Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:25:40 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Are you done with Bitcoin?
Yes - 22 (19.3%)
No - 92 (80.7%)
Total Voters: 112

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [POLL] I'm Done!: Animal House 2  (Read 17495 times)
NF6X
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile WWW
September 20, 2011, 09:01:34 PM
 #201


1481221540
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221540

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221540
Reply with quote  #2

1481221540
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481221540
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221540

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221540
Reply with quote  #2

1481221540
Report to moderator
1481221540
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481221540

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481221540
Reply with quote  #2

1481221540
Report to moderator
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 20, 2011, 09:31:37 PM
 #202

Just fyi, "yiffing" is a (rather weird) slang term that litteraly means "to have sex." It's only as specific as that. So, sure, "to have sex" is a perverted fantasy, but not really a unique one :/

I think the technical definition of 'yiffing' is actually 'Sex between two socially maladjusted and/or fat people who like to pretend they are animals'.

Ok, you got me there  Roll Eyes

Revalin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g


View Profile
September 20, 2011, 09:52:01 PM
 #203

I'm glad I clicked.  This gave me a laugh:

NSFW, hard-R: https://myiq2xu.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/mylittlepony.jpg

      War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.  --Ambrose Bierce
Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics.  --Revalin 165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
NF6X
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile WWW
September 20, 2011, 11:15:30 PM
 #204

What do we call it when socially maladjusted fat people have sex without pretending they're animals? How about "making the beast with two backs and four chins"?
FAtlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


Violenth ith not compathion.


View Profile WWW
September 20, 2011, 11:50:56 PM
 #205

What do we call it when socially maladjusted fat people have sex without pretending they're animals? How about "making the beast with two backs and four chins"?
That's called an anime convention.

1KKptP9dKU6mZ6DkmwTmPERG7je7rStiuR

“Thith ith where I live. Thith ith me. I will not allow violenth againsh thith houth.”
evolve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


daytrader/superhero


View Profile
September 20, 2011, 11:52:46 PM
 #206

comic con?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 12:08:44 AM
 #207

What do we call it when socially maladjusted fat people have sex without pretending they're animals? How about "making the beast with two backs and four chins"?
That's called an anime convention.

People have sex at anime/comic conventions? I thought that was impossible for geeky/nerdy types without some sort of fluffy covering to hide what they actually look like?

NF6X
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 12:14:59 AM
 #208

There is a perfectly rational explanation: alcohol.
logansryche
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
September 21, 2011, 12:48:18 AM
 #209

Still have some popcorn left if anyone wants some
RandyFolds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434



View Profile
September 21, 2011, 01:04:11 AM
 #210

Still have some popcorn left if anyone wants some

You're not gonna have your junk through a hole in the bag, are you? This thread has seen enough sexual debauchery.

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓ ONEDICE.ME ▓▓▓▓▓ BEST DICE EXPERIENCE ▓▓▓▓ PLAY OR INVEST ▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
PinkiePie
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


GROUNDED FOR TROLLING


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 01:10:05 AM
 #211

And again, you show you cannot grasp the concept of platonic love without sex.  

As I recall, it was Rassah who brought up the concept of love without sex here, when he explained that his first love (which you appear to denounce as perversion) was not a sexual relationship. I think he grasps the concept of Platonic love without sex just fine, although I agree with you that his interpretation of some of the Bible passages that he quoted looks like a case of misinterpreting things by projecting modern western concepts onto a different culture in a different time.

Actually I have repeatedly told him platonic love is just fine, but that his insistance on perverting it into a sexual relationship later is the problem.

Quote
Emphasis added: That's precisely what you are failing to see. Some people here absolutely do debate the terribleness of at least some of the things you have denounced in this thread. For that matter, your statement isn't even logically consistent: If doing certain things makes a particular person feel happy, then why would they think that those things are terrible? If they agreed with you that those things are terrible, then why would those things make them feel happy?

I would not have referenced things nobody here would argue if it were things I had already brought up.  Rape makes some people happy, murder makes some people happy, greed makes people happy, gluttony, theft...everything can make a person happy.  You can't base your moral compass on what brings you pleasure.

Quote
You are correct, it was the King James version, though it's rather strange of you to assume that I don't know that there are "multiple translations of the bible" when I even mentioned that I have read multiple bibles in multiple languages, and attempted to explain that passage using the original language

No, you quite clearly implied you were providing the "actual quote" and then referenced a cherry picked version you thought would make your case better.  I was charitably assuming you were doing that by mistake, I can see I was wrong.

Quote
1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."
 


Quote
Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of "nakedness" in this verse and claim that it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim that Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But let’s be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage that describes a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about ANY type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul! Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply MAD that Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers

There are similar explanations for everything you can bring up here, you are trying to fit what you wish God was telling you into what he is telling you.  It doesn't work that way.

