ashmanpolo:


Only eediots talk like u. Ϋя problem is dat u don't know anything, yet u don't know dat u don't know. Bastard local champion coming here †Φ argue trash. *just passing*

Shut up, person!

Dumb arsse foool with the intellect of a rat thinking he is superior to human beings that are mostly sharper than him but are just unlucky to be poor in a country of fucktards like him in power.

Sagamite:

You are dumb!

1) You used an exception/a minority case to defend and be the centre piece of your an argument. That is plainly saying it is the norm. If I said women are physically stronger than men because I know some women are stronger than men, then I have daftly (like you) made useless exceptions the centrepiece of my argument.

2) This just shows how moronic you are. Sexually frustrated people doing desperate things are not gay or bi. I told you you were dumb.

3) Cretin. They are different but under the same umbrella when generically judged: http://thesaurus.com/browse/liberal?s=t That is why your daft arse did not ask me if I was a progressive. https://www.nairaland.com/1072447/could-atheism-considered-gay-religion/4#12575678

You are a person.

Your intellect is below my feet.

Epic fail


1) I never implied or said it was the norm. Strawman. I twas never central to my argument. Fail.

2) There are prisoners that dont engage in such acts. Masturbation or celibacy. A man has to be gay to think of another man's azz. There are priests that have sex with nuns and there are those that have with young boys. Sexual frustration can not turn you gay. Unless your argument is that sexual frustration turned priests into pedophiles

3) Lies. You mention liberals and thats why I asked you if you were liberal.

Furthermore, saying that they are under the same umbrella is a meaningless statement. It would be like saying Islam and christianity are under the same umbrella which can be both true and false.

Cyberspace is not the place to demonstrated "academic" arguments like "There is no smoke without fire" as your proofing system.[/quote]


Now read this comment again and justify ur grammar. Educated illiterate. This is the umpteenth time you are making an erratic statement here. Biiizaaga

Logicboy03:

Epic fail


1) I never implied or said it was the norm. Strawman. I twas never central to my argument. Fail.

2) There are prisoners that dont engage in such acts. Masturbation or celibacy. A man has to be gay to think of another man's azz. There are priests that have sex with nuns and there are those that have with young boys. Sexual frustration can not turn you gay. Unless your argument is that sexual frustration turned priests into pedophiles

3) Lies. You mention liberals and thats why I asked you if you were liberal.

Furthermore, saying that they are under the same umbrella is a meaningless statement. It would be like saying Islam and christianity are under the same umbrella which can be both true and false.

1) You are a fool, it was central to your arguments.

2) You are a person! It is common sense that not all prisoners that engage in homosexual sex in prisons are gay or bi. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html#_1_26

"This terminology is deceptive, however, in that it ignores the fact that the vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman.". Fcking mooron!

3) You are a fuckard! So why did you not ask me if I was a progressive or a liberal? Why did you ask if I was a conservative or liberal? Fooooooool.

This is the same moooron that does not know the difference between being gay and demonstrating gay behaviours.

Your intellect is below my feet. And stop the poor analogy. It is just a sign you are dumb as I said.

ashmanpolo:
Cyberspace is not the place to demonstrated "academic" arguments like "There is no smoke without fire" as your proofing system.


Now read this comment again and justify ur grammar. Educated illiterate. This is the umpteenth time you are making an erratic statement here. Biiizaaga

Shut the fck up, cretin!

I'll just logically deduce right now that this guy has a natural head ache

Sagamite:

1) You are a fool, it was central to your arguments.

2) You are a person! It is common sense that not all prisoners that engage in homosexual sex in prisons are gay or bi. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html#_1_26

"This terminology is deceptive, however, in that it ignores the fact that the vast majority of prison rapists do not view themselves as gay. Rather, most such rapists view themselves as heterosexuals and see the victim as substituting for a woman.". Fcking mooron!

3) You are a fuckard! So why did you not ask me if I was a progressive or a liberal? Why did you ask if I was a conservative or liberal? Fooooooool.

This is the same moooron that does not know the difference between being gay and demonstrating gay behaviours.

