freecocoa:

Well I don't only see an ingrate, I saw a rational person who knows that prostitution is one of the ways to contract Aids and is telling people to be more careful, how she contracted Aids is another story all together but can one get aids from prostitution? Yes, did his sister get aids? Yes, was she a prostitute? Yes, simple

Balderdash of the year!

DarkRebel101:


Don't mind the dork and all those trying to spin it on his sister. It's how you know mumu, naïve ajebutters who haven't seen life in its rawest form.

Very vacant expression of appreciation. The sister did obscene things just to make sure they turn out fine and hitch her own wagon in the process only for him to preach of setting limit.

Arrant nonsense

freecocoa:
You know for someone who claims to be intelligent you sound rather stupid for calling me unnecessarily belligerent, when you can't even give me one single reason to accept your points as facts.

I never claimed to be intelligent, so it's either you are hearing voices in your head or you've had a long day and need some rest.

I also never said my arguments were facts, all I did was reproach the OP for his insensitivity and ungratefulness.
This is not rocket science.

You talk of me not having facts like it isn't one that people get aids from prostitution, like it isn't also one that the OP's sister had aids and was a prostitute, what other fact do I need?

That she has AIDS means she's a prostitite?. What an ignoramus.

Can you prove that the OP's sister didn't get HIV via her job?

Can you prove she got it through her job?

So why are you vexing that I can see it happening? Whether that's what happened is not an issue here, the issue is that it can happen, very straightforward something.
You have proven nothing, till you prove that one can't get aids from prostitution.

I never said prostitution doesn't put one at risk of contracting AIDS, neither am I assuming like a dimwit that prostitution is the only way of contracting the disease.

How and why you dragged to marry into the matter is even another thing, as if you can say that all marriages are based on emotions as you choose to call it, hian o!

80% of marriages are based on emotions. Love is an emotion and that's why people marry.

Even people that marry for money are driven by emotions.

She could've have done other jobs, any other thing you want to think of, that's what taking another part means.

The reason two people with As would marry is because they are stupid, period.

My point is no man is completely rational, emotions are part and parcel of the human vessel. Have you or have you not ever had sex without a condom before? Answer honestly or don't answer at all. Because if you have, then you are no different from the man and woman with AS blood type who still choose to marry.

I am not assuming she got Aids from prostitution, I am hammering on the fact that aids can be gotten from prostitution, I have since dropped assuming we know how she got aids, go figure.

Do away with all these market women style of argument. It's not sexy.

Yodel to the high heavens all you want, the fact remains that all your claims are mere assumptions. It's only in Freecocoa's universe that a person living with AIDS must have been a prostitite. What of children that have HIV? Are they prostitutes too?

Your style of argument reminds me of my grandmother's bad hip.

,
Btw, I am not riled up, I see and call your post like it is, just like a reasonable person would.

Au contraire, you seem riled up.

You on the other hand want me to feel sorry for a person where there is no need to, says a lot about your ability to put two and two together, smh.

I'm done talking about this anyways, it's of no importance to me.

I don't want you to feel sorry, I want you to not pretend to be logical and to use ordinary common sense to discern how immoral and idiötic the OP is for creating this thread.

You and your ilk sound like ten-dollar charlatans with your nebulous and baseless arguments.

...

If it's of no importance to you then you shouldn't have commented on the thread in the first place.

DarkRebel101:


I never claimed to be intelligent, so it's either you are hearing voices in your head or you've had a long day and need some rest.

I also never said my arguments were facts, all I did was reproach the OP for his insensitivity and ungratefulness.
This is not rocket science.



That she has AIDS means she's a prostitite?. What an ignoramus.



Can you prove she got it through her job?



I never said prostitution doesn't put one at risk of contracting AIDS, neither am I assuming like a dimwit that prostitution is the only way of contracting the disease.



80% of marriages are based on emotions. Love is an emotion and that's why people marry.

Even people that marry for money are driven by emotions.



My point is no man is completely rational, emotions are part and parcel of the human vessel. Have you or have you not ever had sex without a condom before? Answer honestly or don't answer at all. Because if you have, then you are no different from the man and woman with AS blood type who still choose to marry.



Do away with all these market women style of argument. It's not sexy.

Yodel to the high heavens all you want, the fact remains that all your claims are mere assumptions. It's only in Freecocoa's universe that a person living with AIDS must have been a prostitite. What of children that have HIV? Are they prostitutes too?

Your style of argument reminds me of my grandmother's bad hip.



Au contraire, you seem riled up.



I don't want you to feel sorry, I want you to not pretend to be logical and to use ordinary common sense to discern how immoral and idiötic the OP is for creating this thread.

