHERE IM JUSTIFYING BESTIALITY OR PEDOPHILIA?
WOULD U RATHER FUCK A MAN'S ASS OR A DOG'S PUSSY??
Refer to the other topic for your justification of Pedophilia.
As for Beastiality, here are your attempts at justifying it, when faced with comparing such an act to Homosexulaity
so watching bestiality is low, but gay porn is not? GOT U
"there is no logical reason to be against it"
if the dog is consenting, whats the difference?
if its a female dog, it could be good, depending on whether the pussy's tight 8)
If the dog is consenting... Wow. When has a dog ever consented anything? Has a dog ever consented that they'd like to have their balls chopped off? Has a dog ever consented to having to sleep outdoors? Dogs cannot consent. You are trying to argue against some real and true (2 adults of the same sex consenting to have sex with each other) with a fictitious reasoning.
As for your question: Neither. I don't find men attractive and I do not find any animal attractive. I'm only attracted to women.
I think you're a bit fascinated by a "dogs tight pussy" and a "man's ass" since those seem to be the terms you use in your arguments non-stop. Is that true?
-
They're consenting by getting n stayin hard up in some tight human pussy
If a dog is horny and a hoe bends over naked in front of him, he'd fuck the shit out that tight pussy
And I don't know whether youre really slow or if ur just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but I never justified anything.. I think dog sex and gay sex are both whack, that's the point. U the one trying to justify shit here, not me.
-
Dogs are a different, though. They're the result of man's god complex, created in our own image. ;D
Seriously, we are in particular responsible for what dogs are, so they are indeed a special case. I'm still confident that one can find enough points to argue against sex with them. Is anybody here in favor of sex with dogs? No? So why argue?
(http://memecrunch.com/meme/255EV/did-somebody-say/image.png)
-
:laugh:
Kinda disturbing but funny.
-
@ 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.
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.
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!!)
Now the other perspective:
The evolution point of view.
If we are truely evolved. It would make no sense to promote these behaviour.
Same Sex, does not produce children. So they drop out of the survival of the fittest game.
And the race would become weaker and weaker. That is a fact.
Gay men are fememin for most part, exception aside.
It a threat to the age old norm that you should have strong men in a nation to protect the nation in case of foreign threat, also part of the survival of the fittest game.
Strange enough... these evolutionist/atheist. Don't have these thinking.
Why? Because they think that, fucc it as long as there are gay men.. more women for me.
But this is short term thinking.
And scientists concluded that social behavior even in Bacteria is better then egoistic behavior.
Let us just focus on some human perspectives.
We have a couple criteria discussed.
- There has to be consent between two adults.
- It should be accepted as an norm.
- It is their feeling, they are born that way.
Well let us dissect that.
- The consent between adult.
If that is the case, then two adults with each other consent. Should get married.
If and Adult Sister and brother claim they love each other. It is with each others consent.
Should we also allow them to marry.
If a Adult mother and Adult Son claim the same. Why refuse that.
I will tell you why.
Because it is sexual deviation. It is not a norm and should not be promoted as a normal thing to do.
Why don't I educate your childeren that relations are also normal between brother and sister.
You would refuse that.
But why do we have to (I have no choice in this matter) educate my childern on gay sexuality.
It is ridiculous if you stop and think about it.
I enforce on you a deviant behaviour.. of a sexual minority.
- It is their feeling, they are born that way.
Let us broaden that aspect.
There are people who are really into nasty things. Like eating excrement and pissing on each other.
They "love" it.
(Off topic: we believe that Satan inspires people by giving them ideas... and he starts innocent.. and keeps expanding that till he totaly Corupts a human being.
Freud had the believe that all your ideas are your own. So if you got a bad idea, it must have come from your own desire. In our religion some thoughts are your own (that can also be bad ones)
and some thoughts can be inspired by the evil one. In a nutshell difference in atheistic and religious psychological thought)
Is the love that they have a reason to accept their behavior ( eating excrement and pissing on each other) as a norm.