Your intellect is below my feet. And stop the poor analogy. It is just a sign you are dumb as I said.



Shut the fck up, cretin!

1) Straw man. It was not central to my argument.

2) Osama did not believe that he was a terrorist, rather he believed that he was a man of god. So because a prisoner that engages himself in gay sex doesnt believe that he is gay, he is no more gay?

lol....if you engage in gay sex, you are gay or bisexual. Simple logic.

3) Lies. You mentioned something about liberal atheists and that is why I asked you if you were an atheist.



Keep exploding with the insults to cover your epic fails

Logicboy03:


1) Straw man. It was not central to my argument.

2) Osama did not believe that he was a terrorist, rather he believed that he was a man of god. So because a prisoner that engages himself in gay sex doesnt believe that he is gay, he is no more gay?

lol....if you engage in gay sex, you are gay or bisexual. Simple logic.

3) Lies. You mentioned something about liberal atheists and that is why I asked you if you were an atheist.


Keep exploding with the insults to cover your epic fails

1) You are foool. I said people engage in gay sex in prisons are not gay. Your dumb arsse says if they do, they are gay because they can have conjugal visits or self-service. Cretin, that is a central argument.

2) You are a person! It is common sense that sexually frustrated animals (including humans) engage in any available sexual activity. Saying a prisoner that is locked up and decides to use a man as a substitute for a woman is gay shows how dumb you are. As I said, I don't call people names they do not deserve. You are a cretin!

3) Here are the facts, cretin: https://www.nairaland.com/1072447/could-atheism-considered-gay-religion/4#12575678 Why did you not ask me "Are you a progressive? If you can throw "liberal" around, you should know what a progressive is"? Your dumb arsse knew that progressive generally falls under liberal?

You are a person!

I will slaughter you anyday!

ashmanpolo: I'll just logically deduce right now that this guy has a natural head ache

I said shut up, person!

wiegraf: @f00028
You're making this very hard for me. You've actually made me agree with His Fucktardness. You say wiegraf is abusive then you quote him? You willing to accept your hypocrisy?

When you're being a moro.n and I point out you're being one, that's not abusive (maybe a little, but you're asking for it).

listen you sanctimonious piece of *** if you dont know the meaning of the word, abusive, look it up.
the only reason why i dont get into a pointless name calling match with you is, quite frankly, i dont feel like it. though i usually make an exception in the case of that poster boy for imbecil!ty, sagamouse.

and condescension doesn't really make you superior it just means you're a pretentious blowhard.

wiegraf:
If you don't understand at least the basics of an argument, try to stay away from it. Like just now with 'the smoke without fire' thing.

how i choose to push that blaady ajegunle motorpark debater's button is not your concern.

[quote author=Sagamite]

1) You are foool.

U go fear grammar na

Sagamite:

1) You are foool. I said people engage in gay sex in prisons are not gay. Your dumb arsse says if they do, they are gay because they can have conjugal visits or self-service. Cretin, that is a central argument.

Yes, so how did you reach from there all the way to claiming that I said that conjugal visits are the norm? Fail....epic fail.

How is conjugal visits being the norm even central to my argument when it is not even what I said?

Sagamite:
2) You are a person! It is common sense that sexually frustrated animals (including humans) engage in any available sexual activity. Saying a prisoner that is locked up and decides to use a man as a substitute for a woman is gay shows how dumb you are. As I said, I don't call people names they do not deserve. You are a cretin!

lets flip your argument. If a sexually frustrated priest (because of celibacy) has sex with a pre-teen boy, the priest is not a pedophile because of sexual frustration?


Sagamite, you have just been pwned.

Sagamite:
3) Here are the facts, cretin: https://www.nairaland.com/1072447/could-atheism-considered-gay-religion/4#12575678 Why did you not ask me "Are you a progressive? If you can throw "liberal" around, you should know what a progressive is"? Your dumb arsse knew that progressive generally falls under liberal?

You are a person!

I will slaughter you anyday!

Progressive doesnt fall under liberal. Epic fail. They have overlapping ideals. Epic fail is epic


Secondly, I asked you about being liberla because you mentioned liberals in the first place!


Keep on failing!