You and your ilk sound like ten-dollar charlatans with your nebulous and baseless arguments.

...

If it's of no importance to you then you shouldn't have commented on the thread in the first place.

You claimed intelligence the moment you declared that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would get your points but hey! I'm the one that doesn't know what she's talking about.

And I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that because humans are emotional, they can't be rational which seems to be the bone of contention here, I don't get how you are so pained that I don't share the same idea, since when is it a must to agree with someone? Then you are even calling me names because I wouldn't toe your line of thought, wonderful!

I see you Rebel, you have done noble.

Caracta:


Asked the OP to clarify. Title and presentation is just off IMHO. And I still don't get the limits part. May our loyalty not be tested (or how did BRF say it again?)

Okay

freecocoa:
You claimed intelligence the moment you declared that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would get your points but hey! I'm the one that doesn't know what she's talking about.

I never said modicum of intelligence; I said decent level of intelligence.

You seem to have an uncanny knack for tweaking and shape-shifting people's words.

...

To claim intelligence would be to be like the charlatans and sciolists I so despise; I know that I know nothing and I have never laid claim to any form of intelligence or knowledge whatsoever -- I even cringe inwardly when people say that I am Intelligent and sally forth to have me slathered with encomium.

Asking that anyone with a decent level of intelligence should be able to grasp my post is not the same as me stating avowedly that I am intelligent. Whoever thinks otherwise should know I'm too high up that Ivory Tower of I–don't–give–a–fück to be perturbed by petty inferiority complex.

And I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that because humans are emotional, they can't be rational which seems to be the bone of contention here

I said in relationships and in matters concerning love that people are usually 80% emotional and 20% logical, how then did I completely preclude rationality?

In most case scenarios, people succumb to emotion than they do to logic. We are first animals before we are logicians -- it's how biology weaved the tapestry of our human nature.

Look at Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs:

First on the pyramid of needs is physiological needs. Physiological needs are emotion-driven.

Second is safety – the need for safety is occasioned by the emotion of fear and security.

Third is love – of course one doesn't need a soothsayer to tell that this is the palladium of all human emotions, rivalled only by hate, its unrefined cousin.

Fourth on Maslow's pyramid is self-esteem -- also emotion-driven

The fifth is self-actualization – also emotion-fuelled.

So you see, a man-woman is emotional at core.

Emotions breed morality, because if we were to be logical, we would round up the physically weak, the sick, those perceived to be unintelligent, the miscreants, the old, and all those we say are the dregs of society and have them executed in order to rid the earth of diseases in human form and in order to depopulate the world for the better.

But do you know why we would never do that?
We wouldn't because of our emotions which as we know fathers our sense of morality.

I don't get how you are so pained that I don't share the same idea, since when is it a must to agree with someone?[/b]

I am not pained you don't share the same idea. I am pained a lady as beautiful, as curvy, and as smart as you -- with nice, succulent batty and all -- argues like a dotty Mile 12 market woman going through her menstrual cycle.

Then you are even calling me names because I wouldn't toe your line of thought, wonderful!

I see you Rebel, you have done noble.

I never called you names. You were the one who called me stüpid but I chose to play possum because I knew that only proved my point that we are creaturely emotional. So emotional that we would vituperate whoever opposes our ideology and poses a threat to the beliefs we hold.

DarkRebel101:


I never said modicum of intelligence; I said decent level of intelligence.

You seem to have an uncanny knack for tweaking and shape-shifting people's words.

...

To claim intelligence would be to be like the charlatans and sciolists I so despise; I know that I know nothing and I have never laid claim to any form of intelligence or knowledge whatsoever -- I even cringe inwardly when people say that I am Intelligent and sally forth to have me slathered with encomium.

Asking that anyone with a decent level of intelligence should be able to grasp my post is not the same as me stating avowedly that I am intelligent. Whoever thinks otherwise should know I'm too high up that Ivory Tower of I–don't–give–a–fück to be perturbed by petty inferiority complex.



I said in relationships and in matters concerning love that people are usually 80% emotional and 20% logical, how then did I completely preclude rationality?

In most case scenarios, people succumb to emotion than they do to logic. We are first animals before we are logicians -- it's how biology weaved the tapestry of our human nature.

Look at Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs:

First on the pyramid of needs is physiological needs. Physiological needs are emotion-driven.

Second is safety – the need for safety is occasioned by the emotion of fear and security.

Third is love – of course one doesn't need a soothsayer to tell that this is the palladium of all human emotions, rivalled only by hate, its unrefined cousin.

Fourth on Maslow's pyramid is self-esteem -- also emotion-driven

The fifth is self-actualization – also emotion-fuelled.

So you see, a man-woman is emotional at core.

