₦airaland Forum

Martian: Death by Blackhole is reasonably interesting.

Thanks! Sounds interesting. Heh, trust him to pick an exciting title.

Double

ucheheart: and what makes you think he doesn't have a black man's gene in his cells after all, we all are from one father - adam and after the deluge we are all still from one father again- Noah. From your statement i can see that you are suffering from low self esteem and inferiority complex and It seems you are a brother to the homo- logicchild which means you are a homo too, cos birds of same feather flock together.

Bros, you sound like the village eediot who somehow managed escape and come to the big city. And where does self esteem have anything to do with anything here?


Your behavior indicates there's little hope for humanity. In fact, it's probably a miracle we have lasted this long with someone like you as a member of our species. A selfish nincompoop who helps only members of his tribe, whatever that may be, eg religion, race etc. Hint, you're not helping out of the 'goodness of your heart', there's no altruism here. Seems you help only because you want something in return. You help only your fellow tribe man because you calculate there's a chance he will help you back in some way or the other eventually. Selfish, petty, narrow minded, shallow and stoopid, and on all counts proudly so to boot. As there are maybe many like you around perhaps you can fathom why I weep for humanity (not likely)


What makes you think you don't have a gay gene in your body? And even if lincoln had plenty of our good black dna, how does that affect anything? He was president of the 4king usa, he was unambiguously accepted socially as white you m.oron. And not just normal white, but the alpha white man of his society. Or do you think they would have voted anyone distinctly perceived as black into the white house, hmm? Yet he still went out of his way to help slaves at great personal risk. A decision that would indeed eventually cut his life short. This is what proper altruism looks like.

http://short.mobile.theweek.com/article/index/92938/lincoln-and-the-slaves



btw don't get me wrong, I understand you're re.tarded and won't understand any of this. I post it because I've come across a few people who at least have functioning brains using the same inane argument. Hopefully they read it. In your case, you should just worry about how to return to the village where the population of people is much lower. This should limit the amount of people you give cancer.

Area_boy: Sadly, every grown up person will agree with me that in life, what we wish is not always what we get. That's the vicious cycle of life and living in a hostile universe where everything happens by randomly.

Oh boy, e no easy...

That's some tasty Tyson. Is it from a book, or an interview, etc? You've read any of books? You have recommendations from his oeuvre which consist mostly of dumbed down science or some interesting philosophy?

The atheist that was insulting you probably didn't finish his work. Did he not tell how the burden of proof works?

ucheheart: ignorant homo, obama is a gay if u don't know so is the prime minister of england and every other leader out there that supports gays. If you support criminals who rob ppl of their wealth then u are a criminal urself because there is a tendency that you will accept money from them same applies to gays there is a tendency that if given the opportunity obama will have sex with bush that's why he supports it and same applies to you ignorant homo logicchild

.

Can you shut your fantastic stoopidity up for a while? So lincon was black?

On a random note, do you remember my architect from the matrix?

Mr_Anony: how did you come by that understanding?

Did I say that was my understanding? That was a question. And the logical one to ask considering the post, as it made little sense.

Omniscience means all-knowing and not
all-doing. Nothing about omniscience implies
a fixed future run of events. You may consider
omniscience as the ability to know all possible
outcomes of an event and all the
permutations and combinations of all possible
events.

You say he knows all permutations. You do not say anything about his knowing what path would actually be taken, hence my question about his cognizance of which actual path would be taken.

Anyways, assuming he actually knows what path would be taken, a terrible and conspicuous abuse of logic is this; how in what anonyverse could he know a path that has not been set yet?

Mr_Anony: I did not say the bolded neither does it make logical sense to know all possible outcomes and yet not know a specific outcome amongst all the outcomes you know. how did you come by that understanding?

I did not ask about his knowing the details of a path. I asked if he'd know which particular path would be taken.

So, again, assuming he knows what path mr x is going to take, which is what you seem to be saying, how in the universe can you say it does not imply a fixed path ffs? Why does this even have to be pointed out to you?