Logicboy03:

Yes, so how did you reach from there all the way to claiming that I said that conjugal visits are the norm? Fail....epic fail.

How is conjugal visits being the norm even central to my argument when it is not even what I said?

You are person!

Conjugal visits are very rare/low globally. Very few countries practice it and few prisoners in the countries that practice it get the right to it. So why bring it up if it is not central to your argument?

Logicboy03:
lets flip your argument. If a sexually frustrated priest (because of celibacy) has sex with a pre-teen boy, the priest is not a pedophile because of sexual frustration?

Sagamite, you have just been pwned.

I told you not to attempt analogy, you are too stewpid to do one.

A sexually frustrated priest has access to other forms of sex without anyone stopping him or knowing. He can go to a whorehouse and get his fix if he wanted. If he ignores all other options and focus on pre-teen boys, he is then likely a paedophile.

Cretin, how is your daft analogy similar to a prisoner locked up and who has only access to other same sex prisoners?

Did I not say it that moorons don't know how to develop analogies?

Breakfast!

Logicboy03:
Progressive doesnt fall under liberal. Epic fail. They have overlapping ideals. Epic fail is epic


Secondly, I asked you about being liberla because you mentioned liberals in the first place!


Keep on failing!

person, why did you not ask me if I was a progressive or a liberal? Why did you ask conservative? You know progressives and liberals are virtually similar?

How come the dictionary definition of liberal includes progressive?

When I tell fucktards like you that you are not at my intellectual level, you say I am arrogant.

ashmanpolo: 1) You are foool.

U go fear grammar na

Shut up, person.

'SagamitefuckTardcretin' is like A poor man I met 2day trekking and selling books titled "How to make 5 million naira in two weeks"

ashmanpolo:
Now read this comment again and justify ur grammar. Educated ~ illiterate. This is the umpteenth time you are making an erratic statement here. Biiizaaga

rule number 1, that mental midget, sagamouse, is only good for laughs and not to be taken seriously- it's a waste of bandwidth.

rule number 2, never use the word "educated" in reference to him in any sense- it's an insult to educated people.

ashmanpolo: 'SagamitefuckTardcretin' is like A poor man I met 2day trekking and selling books title "How to make 5 million naira in two weeks"

Is this in English, person?

F00028:

rule number 1, that mental midget, sagamouse, is only good for laughs and not to be taken seriously- it's a waste of bandwidth.

rule number 2, never use the word "educated" in reference to him in any sense- it's an insult to educated people.

Madrassa cretin, what do you know about education?

F00028:

listen you sanctimonious piece of *** if you dont know the meaning of the word, abusive, look it up.
the only reason why i dont get into a pointless name calling match with you is, quite frankly, i dont feel like it. though i usually make an exception in the case of that poster boy for imbecil!ty, sagamouse.

and condescension doesn't really make you superior it just means you're a pretentious blowhard.


how i choose to push that blaady ajegunle motorpark debater's button is not your concern.

You calling an atheist sanctimonious now? Wow, I'm morally superior maybe? I usually just ask hypocrites not to be that, or bigots. Or blindly follow an illeterate from 1400 yrs ago, etc. You do harm real people with your stoopid you know? Ah, its just fun and games maybe? Eediot

Anyways, how do you expect any thinking person to attend to the stoopid in your post? You didn't respond to anything at all there. Can't you just stay out of a discussion if you do not even grasp the basics?

You made me agree with sagaxxx for $deity's sake...

Sagamite:

You are person!

Conjugal visits are very rare/low globally. Very few countries practice it and few prisoners in the countries that practice it get the right to it. So why bring it up if it is not central to your argument?

You just made a statement that you cant back up. (look at point number 2)

1) The rate of conjugal visits in the world is quite irrelevant to my argument. It was either conjugal visits or masturbation or both if possible.

2) Out of the countires we know of (thanks to the wikipedia page), most of them allow conjugal visits. Claiming that it is rare is quite foolish, unless you have contrary evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugal_visit

Sagamite:
I told you not to attempt analogy, you are too stewpid to do one.