Should we teach our children these sexual minority behaviour. in order to educate them that there are different humans being with different ideas.
And we should teach them tollerance to any kind of behaviour.
Here again if you just stand still and reflect, an intellegent guy as yourself should realize that there are lines that you can not cross.
Well these lines are not defined in a godless society. In The Holy scriptures, The Torah, Bible and the Quran the lines are drawn not by men. But by the Almighty creator.
Since he is all knowing and All wise. In the Quran G_D uses both in one sentence All Knowing and All wise.
Wisdom without knwoledge can lead to falshood.
Also Knowledge without wisdom lead to wrong decisions.
G_D is the ultimate Truth.
He is our creator, he created us, He knows what is the best guidlines.
If we think that Intellectuals who live for max 85 years know in such a small period Absolute truth and make decisions on what we should accept as a new norm.
But Since we in the west decided that we can make laws by ourselfs.
This means we decide the lines.
If tommorow the intellectuals will say that some other cases is the New Normal. Then the laws change with it.
I am sorry for this long text. But It try to explain my viewpoint the best way I can.
And in the end. G_d knows best.
-
@ 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.
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.
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!!)
Now the other perspective:
The evolution point of view.
If we are truely evolved. It would make no sense to promote these behaviour.
Same Sex, does not produce children. So they drop out of the survival of the fittest game.
And the race would become weaker and weaker. That is a fact.
Gay men are fememin for most part, exception aside.
It a threat to the age old norm that you should have strong men in a nation to protect the nation in case of foreign threat, also part of the survival of the fittest game.
Strange enough... these evolutionist/atheist. Don't have these thinking.
Why? Because they think that, fucc it as long as there are gay men.. more women for me.
But this is short term thinking.
And scientists concluded that social behavior even in Bacteria is better then egoistic behavior.
Let us just focus on some human perspectives.
We have a couple criteria discussed.
- There has to be consent between two adults.
- It should be accepted as an norm.
- It is their feeling, they are born that way.
Well let us dissect that.
- The consent between adult.
If that is the case, then two adults with each other consent. Should get married.
If and Adult Sister and brother claim they love each other. It is with each others consent.
Should we also allow them to marry.
If a Adult mother and Adult Son claim the same. Why refuse that.
I will tell you why.
Because it is sexual deviation. It is not a norm and should not be promoted as a normal thing to do.
Why don't I educate your childeren that relations are also normal between brother and sister.
You would refuse that.
But why do we have to (I have no choice in this matter) educate my childern on gay sexuality.
It is ridiculous if you stop and think about it.
I enforce on you a deviant behaviour.. of a sexual minority.
- It is their feeling, they are born that way.
Let us broaden that aspect.
There are people who are really into nasty things. Like eating excrement and pissing on each other.
They "love" it.
(Off topic: we believe that Satan inspires people by giving them ideas... and he starts innocent.. and keeps expanding that till he totaly Corupts a human being.
Freud had the believe that all your ideas are your own. So if you got a bad idea, it must have come from your own desire. In our religion some thoughts are your own (that can also be bad ones)
and some thoughts can be inspired by the evil one. In a nutshell difference in atheistic and religious psychological thought)
Is the love that they have a reason to accept their behavior ( eating excrement and pissing on each other) as a norm.
Should we teach our children these sexual minority behaviour. in order to educate them that there are different humans being with different ideas.
And we should teach them tollerance to any kind of behaviour.
Here again if you just stand still and reflect, an intellegent guy as yourself should realize that there are lines that you can not cross.
Well these lines are not defined in a godless society. In The Holy scriptures, The Torah, Bible and the Quran the lines are drawn not by men. But by the Almighty creator.
Since he is all knowing and All wise. In the Quran G_D uses both in one sentence All Knowing and All wise.
Wisdom without knwoledge can lead to falshood.
Also Knowledge without wisdom lead to wrong decisions.
G_D is the ultimate Truth.
He is our creator, he created us, He knows what is the best guidlines.
If we think that Intellectuals who live for max 85 years know in such a small period Absolute truth and make decisions on what we should accept as a new norm.