If he knows explicitly what's going to happen, that means the path has already been set. Any deviation from the already set path would mean he didn't actually know which path would be taken. This is primary school level reasoning...

Random: like I've told you before, the only way you can make omniscience stick with free will is by redefining it radically to mean he wouldn't know what step is going to be taken, just maybe the odds of each step occurring, like the architect in the matrix... We haven't gotten to the stage where I fully show you why though

Mr_Anony: The rest of your comments follow from assumptions based upon a poor understanding of omniscience so I won't deal with the rest of your post until I am sure that we have an understanding of what omniscience is.

This I agree with. But it's not exactly because I have a poor understanding, it's more the definition you've given makes as much sense as an omnipotent being creating a rock he can't carry.

An addendum to what has already been said by the good floor

Mr_Anony: The first thing you need to understand is what prayer is and what omniscience is.

First: Omniscience means all-knowing and not all-doing. Nothing about omniscience implies a fixed future run of events. You may consider omniscience as the ability to know all possible outcomes of an event and all the permutations and combinations of all possible events.

So what are you saying here, he knows all the possible outcomes but does not know which specific one will occur? Is that your definition of omniscience?

Mr_Anony: Secondly: Prayer is talking to God the same way a child talks to his father. It is not some sort of magical incantation to control the universe. It is sometimes pleading with the owner of the universe to grant you a favour and if He wills it, He may answer "Yes", "No" or "Not yet" or "Do x instead" all according to His will. Since He knows all things, He will never make the wrong decision.

You say it's not some sort of magic to control the universe, then why oh why the pleading if it's futile? Can you influence his decision making or not? Muskeetos quote seems to indicate so.

Again, if you can't change its mind why the waste of resources praying to it?

Can god change its own mind? If yes, what does that imply to its omniscience? If no, what does that imply to it's free will.

Though of course we'd need to finish coming up with a proper definition for omniscience first.

Knowing all things does not necessarily mean he would make the 'right' decisions, but we could leave that for now. Come back later

Mr_Anony: I don't know of any Christian who prays against God's will.

You know god's will, yet you've never been able to give us cogent reasons for the evil in the world or his many atrocities? Or do you know what his will was in those cases as well? You understand an entity you've stated in the past no one can truly understand? Therefore as a result of that we should just accept that the surplus evil in the universe is for a 'good' cause beyond our level of comprehension? Then can you please give a reason for the presence of evil, natural evil in particular?

Also, as usual, do you speak for all xtians?

And you seem to be implying nothing can go against god's will, everything is according to his will. If so, what does that mean for our own free will?


There's probably more, but this will do, for now.. We probably have to settle your definition of omniscience first though..
And time, I shouldn't be here. How was your presentation anyways?

Mr_Anony: keep wondering

Cold anony is cold...

Ok, wondering....
Wondering....
Wondering....
Alas, I haven't been able to come up with a solution. So now I am asking you if you know any xtians who have via prayer or otherwise changed the mind of your omniscient god? Is it possible to do so?

Mr_Anony: All you have to do now is show us from the bible one instance where Elijah or anyone else forced God to do something against His will, failure to do this will tell us all that you are lying.

Not strictly related, but I wonder if any xtians have been able to, via prayer or whatever means, change the mind of an omniscient being?

mazaje: The same god was subject to elijah's whims, no?. . .Same god was all over the place fighting along side humans and addressing them through public speech in the pages of story books, no?. . .Even today we have christians that claim they summon god at will and he comes and speaks to them eg pastor Adeboye of redeem. . . .

This is always funny.
Repelled by people in iron chariots. It seems like god was still living in the stone age and was unaware of advances in the sciences...
I wonder how surprised he was when he first came across iron. If he were going to apply god of the gaps to that creation, how that would work?

mazaje: To me religion has out lived its usefulness in some parts of the world. . . .

It's still useful in some parts?!
lol. I find that hard to believe, though of course you are right on many levels.

Regardless of how poorly educated one may be or how dire the situation, I would say religions of the flavor of the abrahamics have far better alternatives everywhere. So I suppose it would depend on the type of religion.