A sexually frustrated priest has access to other forms of sex without anyone stopping him or knowing. He can go to a whorehouse and get his fix if he wanted. If he ignores all other options and focus on pre-teen boys, he is then likely a paedophile.

Cretin, how is your daft analogy similar to a prisoner locked up and who has only access to other same sex prisoners?

Did I not say it that moorons don't know how to develop analogies?

Breakfast!

Fail....Oh lord, deliver me from Sagamite's Epic fails!!!!!



Some priests have access to young boys, some to nuns and some to women or young girls.

It is the same situation where some prisoners have access to conjugal visits and some to only fellow prisoners.


The priests that sleep with children are pedophiles

The prisoners that sleep with fellow men are gay.


Simple logic which you fail at

Sagamite:
person, why did you not aske me if I was a progressive or a liberal? Why did you ask conservative? You know progressives and liberals are virtually similar?

How come the dictionary definition of liberal includes progressive?

When I tell fucktards like you that you are not at my intellectual level, you say I am arrogant.



Shut up, person.

Liberal is used interchangeably with progressive since many liberals are progressive but it doesnt mean that they are the same thing or one is under another.


There are progressive conservatives;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism


Soon, you will tell me that prossivism is under conservatism. No Progressivism is an ideology on its own.

Sagamite:
Madrassa cretin, what do you know about education?

I know you don't have it.
God.d.amned mental midget

[quote author=Sagamite]

Is this in English, person?


Nope. It's in swahili.....anuohia

Logicboy03:

You just made a statement that you cant back up. (look at point number 2)

1) The rate of conjugal visits in the world is quite irrelevant to my argument. It was either conjugal visits or masturbation or both if possible.

2) Out of the countires we know of (thanks to the wikipedia page), most of them allow conjugal visits. Claiming that it is rare is quite foolish, unless you have contrary evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugal_visit

You are a person!

You are struggling.

You realise you are on the slab at the abattoir?

If you use a rarity as a central argument, then the rarity is relevant, mugu.

No 2, your daft arsse is too stewpid to deduce that the listed countries are the core of the few countries (out of the over 200 countries in the world) that allow conjugal visits. WORSE still, some (if not most) only allow it in segments of the country or to very few prisoners.

You are daft!

You are a foool!

I said it before.

Logicboy03:
Fail....Oh lord, deliver me from Sagamite's Epic fails!!!!!



Some priests have access to young boys, some to nuns and some to women or young girls.

It is the same situation where some prisoners have access to conjugal visits and some to only fellow prisoners.


The priests that sleep with children are pedophiles

The prisoners that sleep with fellow men are gay.


Simple logic which you fail at

Let me laugh for a minute.



My belle o, my head o!

And this cretin will then turn around and say conjugal visits are not central to his argument?

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

You are a person! Don't attempt analogy.

Reyginus, can you see the way I cut people up? Can you see the way I murder people.

I AM BADDD!!!

Logicboy03:
Liberal is used interchangeably with progressive since many liberals are progressive but it doesnt mean that they are the same thing or one is under another.


There are progressive conservatives;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservatism


Soon, you will tell me that prossivism is under conservatism. No Progressivism is an ideology on its own.

So generally, liberal can be an umbrella term for progressives?

Read the first line of the link you provided:

Progressive conservatism is a conservative ideology that incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative policies.

That is a centre-right movement that has taken a few left (liberal) views.

Here is the link to Progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

"In contemporary times, the term progressivism is used to describe a wide range of views associated with left-wing political movements."

Tell me, is it conservatives that are left-wing?

Adn you still have not answered why you did not ask me if I was a progressive. STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!

F00028:

I know you don't have it.
God.d.amned mental midget

I don't have your daft madrassa type of education.

I have the top education of the superior civilisation that is why I can never be as daft as you.

Sagamite:
I don't have your daft madrassa type of education.

I have the top education of the superior civilisation that is why I can never be as daft as you.

your sponsor should get a refund cos it doesn't show

oh well... i guess birdman was right: you can take the niggr outta ajegunle, but you can't take ajegunle outta the niggr.

Sagamite:

You are a person!

You are struggling.