Emotions breed morality, because if we were to be logical, we would round up the physically weak, the sick, those perceived to be unintelligent, the miscreants, the old, and all those we say are the dregs of society and have them executed in order to rid the earth of diseases in human form and in order to depopulate the world for the better.

But do you know why we would never do that?
We wouldn't because of our emotions which as we know fathers our sense of morality.



I am not pained you don't share the same idea. I am pained a lady as beautiful, as curvy, and as smart as you -- with nice, succulent batty and all -- argues like a dotty Mile 12 market woman going through her menstrual cycle.



I never called you names. You were the one who called me stüpid but I chose to play possum because I knew that only proved my point that we are creaturely emotional. So emotional that we would vituperate whoever opposes our ideology and poses a threat to the beliefs we hold.

I'd have to use your words word for word before they have to mean the same thing when being repeated by me, how foolish of me to not know that, then there's the fact that all the plenty things you are mentioning has no bearing in the matter, if a person can be rational even with all his emotions, just why then are we arguing? Plus I didn't call you stupid, I said you sounded stupid, which was the case at the time(2 different things) , if anyone with a decent level of intelligence can grasp what you are saying, that doesn't make you the writer intelligent? But no, you never claimed to be intelligent.

I've tried to put into consideration the fact that I thought we were cordial, which is even reason I responded to you in accordance as I honestly wasn't in a place to debate, yet you spat in my face for reasons best known to you by insulting me, saying things like "you and your like", "charlatans" "ajebutters who know nothing about life" "hypocrites" "market women" and all the rest just because we disagree, hmmm, I don't know how you understand things o but you certainly didn't come to reason, as can clearly be seen cos you set the tone this discourse took.

You can keep laughing all you want but you just proved me right yet again, you don't know when to stop and it's such a shame, since we can't disagree peacefully, it's best to stay on one's lane, I don't insult people I'm supposed to be cool with simply cos we disagree especially when there's really no need to and you my dear have insulted me enough today, I can't deal no more.

freecocoa:
I'd have to use your words word for word before they have to mean the same thing when being repeated by me, how foolish of me to not know that, then there's the fact that all the plenty things you are mentioning has no bearing in the matter, if a person can be rational even with all his emotions, just why then are we arguing? Plus I didn't call you stupid, I said you sounded stupid, which was the case at the time(2 different things) , if anyone with a decent level of intelligence can grasp what you are saying, that doesn't make you the writer intelligent? But no, you never claimed to be intelligent.

I've tried to put into consideration the fact that I thought we were cordial, which is even reason I responded to you in accordance as I honestly wasn't in a place to debate, yet you spat in my face for reasons best known to you by insulting me, saying things like "you and your like", "charlatans" "ajebutters who know nothing about life" "hypocrites" "market women" and all the rest just because we disagree, hmmm, I don't know how you understand things o but you certainly didn't come to reason, as can clearly be seen cos you set the tone this discourse took.

You can keep laughing all you want but you just proved me right yet again, you don't know when to stop and it's such a shame, since we can't disagree peacefully, it's best to stay on one's lane, I don't insult people I'm supposed to be cool with simply cos we disagree especially when there's really no need to and you my dear have insulted me enough today, I can't deal no more.

You have ample time and patience.
Passing points in the shortest sentences possible with plain words that can be understood by anyone with even just a high school diploma, is the definition of EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

Someone is overcompensating I have noticed.

missjo:

You have ample time and patience.
Passing points in the shortest sentences possible with plain words that can be understood by anyone with even just a high school diploma, is the definition of EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

Someone is overcompensating I have noticed.

What can I say?

missjo:

You have ample time and patience.
Passing points in the shortest sentences possible with plain words that can be understood by anyone with even just a high school diploma, is the definition of EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION.

Someone is overcompensating I have noticed.

The envious and delusional busybody that has been given me unnecessary mentions since last week saunters unto my path once again.

And for what reason? To revel in the attention that I would give her.

Missjo, go rid yourself of your inferiority complex, it seems my presence on this forum and even more so my style of writing is making you uncomfortable. Ever since Cräckhaus – your god – got banned because of me, you have been on my cöck. I really cannot understand why the banning of a fugazi sciolist with daddy issues has warranted me such harassment.

One thing is certain, I cannot be bothered by your pettiness, neither can you plunder my attention nor time even if you had me raided with an army of clocks. You are that insignificant.
...

If you cannot understand what I say and think it's not effective communication, then you have either succumbed to the green-eyed monster of jealousy or you need to go get a proper education. I think it's both by the way.

For the last time, stop sticking your oars in my affairs. If I decide to make your business my business, you would end up regretting it greatly. Ask around, just beneath the variable appearance of this chameleon is the invariable venom of the serpent.