But Since we in the west decided that we can make laws by ourselfs.
This means we decide the lines.
If tommorow the intellectuals will say that some other cases is the New Normal. Then the laws change with it.
I am sorry for this long text. But It try to explain my viewpoint the best way I can.
And in the end. G_d knows best.
thank you
-
They're consenting by getting n stayin hard up in some tight human pussy
If a dog is horny and a hoe bends over naked in front of him, he'd fuck the shit out that tight pussy
And I don't know whether youre really slow or if ur just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but I never justified anything.. I think dog sex and gay sex are both whack, that's the point. U the one trying to justify shit here, not me.
Getting hard means they are stimulated, not consenting. You're attempting to prove how dogs consent to having sex with humans. You're attempting to justify beastiality. I don't know whether you're really slow or if your just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but you've attempted to justify that dogs having sex with humans is natural. I think you are desperately against Male Gay Sex, that's the point. You keep trying to justify the craziest shit, in attempts to prove how "gross" Gay Sex between 2 men is.
-
They're consenting by getting n stayin hard up in some tight human pussy
If a dog is horny and a hoe bends over naked in front of him, he'd fuck the shit out that tight pussy
And I don't know whether youre really slow or if ur just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but I never justified anything.. I think dog sex and gay sex are both whack, that's the point. U the one trying to justify shit here, not me.
Getting hard means they are stimulated, not consenting. You're attempting to prove how dogs consent to having sex with humans. You're attempting to justify beastiality. I don't know whether you're really slow or if your just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but you've attempted to justify that dogs having sex with humans is natural. I think you are desperately against Male Gay Sex, that's the point. You keep trying to justify the craziest shit, in attempts to prove how "gross" Gay Sex between 2 men is.
did u know that repeating what people say is a sign of autism? come up with your own shit loc
-
did u know that repeating what people say is a sign of autism? come up with your own shit loc
Did you know that what I'm doing is not repeating? Repeating means to speak words verbatim. So, while you're correct that Autistic people utilize a script and repeat situations over and over, what I'm doing, again, is not repeating. Come up with some correct shit, loc.
-
U do though.. U repeat what I say and switch words around to fit your side of the argument. Gayest debate tactic possible. :laugh:
-
U do though.. U repeat what I say and switch words around to fit your side of the argument. Gayest debate tactic possible. :laugh:
Actually, using incorrect or non-factual statements to argue is the "gayest" debate tactic possible and that's all you've done here.
I cannot repeat and switch words around. That is not repeating. Again, using incorrect statements to argue...
-
U do though.. U repeat what I say and switch words around to fit your side of the argument. Gayest debate tactic possible. :laugh:
Actually, using incorrect or non-factual statements to argue is the "gayest" debate tactic possible and that's all you've done here.
I cannot repeat and switch words around. That is not repeating. Again, using incorrect statements to argue...
what have i said that's "incorrect" or "non-factual"?? basically, ur just hurt that i dont agree with your views
funny guy
-
Are you serious? You've said Dogs Consent to human/animal sex. Dogs enjoy "tight pussy." You can't seem to understand what repeat means. I can go on. Basically, you're just not very smart and struggle making even a sensible argument. You don't have to agree with my views.
Funny guy.
-
Are you serious? You've said Dogs Consent to human/animal sex. Dogs enjoy "tight pussy." You can't seem to understand what repeat means. I can go on. Basically, you're just not very smart and struggle making even a sensible argument. You don't have to agree with my views.
Funny guy.
DOGS CONSENT TO SEX BY GETTING HARD AND POUNDING AWAY...NOTHING DUMB ABOUT THAT. DON'T TELL PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT SMART WHEN YOU COME OFF AS A SENSITIVE DOUCHE.. I SIMPLY DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS AND YOU SEEM TO BE SERIOUSLY HURT OVER THAT, SPEWING INSULTS AND ACTING BUTTHURT BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE THINKS HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL...TIME 2 HOP OFF N LOOK THE OTHER WAY.