You realise you are on the slab at the abattoir?

If you use a rarity as a central argument, then the rarity is relevant, mugu.

No 2, your daft arsse is too stewpid to deduce that the listed countries are the core of the few countries (out of the over 200 countries in the world) that allow conjugal visits. WORSE still, some (if not most) only allow it in segments of the country or to very few prisoners.

You are daft!

You are a foool!

I said it before.

1) And when or where did I ever use rarity as a central argument? Why do you lie so much? You love straw men?


2) Wait, you dont know what happens in the rest of the countries not listed in the wikipedia list, yet you claim that conjugal visits are not allowed there or are very rare around the world? I hope you know that many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits.

[size=14pt]
You see how you lie and then claim victory?[/size]

Sagamite:
Let me laugh for a minute.



My belle o, my head o!

And this cretin will then turn around and say conjugal visits are not central to his argument?

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

You are a person! Don't attempt analogy.

Reyginus, can you see the way I cut people up? Can you see the way I murder people.

I AM BADDD!!!

Lol....you keep failing


There are priests who do not have access to women. These are mainly monks and hermit monks who live among themselves. These monks will have young men who are in training to become monks or priests


Even if the situation is different, the labelling is the same. If a man sleeps with a 10 year old, he is a pedophile. If a preist sleeps with a child, he is a pedophile. It is the action that determines the label.

A man that sleeps with another man is gay or bisexual. simple.



You keep failing and then claiming victory. You're sad.

Sagamite:
So generally, liberal can be an umbrella term for progressives?

Read the first line of the link you provided:

Progressive conservatism is a conservative ideology that incorporates progressive policies alongside conservative policies.

That is a centre-right movement that has taken a few left (liberal) views.

Here is the link to Progressivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

"In contemporary times, the term progressivism is used to describe a wide range of views associated with left-wing political movements."

Tell me, is it conservatives that are left-wing?

Adn you still have not answered why you did not ask me if I was a progressive. STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!

1) You are beating around the bush progressivism is not under liberalism because you can also have progressive conservativism

2) Progressive and liberal are used interchangeably because they have some overlapping ideals but they are not the same. Never.

3) There are left wing conservatives, ignoramus.

4) I answered your question. You mentioned liberals and that is why I asked if you're a liberal.

Logicboy03:

1) And when or where did I ever use rarity as a central argument? Why do you lie so much? You love straw men?


2) Wait, you dont know what happens in the rest of the countries not listed in the wikipedia list, yet you claim that conjugal visits are not allowed there or are very rare around the world? I hope you know that many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits.

[size=14pt]
You see how you lie and then claim victory?[/size]

The rarity you used is CONJUGAL VISIT. Learn to comprehend.

You are getting confused?

Prove "many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits".

I wait.

Logicboy03:
Lol....you keep failing


There are priests who do not have access to women. These are mainly monks and hermit monks who live among themselves. These monks will have young men who are in training to become monks or priests


Even if the situation is different, the labelling is the same. If a man sleeps with a 10 year old, he is a pedophile. If a preist sleeps with a child, he is a pedophile. It is the action that determines the label.

A man that sleeps with another man is gay or bisexual. simple.



You keep failing and then claiming victory. You're sad.

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now? Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"? So Monks molest "young men"?



My Belle o, My Head o!

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

Start sweating!

Logicboy03:

1) You are beating around the bush progressivism is not under liberalism because you can also have progressive conservativism

2) Progressive and liberal are used interchangeably because they have some overlapping ideals but they are not the same. Never.

3) There are left wing conservatives, ignoramus.

4) I answered your question. You mentioned liberals and that is why I asked if you're a liberal.

No, you daft arsse is beating around the bush.

Now answer my quesiton:

Why you did not ask me if I was a progressive? STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!

Sagamite:

The rarity you used is CONJUGAL VISIT. Learn to comprehend.

You are getting confused?

Prove "many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits".

I wait.

Rarity? You have no evidence that it is a rarity. You also miss the point that rarity has nothing to do with my original argument.