And we may get to a point where we might be able to control emotion with some success. Heavily playing with fire, I know.
Emotion gives us our drive, our goals etc. Keeps from becoming cold, heartless, apathetic and ambitionless etc. But it's also what leads to myriad horrors. If we ever do gain some sort of judicious control over it (like the vulcans from star trek) we might be able to get rid of the need for religions of the abrahamic sort for ever. Of course, again, seriously playing with fire. I wonder if anyone's ever explored the option of attaining complete control over emotions without killing ambition and empathy?

[/weird rant]

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

When did I post it? No, I did not post it, I bribed Seun to slot it in 5 minutes ago, moooron!

The criteria is dumb? How? Because it is above your level of thinking? That is the kind of challenge geniuses would put forward to even any Harvard professor instead of moronically nodding your head to whatever anybody with a PhD says.

Instead of even wasting time typing epistles, let me challenge your moronic, dumb, cretinous arsse to state why you think the criteria is dumb.

Let me clunk your daft brain with that your cretinous assertion first.

Oya, I am listening.

Edit buttons don't function anymore it seems. Notice how your reasoning covers a wide variety of options, especially the more obvious ones...
I hope you can at least tell that's sarcasm.
Epistles?
You m.oron...
Considering the class displayed in this post, we're clearly done.

I'd say you have average troll levels. It's a combo of both stoopidity and being a troll, so part of it is semi-decent trolling, the rest is stoopid.

Sagamite: Nah!

A subset of animals that have pleasurable s.ex strictly and exclusively with animals of their s.ex even when an animal of opposite s.ex is available are homosexual.

Prisoners having sex with other prisoners are not necessarily gay, so your definition falls there.

Only fucktards like Logicboy with his failed education would say prisoners that have sex with other prisoners when they have no access to the opposite sex are gay.

That is your definition, we're just indulging you. At the very least, they're bisexual

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=bisexual+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"Sexually attracted to both men and women."

Whether they'd admit it or not. Though they are likely more attracted to the opposite sex.

Logicboy03: I handed your azz to you on a silver platter.

This is one of those cases where like @vedax, he's too stoopid to realize how stoopid he is.

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

So you can't prove they engage in sexual pleasure?

You moronic arsse keeps on emphasising female? Is it only females that are in those birds? What about the males? Why can you not show me they engage in coi.tus?

So, person, you believe those birds are gay when only the females engage in the gay behaviour? Only the females are gay? FOOOOOOOOL

If animals are gay both the male and female would be gay.

You are a person! Bonobos are highly sexually charged animals, not gay animals. They even rub their di.cks on trees that does not make them arbosexuals, cretin!

Gay animals will meet criteria (b) and (c), you dumb shyt! Bonobos fail!

Your moronic arsse brought "I imagine" as evidence to Sagamite?

You are a person!

And I used bonobos, where? You're the one who suggested I do, you dishonest or incredibly stoopid? Also, I did mention penis fencing, no? In fact, I did bring penis fencing to your attention in your last misadventures, yes? There would be exclusively gay bonobos, but the behavior of most would be like you say here, not the default preference.

And again, no ghey females in sagatardverse? A tard to tard them all together...

Sagamite: person, if you want to show me a gay animal, make sure you have a brain and meet the following criteria:

a) The animals for the study must be in their natural setting hence nothing is forcing them to show unnatural traits as the aim of the research is to show a NATURAL behaviour.
b) The animals must have access to both sexes of animals for intercourse but yet specifically and exclusively choose same s3x intercourse over opposite gender intercourse.
c) The gay animals must be a sub-set of the animals, not all the animals, as this shows some where born gay and some straight, not an overly sexed specie.
d) The subset of gay animals must be decently large percentage of the animals and they frequently demonstrate this desire/behaviour. It is not a SINGLE, RARE OCCURRENCE which shows a crazed animal. Remember a crazed animal is not a gay animal. Otherwise all we have proved is that animals too have mad ones.
e) There is penetration and expulsion as this shows that it is actually a pleasurable se.xual intercourse that has resulted from AROUSAL of the mating animals and they want to get at it just like same s3x do.
f) Ideally also show that there is exhibition of mating rituals between the animals as this proves that those gays that behave (talk, dress, walk etc) like the opposite gender are not some demented souls but this criterion is relaxable as I know it is hard to show.
g) Ideally also show at least 10 different types of animals that demonstrate all these, but this is also relaxable because I am confident one cannot even be found.

f and g are relaxable so you don't claim I am stifling your moronic arsse!