-
DOGS CONSENT TO SEX BY GETTING HARD AND POUNDING AWAY...NOTHING DUMB ABOUT THAT. DON'T TELL PEOPLE THEY'RE NOT SMART WHEN YOU COME OFF AS A SENSITIVE DOUCHE.. I SIMPLY DONT AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS AND YOU SEEM TO BE SERIOUSLY HURT OVER THAT, SPEWING INSULTS AND ACTING BUTTHURT BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE THINKS HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL...TIME 2 HOP OFF N LOOK THE OTHER WAY.
So you've witness dogs "see tight pussy" and then "get hard and pound away?" Seems like you're making stuff up, not being factual, as usual. Don't call people a sensitive douche when you're the one who always finds away to take a conversation from civil to insults. See, when people don't agree with you, you find ways to insult them. Your feelings get hurt. You immediately resort to insults. Look at your record in every argument you have. So, when you're saying:
YOU SEEM TO BE SERIOUSLY HURT OVER THAT, SPEWING INSULTS AND ACTING BUTTHURT
You're actually talking about yourself.
Yeah... you're not smart.
-
You can't seem to understand what repeat means
funny guy
Funny guy.
AUTISTIC FSHEEZ
-
They're consenting by getting n stayin hard up in some tight human pussy
If a dog is horny and a hoe bends over naked in front of him, he'd fuck the shit out that tight pussy
And I don't know whether youre really slow or if ur just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but I never justified anything.. I think dog sex and gay sex are both whack, that's the point. U the one trying to justify shit here, not me.
Getting hard means they are stimulated, not consenting. You're attempting to prove how dogs consent to having sex with humans. You're attempting to justify beastiality. I don't know whether you're really slow or if your just pretending to be slow for sake of argument, but you've attempted to justify that dogs having sex with humans is natural. I think you are desperately against Male Gay Sex, that's the point. You keep trying to justify the craziest shit, in attempts to prove how "gross" Gay Sex between 2 men is.
did u know that repeating what people say is a sign of autism? come up with your own shit loc
Dumb fsheez
-
LOL
-
Nikky :-[
-
^lol@your post at da-sauce
-
^lol@your post at da-sauce
really I don't post there keep making shit up in your head weirdo
-
liar
-
liar
loser
-
DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....
-
DAFAQ? the pic i posted was supposed to be funny? why the fuck was it deleted?? lol....
what pic?
-
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.
-
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.
-
So how come the other pic wasn't deleted then? Just sayin.
-
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
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
this is one of the weirdest threads i have ever read. i dont think ill ever look at a dog the same :-*
-
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.
-
ANY NORMAL MAN WOULD PREFER TO WATCH A DOG FUCK TIGHT PUSSY OVER A GAY PORNO....I HOPE
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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
-
great apes also engage in incest and pedophilia
But is the pussy tight?
-
Pussy tighter than breath like 16
-
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.
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
why is it trolling? ur tryna justify homosexuality by claiming it takes place in nature, are u not?
The sentence right below my question was the answer to yours. Behold:
"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."
Seriously, can you tell the difference between your and my statement?
-
@ Fraxxx
example was never meant as an imitation of animal behaviour.
I am no scientist, but there is quite some study that dispel that myth
http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
If you believe that scientists are not truthfull when it comes to GMO but are truthful in their studies when they "research" Gay behavior. Well that is your take then.
But let me give you another example. In Europe... if you are Gay... you are not allowed to be a blooddonor.
Why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gay_Blood_Ban_Map.png
-
why is it trolling? ur tryna justify homosexuality by claiming it takes place in nature, are u not?
The sentence right below my question was the answer to yours. Behold:
"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."
Seriously, can you tell the difference between your and my statement?
so what does it matter if homosexuality takes place in nature if it's not a justification of the act? wasn't the whole point of your argument that homosexuality is morally okay?? in that case, you're talkin just to hear yourself.
-
I am no scientist, but there is quite some study that dispel that myth
http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
dope...theyre sayin the same thing as me