[size=14pt]Pollock, who was part of a gang that made millions from dealing speed and cannabis after flooding the British market, said: "I would like to know why prisoners in England and Wales are not permitted conjugal visits when this practice is widespread in other European countries.
"Indeed, whilst spending some time in a Spanish jail, such visits were recognised as being important to the family unit.

[/size]


Do you hear that? That is the sound of Sagamite's arguments being hammered and destroyed!

Sagamite:
So it has changed from Priests to monk now?



My Belle o, My Head o!

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

Start sweating!

lol....save me from the fails and ignorance!

1) Many monks are priests. I guess you were never a catholic.
2) Hermit monks live away from the society



A man that has sex is gay or bisexual. End of story.


You lose!

Sagamite:

No, you daft arsse is beating around the bush.

Now answer my quesiton:

Why you did not ask me if I was a progressive? STOP DODGING THE QUESTION!

After being debunked, you shift the issue to a question that I have already answered!


I asked you if you were a liberal because you mentioned liberals. Had you mentioned progressives, I would have asked the same.



Sorry, Sagamite, you lose

Logicboy03:


Rarity? You have no evidence that it is a rarity. You also miss the point that rarity has nothing to do with my original argument.


[size=14pt]Pollock, who was part of a gang that made millions from dealing speed and cannabis after flooding the British market, said: "I would like to know why prisoners in England and Wales are not permitted conjugal visits when this practice is widespread in other European countries.
"Indeed, whilst spending some time in a Spanish jail, such visits were recognised as being important to the family unit.
[/size]


Do you hear that? That is the sound of Sagamite's arguments being hammered and destroyed!

Show me it is widespread, don't give me the conjecture of a prisoner. Which schools failed you?

Let me help you out.

Show me 5 EU countries that are not on the wikipedia page, that practice conjugal visits.

Then that will be proof that "many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits".

You dumbfcuk!

If you show me, especially if it is practiced widespread in those countries, then I will accept it is not a rarity.

Logicboy03:
lol....save me from the fails and ignorance!

1) Many monks are priests. I guess you were never a catholic.
2) Hermit monks live away from the society

A man that has sex is gay or bisexual. End of story.


You lose!

What I asked you was:

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now?

Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"?

So Monks molest "young men"?

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

You have only answered the first question. Try again. Don't dodge my questions, you are on the slaughter slab.

Reyginus, can you see how I slaughter fucktards! CAN YOU?

Logicboy03:
After being debunked, you shift the issue to a question that I have already answered!

I asked you if you were a liberal because you mentioned liberals. Had you mentioned progressives, I would have asked the same.

Sorry, Sagamite, you lose

Show me where you answered the question. I am still waiting for an answer.

Sagamite:

Show me it is widespread, don't give me the conjecture of a prisoner. Which schools failed you?

Let me help you out.

Show me 5 EU countries that are not on the wikipedia page, that practice conjugal visits.

Then that will be proof that "many European countries are not mentioned in the list wile most EU countries accept conjugal visits or home visits".

You dumbfcuk!

If you show me, especially if it is practiced widespread in those countries, then I will accept it is not a rarity.

Sweden, Norway, Holland
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=89568

France,
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Cr091010Conjugal_visit.asp

Beligum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/812165.stm


Wow Sagamite, you have just been debunked!!!

Sagamite:
What I asked you was:

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now?

Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"?

So Monks molest "young men"?

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

You have only answered the first question. Try again. Don't dodge my questions, you are on the slaughter slab.

Reyginus, can you see how I slaughter fucktards! CAN YOU?

The fails.......lord, save me from the fails!!!!!


Your questions are quite irrelevant.


1)Many monks are priests and monks have molested boys in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_English_Benedictine_Congregation

2)Hermit monks live away from society.

[size=14pt]
3) The main point was that male prisoners that sleep with men are gay. Which you have failed to disprove[/size]

Sagamite:
Show me where you answered the question. I am still waiting for an answer.

Fail....I have answered the question many times. Keep asking, dummy

Logicboy03:

Sweden, Norway, Holland
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=89568

France,
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Cr091010Conjugal_visit.asp

Beligum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/812165.stm


Wow Sagamite, you have just been debunked!!!

Ye, Ye, Ye!