When did you post this? Did you edit a post and finally settle on what 'natural' means? Your parents sent you to the UK, I would think to educate your dumb a$$, yet you expect me to waste my time schooling you when all those paid teachers so obviously failed? Regardless, most of these criteria are satisfied you dumb $hit. And I see how you keep on disingenuously raising the stakes. Is this one of those cases where you'll never be satisfied, and keep on screaming LALALALALALA? How did someone with your mental capacity escape xtianity? It's a miracle I tell you, perhaps proof there's a god.

Coi.tus is not the only type of se.x imbecil.e. It is not even possible between females you gigantic t.wat. So, there are no ghey females? How f.ucking stoopid can you be?

And what of the rams? Even on the basic, introductory wiki page:

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

"One report on sheep cited below states:

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[29]

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to cats, dogs and budgerigars."

Wiki -> sources.

And just about every other thing you ignored in my post? Like the flies turned ghey?

http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html

Or the different physiology of the ghey rams

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

These as proof for biological factors in the ghey. And all the other things you willfully, or stoopidly, ignore or fail to comprehend in my post?

Enjoy another article, this one from Time this time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html


And the birds are gayer then your bonobos you dip$hit, another time article written by someone with a functioning brain may perhaps explain to a sagatard what I mean. Hopefully, he can dumb $hit down to your level

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1905237,00.html

"One particularly charged finding is that in most species besides humans, same-gender pairings rarely lead to lifelong relationships. In other words, when one attractive bonobo male eyes another in a lovely patch of Congo swamp forest, they occasionally kiss and then move on to other oral pleasures, but they don't bother anyone afterward about trying to legalize their right to an open-banana-bar ceremony. In fact, they are likely to move on to girl bonobos: most animals that engage in same-gender sex acts do so only when an opposite-sex partner is unavailable.

And yet the study's authors, Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk of UC Riverside's biology department, report some exceptions, like the laysan albatross. Last year, researchers studying a Hawaiian colony of albatrosses found that nearly a third of all the couples involved two females who courted and then shared parenting responsibilities. (Albatrosses don't have U-Hauls, so no lesbian jokes, please.) Male chinstrap penguins also form long-term relationships, at least in captivity. And some male bighorn sheep will mount females only after the females adopt male-like behaviors. "


And of course, as logicboy has already stated, you haven't even presented an argument to support prosecuting gays, sagatard. You don't have one, yet expect us to do so, why? Because you say so?

You have one that works in sagatardverse? Guess what, all this talk about born gay or not, matters not. Like I said, it's just to indulge you (dunno why I'm still here though, oh, I'm immature). Zilt. But you cannot even state your case....

You, good ser, are a total failure. My bad...


EDIT: Google, brah, is a useful tool. For instance, this is fun, and actually sourced

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-gayest-animals

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

I told you to show me gay animals you are telling me "described as behaving like loving couples". Is gay behaviour equals gay, cretin?

Foooool, you "imagined they might have"? That is your evidence. YOU ARE A person!

Show me animals that have no interest in the opposite s.ex like the gays we have.

person, and if you had any brains, your best and most convincing chance is to find animals that are close to humans. Cretin, PRIMATES!

But feel free to use any animal you can find that is gay, don't say Saga is restricting me. I am just advising your moronic arsse.

Don't come back here to show me animals exhibiting gay behaviours, show me gay animals! FOOOOOL!