You don't know me and I don't know you. Stop trying to famz me or hog my attention, I'm not interested in you. You have been warned, woman.

freecocoa:
I'd have to use your words word for word before they have to mean the same thing when being repeated by me, how foolish of me to not know that, then there's the fact that all the plenty things you are mentioning has no bearing in the matter, if a person can be rational even with all his emotions, just why then are we arguing? Plus I didn't call you stupid, I said you sounded stupid, which was the case at the time(2 different things) , if anyone with a decent level of intelligence can grasp what you are saying, that doesn't make you the writer intelligent? But no, you never claimed to be intelligent.

To be honest, I don't even know what you are talking about. You are just too boneheaded.

I've tried to put into consideration the fact that I thought we were cordial, which is even reason I responded to you in accordance as I honestly wasn't in a place to debate, yet you spat in my face for reasons best known to you by insulting me, saying things like "you and your like", "charlatans" "ajebutters who know nothing about life" "hypocrites" "market women" and all the rest just because we disagree, hmmm, I don't know how you understand things o but you certainly didn't come to reason, as can clearly be seen cos you set the tone this discourse took.

I never called you ajebutter or a charlatan.

So you're catching feelings because I mirthfully called you a market woman? Aha, like I've said in the past, you are emotionally-weak and take things to heart. It's why you always see offense in everything. Learn to be cheerful.

You can keep laughing all you want but you just proved me right yet again, you don't know when to stop and it's such a shame

I don't know when to stop, but you do? Spare me the lectures from your morality buffet. You are a textbook narcissist.

Once we can't disagree peacefully, it's best to stay on one's lane, I don't insult people I'm supposed to be cool with simply cos we disagree especially when there's really no need to and you my dear have insulted me enough today, I can't deal no more.

As far as I'm concerned you are the only one catching feelings here because you expect me to blow bubbles in your äss and tacitly accept everything you say.

You said I sound stüpid and yet say that is not an insult. But when I say you argue like a market woman, World War III begins.

LOL, like I said, you are probably a humourless narcissist who only thinks about herself.

I never insulted you, you only think I did; and I've also grown bored of playing this humdrum game of musical chairs that's obviously yielding no result.

Good day.

DarkRebel101:


The envious and delusional busybody that has been given me unnecessary mentions since last week has sauntered unto my path once again.

And for what reason? To revel in the attention that I would give her.

I don't think I've quoted you before in my entire time on this forum, so what are you on about?

@DarkRebel101 I would suggest you go back to school or check for materials online regarding Effective Communication 101...

You've just been spitting out shit all this while.

DarkRebel101:


To be honest, I don't even know what you are talking about. You are just too boneheaded.



I never called you ajebutter or a charlatan.

So you're catching feelings because I mirthfully called you a market woman? Aha, like I've said in the past, you are emotionally-weak and take things to heart. It's why you always see offense in everything. Learn to be cheerful.



I don't know when to stop, but you do? Spare me the lectures from your morality buffet. You are a textbook narcissist.



As far as I'm concerned you are the only one catching feelings here because you expect me to blow bubbles in your äss and tacitly accept everything you say.

You said I sound stüpid and yet say that is not an insult. But when I say you argue like a market woman, World War III begins.

LOL, like I said, you are probably a humourless narcissist who only thinks about herself.

I never insulted you, you only think I did; and I've also grown bored of playing this humdrum game of musical chairs that's obviously yielding no result.

Good day.

1.I'm just a foolish/stupid person.

2.I'm emotionally weak and take things to heart.

3.I'm a text book narcissist and think only of myself.

4.I'm humourless., me humourless.

Such names and somehow I'm the problem, okay o. You say I insulted you by saying you sounded stupid, well I didn't say you were a stupid person, I clearly meant that at the time of the exchange you sounded stupid, which was how your words came across and I gave you a reason why, but you have labelled me as a person all sorts, yet you didn't insult me.

Anyways, I just want to correct the impression you seem to have, that I want you to silently agree with me and blow bubbles up my ass, chai! , dude you quoted me o, I didn't want to get in a debate but did anyways, I was even saying agree to disagree when you even authoritatively declared my stance on the issue wrong, asking me to learn to admit when I'm in the wrong, like you are the determiner of right or wrong opinions, yet I'm the one wanting you to agree with me, I see, but you couldn't be more wrong on that, I don't give a hoot who disagrees or agrees with me on here(that's like my trade mark), hardly even in the real world, as long as we can always agree to disagree, I'm good, so please don't kid yourself.

Meanwhile, I hope you stay on your lane, so you have no reason to remember how mentally weak I am, since that's what it means, when you tell someone they can pass on a message without being very condescending/rude.