My belle o, my head o!

Let me take extracts from your own link:

"Conjugal visiting is permitted in 10 of the 23 European countries surveyed. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners".

So it is in a minority of countries?

Now let us move close to how widespread the practice are in those countries:

"The Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, and Yugoslavia permit visits for selected groups, usually inmates who have served much of their sentences".

"In Belgium: Inmates in open prisons are allowed a three-night home stay every three months. Conjugal visits are only permitted to high security prisoners if their spouse is an inmate as well".

Only Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners.


Can you see how daft you are?

Only a minority of countries offer conjugal visits and it is normally only to a select group of prisoners, not to all or majority of prisoners.

Logicboy, you are a ................person!

Logicboy03:
The fails.......lord, save me from the fails!!!!!


Your questions are quite irrelevant.


1)Many monks are priests and monks have molested boys in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_English_Benedictine_Congregation

2)Hermit monks live away from society.

[size=14pt]
3) The main point was that male prisoners that sleep with men are gay. Which you have failed to disprove[/size]

You are a person! The questions are relevant because it proves your analogy is daft, just like fucktards struggle with analogies AS I SAID, AND YOU PROVED.

Again, what I asked you was:

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now?

Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"?

So Monks molest "young men"?

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

Answers please.

Logicboy03:
Fail....I have answered the question many times. Keep asking, dummy

Show me ONE of the many times where you answered it.

Sagamite:



Ye, Ye, Ye!

My belle o, my head o!

Let me take extracts from your own link:

"Conjugal visiting is permitted in 10 of the 23 European countries surveyed. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners".

So it is in a minority of countries?

Now let us move close to how widespread the practice are in those countries:

"The Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, and Yugoslavia permit visits for selected groups, usually inmates who have served much of their sentences".

"Inmates in open prisons are allowed a three-night home stay every three months. Conjugal visits are only permitted to high security prisoners if their spouse is an inmate as well".

Only Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners.


Can you see how daft you are?

Only a minority of countries offer conjugal visits and it is normally only to a select group of prisoners, not to all or majority of prisoners.

Logicboy, you are a ................person!

Your dishonesty is quite frightening. You have already lost the argument

1) You claimed that rarity is part of my argument. It was a lie. Rarity had nothing to do with my argument
2) You claimed that conjugal visits are rare. is 10 out of 23 rare? 45% is rare? Are you foolish?
3) You asked for 5 countries and I gave you 5 and now you are nitpicking to save face

4) Let us visit the link

a) The link was from 1982 and only 10 out of 23 European countries then had conjugal visits. France and Belgium were not mentioned in those 10 countries. Furthermore, many countries are adopting a harmonised EU law and so some more European countries have allowed conjugal visits since 1982.

b) I mentioned 3 countries from that 1982 link. 2 of which have very liberal takes on conjugal visits (Sweden and Norway).
You went ahead to remix the link to say that only 3 european countries have liberal policies on conjugal visits (nitpicking and lying)

The quote for other countries you put up is also a liberal policy on conjugal visit compared to modern day american states that have so many restrictiosn.

"The Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, and Yugoslavia permit visits for selected groups, usually inmates who have served much of their sentences".

"Inmates in open prisons are allowed a three-night home stay every three months. Conjugal visits are only permitted to high security prisoners if their spouse is an inmate as well".

Only Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners.

Sagamite:

You are a person! The questions are relevant because it proves your analogy is daft, just like fucktards struggle with analogies AS I SAID, AND YOU PROVED.

Again, what I asked you was:

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now?

Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"?

So Monks molest "young men"?

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

Answers please.

You are switiching and changing to move away from the the main argument.


You lose.





A man that sleeps with another man is not gay according to you. Simple.


I maintain that a man that sleeps with another man is gay or bisexual.

Sagamite:


Show me ONE of the many times where you answered it.

You are free to look at my previous comments.





In summary, I have been providing evidence and debunking you only for you to switch and shift the argument.


You fail

This was supposed to be an atheist bashing thread not a place to perfect your abusing skills

frosbel: This was supposed to be an atheist bashing thread not a place to perfect your abusing skills

Tell that to sagamite. He is being exposed for his arrogance and abusive nature.