You expect females to engage in c.oitus? Good $deity how re.tarded can one be? Only males can be ghey in sagatardverse? Do you think I don't know about bonobos and their p.enis fencing? Ffs iirc, I was the one who actually mentioned them to you on your last fu.cktardric adventure in /religion. I choose these birds for reasons I highlight in my post, but your reasoning skills are so good they completely missed them. According to your definitions, a sizable amount of those bonobos are just performing 'gay behaviors' (in your speak), these birds on the other hand are the real deal. They simply don't have p.enises you clown. And if lack of sausage is your problem oh shallow mind, what of the ghey rams anyways?

You also failed to note that in my 'imagine' paragraph I explicitly state that I might be wrong, depending on how they keep their records. I even go further and state that regardless, that point doesn't matter. I leave them in the post just to show the depth of your thinking.

Strawman, run away tactic, genuine stoopid, I'm not sure what this is.

On another note, you're the real deal; a genuine m.oron. I've actually given you far too much credit even as is. I suppose only a true eediot would go around beating his chest shouting 'fuc.ktard' without realizing how much of an a$$ he is. Think of a buffoon on the level of homer simpson at work. Though I'm beginning to doubt you can think properly. Meh. Can't waste too much time on your eediocy and bigotry. Seriously...

Sagamite:

The 2 person hyenas that I was calling out throughout yesterday and they were running like sissies waited till I went to bed to start screaming "where is the Lion"?

Even the cretin called logic boy that was avoiding answering a question got all boastful and more confident and finally screamed "there are gay animals".



So you believe there are gay animals but you could not answer my question asking you that simple question yesterday for over 2 hours until you saw another hyena show up and you confidence grew?



Pussyclats!

Now lets have a BURN FIRE!

So person wiefgraf, I said you should show me gay animals and you went to bring me an article (after running for hours) late in the night where this is in it:

Young would never use the phrase “straight couples.” And she is adamantly against calling the other birds “lesbians” too. For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do [size=14pt]except have s.ex[/size], and Young isn’t really sure, or comfortable judging, whether that technically qualifies them as lesbians or not.

So let me summarise:

1) Even the article itself and the scientitst do not claim the animals are gay.

2) The birds do not have sex.

3) The birds incubate eggs which was produced through sex.

So, person, that is your evidence that they are gay animals?

You are a person! Say "Yes, Sir"!

Your evidence of gay animals is to show us birds that are exhibiting gay behaviours, not ones that are gay.

You are a person!

Come back here for your roasting!

I would not even worry about the person called Logicboy03 because I know his liver would have gone by now and he would be running. He would wait till the lion is sleeping before he starts ranting and giving opinions.

Hmm....

Saga the mighty mouse, there's a little too much wrong here good ser. Don't think I can even cover it all in one go, I'll try for your sake. You genuinely are either particularly stoopid, disingenuous or a silly troll. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

Did you miss the bits were the lesbian birds are described as behaving like loving couples, indistinguishable from hetero couples, my infamous eddiot? The touching, playing, smooching and general cheesiness? All lovey dovey etc. At least you noticed that they raised eggs together and they remain as couples, some for as long as 18 years (as far back as their records go). Now, and this here is your ingenious moment, considering they are females, did you expect full blown co.itus? What would the dom use? Her beak as a Love Machine? I am aware that there are species were the females mount regardless of equipment, but these are particularly clumsy birds, she even notes how they waddle about. Why would they go out of their way to simulate coitus? Or even more bizarrely, as you seem to be suggesting, engage in actual coitus? How, you slowpoke?

Also note, mounting aimlessly would suggest they are just f.ucking instinctively for fun, or practice etc. In most of those scenarios they more or else just find the closest boilable thing or a teacher and mount it. What we have here instead is a clear case of the females requiring pipis just for the sp.erm they have, nothing more. All other needs are satisfied with their lesbian waifus, their clear preference. And without the simulated coitus, it could also mean they don't have the need to play out traditional gender roles as well (though I'll have to think/read on that to be sure, meh).