Logicboy03:
Your dishonesty is quite frightening. You have already lost the argument

1) You claimed that rarity is part of my argument. It was a lie. Rarity had nothing to do with my argument
2) You claimed that conjugal visits are rare. is 10 out of 23 rare? 45% is rare? Are you foolish?
3) You asked for 5 countries and I gave you 5 and now you are nitpicking to save face

4) Let us visit the link

a) The link was from 1982 and only 10 out of 23 European countries then had conjugal visits. France and Belgium were not mentioned in those 10 countries. Furthermore, many countries are adopting a harmonised EU law and so some more European countries have allowed conjugal visits since 1982.

b) I mentioned 3 countries from that 1982 link. 2 of which have very liberal takes on conjugal visits (Sweden and Norway).
You went ahead to remix the link to say that only 3 european countries have liberal policies on conjugal visits (nitpicking and lying)

The quote for other countries you put up is also a liberal policy on conjugal visit compared to modern day american states that have so many restrictiosn.

"The Netherlands, Switzerland, West Germany, and Yugoslavia permit visits for selected groups, usually inmates who have served much of their sentences".

"Inmates in open prisons are allowed a three-night home stay every three months. Conjugal visits are only permitted to high security prisoners if their spouse is an inmate as well".

Only Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have very liberal policies for all prisoners.

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir"!

10 out of 23 countries practice conjugal visit. That is a minority.

Out of this 10, majority only give conjugal visit to a minority of prisoners. That breaksdown the minority to more of a minority.

How is that not a rarity?

I asked you to:

"Show me 5 EU countries that are not on the wikipedia page, that practice conjugal visits.

If you show me, especially if it is practiced widespread in those countries, then I will accept it is not a rarity".

Your moronic arsse showed me 3 countries, of which one (Denmark) was already on the wikipedia list and you talk about dishonesty and losing the argument?



You are a person!

Those facts alone stand on the argument that conjugal visits are a rarity.

NOW ADD the fact that only few countries in the world give conjugal visits out of the over 200 in the world. First of all, none of the 56 countries in Africa does. In the countries it is offered, it is normally only to a minority of select group of prisoners.

person that calls himself Logicboy, is conjugal visit not a rarity?

Back up your conjecture, it is Saga Saga you are debating with. YOUR GOD!

"Furthermore, many countries are adopting a harmonised EU law and so some more European countries have allowed conjugal visits since 1982."

Back it up!

HYENAS DON'T STEP TO LIONS! LIONS ARE THE KINGS! You are stewpid for attempting!

Logicboy03:
You are switiching and changing to move away from the the main argument.

You lose.

A man that sleeps with another man is not gay according to you. Simple.

I maintain that a man that sleeps with another man is gay or bisexual.

You are a person! I am not switching anything, you tried to switch from priest to monks when you got stuck. I am asking you questions based on your moronic analogy.

Fucktards make moronic analogies, as I said, and then you proved consequently. How did you compare PRIESTS that have exactly the same choices as YOU to prisoners that do not, person!

Again, what I asked you was:

So it has changed from Priests to Monks now?

Since when did "young men" equate to the same thing as "children"?

So Monks molest "young men"?

First of all, show me how it is prevalent for monks to molest young boys. Please don't struggle and switch back to priest when you get stuck.

Secondly, explain to me how monks do not have access to women. Are they locked up in monasteries?

Also, I asked you:

How is it the same?

1) ALL priest have access to exactly the same choices YOU have.

2) Tell me what proportion of prisoners have access to conjugal visits?

Answers please.

Logicboy03:
You are free to look at my previous comments.

In summary, I have been providing evidence and debunking you only for you to switch and shift the argument.

You fail

You are a person!

Show me!

Put the link down.

So you can run and go and dig out links on conjugal visits when you moronically felt confident you could catch your God out but you are running from providing a link to show you answered a question, which is a simpler task?

^^^^^^ you should be in bed and not here discussing conjugal visits.

you have/can never change.

you can never have an 'intellectual' argument without throwing in your buzz words - 'person', 'm.oron',