They also do go out of their way to point out they rarely actually see any coitus, hence their difficulties with figuring out how the lesbian females get impregnated. And I imagine since there's no way to differentiate their sexes without tagging, that could mean they only recently figured which birds were male and which were female, so they might have seen simulated coitus without actually knowing they did. Though this problem could be worked around depending on how they keep their records. And both these points don't really matter per se, ie if your argument is that there are no homosexual animals in nature hence homosexuality is something that needs to be cured (a patently silly argument). I just add them to show you what a doofus you are. The paragraphs above are all you need.


Lack of a preference for ghey activity was your former excuse to claim homosexuality does not occur in other species. Your excuse being animals will probably f.uck anything, but would default hetero if given a chance, yes? There you are with an article that clearly shows otherwise, yet you now require coitus from females?? Interesting, hmm. Anyways, like I already stated, 10% of rams prefer gay (I hope I at least don't have to point out rams are male, yes?). Famous penguins, etc as well. Hint, google 'exclusively homosexual animals' if you need more.

But I'll give you just a little more here though. They later describe some scientists that altered some flies and turned them ghey, and the 10% ghey rams have noticeably different brains from the rest of the population. So there you go a biological basis. Some animals can be born, or be modified to become, ghey.

Note though, this has virtually nothing to do with our the issue of eediots thinking homosexuality deserves intolerance. Homosexuality occurring or not in other species is irrelevant. People being born ghey or not is irrelevant. I'm just indulging you out of some sick perversion, I'm not sure what. I really shouldn't be wasting time educating you though.


Yes, and also, the scientists don't call any animals, even male gorillas gay enough to b.low each other, gay. For fairly obvious reasons I fear are beyond your comprehension level, as they are stated in the article.


Edits

obadiah777: THE LITTLE CHILDREN OF AMALEK ARE LITTLE IN BODY BUT THEIR SPIRIT IS THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD. THOSE BABYS ARE THE ONES WHO MURDERED ISRAELITES 200 YEARS AGO. REMEMBER THESE AMALEKS HAVE BEEN MURDERING ISRAELITES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. THOSE BABYS ARE REINCARNATES OF THOSE WHO DONE THOSE MURDERS. REMEMBER
GALATIANS 6 VS 7 - GOD IS NOT MOCKED, A MAN RECIEVES WHAT HE SOWS

COLOSIANS 3 VS 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism

JUST CUZ YOU SEE A SWEET LIL INNOCENT LOOKING BABY DOES NOT MEAN BEHIND THAT SWEET LIL 2 YEAR OLD BODY IS NOT A FULL BLOWN MURDERING DEMON WHO HAS KILLED MANY IN PAST LIFE

There has to be a way to give a post 1000 likes

Atheist:-D:
A true beneficial religion is a flexible religion that allows us to explore all of societies strengths and illnesses, gives us confidence in ourselves, allows us to be at peace with ourselves, grows/develops with society rather than being stagnant. Is non-canonical etc.

Why is it so hard to understand this? Is fear of mortality the number 1 culprit or indoctrination? Are we truly so cowardly that the average human would be so blinded, treat this world like $hit, just because heaven?

If that's the fear the irony is that if they didn't get in the way we would be closer to immortality by now. Not to mention the obvious advantages of peaceful, progressive societies. With a lot of work, we could achieve something much better than the rather sad heaven of the abrahamics, which they seem so desperate to reach, on this very planet (or dare I say the stars).

Their excuse; but heaven. How selfish. I would like to believe they have other reasons for refusing to let go of the nonsense that is religion but all I can see is fear. In this day and age, after all that science has achieved, fear is simply not a good enough excuse

[/rather weird rant]

I imagine our evolving consciousness' need to conceptualize morality was the main purpose. Everything else fell into place after that. Like all pack animals, we usually have an alpha greatly influencing behavior in the pack thereby aiding the groups chances. Cooperation helps, so rules are established and enforced. You need a strong leader to ensure success. When we became conscious we created 'better', or at least more powerful conceptually, leaders as 'gods', the ultimate pack leaders. So strong that they would in fact take care of us even after the dreaded death. The rest then falls into place, like their becoming the gods of gaps and giving people (false) purposes in life, etc. It might have been useful in the early days

Just my opinion though. It could have happened differently. This is also more or else evolutionary sociobiology's take on it i think, if I understood it correctly.

manmustwac: Christians will always post in Atheists threads & Atheists will always post in Christians threads so having an Atheist childboard won't make much difference.

Likely true. Or you could have mac be the admin of those boards as well. Ban anyone with a brain. Things would change that way

Logicboy03: Empty barrel has no point. You were destroyed by Wiegraff

His article showed that there are gay animals
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


So did mine.


http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01541216?LI=true




You are just shouting like an empty barrel. Go and sleep. loser

E tire me. Nothing of note except the amount of times he used the word 'fuc.ktard'. Make I go back religion small then (hopefully) work...

Sagamite: You are a person!

So your moronic arsse waited till late into the night when I would soon be heding to bed to come out from hiding despite constantly being on the viewing list?

Is gay behaviours in animals evidence of animals being gay?

Your moronic arsse does not know there is nothing we are that is natural that is not in the animal world?

Let me protect you from making a moronic statement by warning you in advance so you don't get too burnt to eat: understand the meaning of natural before you comment on it.

Show me or direct me to where there are exclusively gay animals. And don't give me a tome in the middle of the night after you ran for hours. Dig out the area of the article you think validate your point and post it.

Cretin!

On the very first page, oh ignorant one

And now you tell me to understand the meaning of the word 'natural'. Hmm. I was going to ask, but I remember a certain eediot who could not define 'gay' when asked. You're a fine breed of unadulterated m.oron.
The rest of the post is, as expected, nonsense.

You're the worst kind of ignorant, the one that's ostensibly not. To make your posts more colorful, figure out another way to say 'fu.cktard', maybe that would mask your st.oopid.

Edit: you're off? Not particularly looking forward to our next meet but meh. Maybe you'd have codified the religion of sagatardation and fu.cktardry to use as a means to justify your position by then. Good luck

Logicboy03: Empty barrel says what?


Lol.....empty barrels have no arguments. They just shout "person"

I would have thought he'd have learned new words as well.

Has he given a reason yet for supporting the ban on homosexuality yet? Maybe he wants to form some sort of religion to justify his position

Sagamite, you du.mb $hit, of course gay means homosexual.

There is plenty gay activity in the animal kingdom, that is undeniable. So long as the act is pleasurable, why should animals, unfettered by dogma unlike you (even if only subconsciously), not do it? This alone shows you the folly of settling this debate using non human animal behavior. Why? They aren't conscious or intelligent, which leads to questionable behavior, like their killing babies. They operate, most of the time, solely on instinct. You haven't explicitly stated that your stance on human homosexuality is based around other animal behavior though so I can let this go.

So ghey sex documented everywhere.

As for exclusively gay animals, which is what your inane argument will revolve around (and which is what I wanted you to explicitly specify your royal retar.dness, hence the question), it is not as common, but still exists in the animal kingdom. Famous penguin same sex couples are known for instance. Roughly 10% of rams would rather ghey sex. 33% of a flock of albatross and a lot more documented cases are mentioned in this article

www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So, what's next from your ignorance?

And why do you think my whole world revolves around educating you? The only thing I've noticed you deduce correctly is my ego probably won't let your silly a$$ off free. If you'll excuse me though, that article is actually interesting so I'll be digesting it for a bit. Resume your fu.cktardry

YyyyýYeeeeeeeeěşssssssssss

Though I'd also want a place reserved for banter, or preferably mud slinging

True or not, the way some of these threads are avoided like the plague is perplexing. And this one is not even particularly damning.

Sagamite: Run, person!

You are an extremely smart Hyena.

You could slaughter me by answering my question though. It would be easy too

fellis: There really is no need to explain your point. If you believe I am bigoted, well and good because that is your opinion you are entitled to it. I know I am not bigoted sha. Am just telling the truth.

You are bigoted

Sagamite: Pussyclat, I see you.

Viewing this topic: bymigokeph, wiegraf, stephnie44(f), samm(m), Kay 17, kayoshi, veracool247, Sagamite(m) and 5 guest(s)

Ok too