Quote
No, he was not a homosexual. Neither am I. Though I do believe he was at least bisexual (like me), and a somewhat gay acting one, too, based on his actions towards Jonathan and the other passages I mentioned. It's true that the armor part is a symbol of transfer of power. So, please explain, why would Jonathan, upon meeting David, give up his most prized possessions to him in a show of giving up himself to David's power? My guess, love/crush at first sight. What is yours?

I have already told you, do you think if you repeat it the truth will be obscured?  It is about a transference of official power, not love of any kind.  I know you wish God would give approval for your sexual perversions, but chanting a lie over and over will not grant this approval.

Quote
Not sure what this bowing is about, as I didn't bring it up. Explain?

I think I see the problem, you are just copying and pasting things you have found online without bothering to try and verify them for yourself?  That is very dishonest, I have been telling you to trust in God and his word rather than the lies of other people, many of whom have apparently abused you.

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." - Samuel 20:41 (The couple crying over their parents forcing hem to break up)"

Since we both agree a kiss does not imply a sexual relationship, what could you be referring to but the bow, unless you didn't read what you posted?

Quote
Kettle <-> Pot. Homosexuality was not illegal, and love between men, and even marriage between male monks, wasn't that uncommon until some time in the 1400's (I think, though I may be off by a few centuries). Marriage itself was simply a property transfer contract until the liberalization of the last 2 or 3 hundred years or so. So, perhaps the bible has always spoken out against homosexuality, and gays are just trying to make it fit the current (new) culture, or perhaps the bible never said anything against homosexuality because it was never considered as anything weird, and Christians are just "taking a little bit out of the Old Testament (about 5 to 7 "mentions?") to try to make it fit into their own (still somewhat-new) culture?

Please stop attempting to troll, it's painfully obvious when you do so.  




--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 01:48:40 AM
 #212

Still have some popcorn left if anyone wants some

You're not gonna have your junk through a hole in the bag, are you? This thread has seen enough sexual debauchery.

For S&G, I reach over and pull out some popcorn just to prove to you it's safe. (It is safe, ain't it, Matthew?)
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 02:02:17 AM
 #213

Actually I have repeatedly told him platonic love is just fine, but that his insistance on perverting it into a sexual relationship later is the problem.

Again, there's a huge difference between platonic love and romantic love. You can love your close friends, but you can be in love with only one person. I would ask if the love you feel for your parents is the same as you feel for your friends, and is the same that you feel for Jesus, but since you've apparently never been in love, this question is likely pointless.
The worst part of it is, Christians who are against homosexuality NEVER stop to ask if the love is one of "sexual relationship." Two guys together? "Sexual perversion!" and "you're going to hell!" That girl you were caught with, was it a "sexual relationship," or just "platonic love?" And if you two never did anything sexual, why was it perverse and sinful?


Rape makes some people happy, murder makes some people happy, greed makes people happy, gluttony, theft...everything can make a person happy.  You can't base your moral compass on what brings you pleasure.

I base my moral compass on whether something is causing harm or hurting someone. Do you know what the one main difference is between rape and a consensual relationship? Or between any of those things you listed, and a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?

No, you quite clearly implied you were providing the "actual quote" and then referenced a cherry picked version you thought would make your case better.

Eh, fair enough. I just thought that the quote I provided was a more detailed and more precisely worded one. Heck, I even used the original language part for that quote. Is the original language word, which translates into "male prostitute" not good enough?  And what about my question regarding the bible condemning lesbianism? Where in the bible does it say that the relationship you were busted for was a sin? (or are you trying to avoid this question too?)

Quote
1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."
 

Quote
Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of "nakedness" in this verse and claim that it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim that Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But let’s be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage that describes a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about ANY type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul! Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply MAD that Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers

There are similar explanations for everything you can bring up here, you are trying to fit what you wish God was telling you into what he is telling you.  It doesn't work that way.

Frankly, I don't even remember the details of why Saul is so pissed at Jonathan. But let's really be honest. Does the passage actually "describe" Jonathan's mother as being naked, as that "explanation" says? Looking at the passage, it seems to just say that Jonathan's actions, whatever they were, have "brought shame of [his] mother's nakedness." What kind of action can bring shame similar to someone else's nakedness? Why does Saul use this old oft-used term about bringing shame in such and such a way? What action is Jonathan being accused of that is being called perverse and shameful, as opposed to, say, hurtful, foolish, or something that would cause Saul to simply be angry? Sorry, but the explanation given by that page is extremely weak. For a book with god as the editor, that is some REALLY weird choice of words.

Quote
It's true that the armor part is a symbol of transfer of power. So, please explain, why would Jonathan, upon meeting David, give up his most prized possessions to him in a show of giving up himself to David's power? My guess, love/crush at first sight. What is yours?

I have already told you, do you think if you repeat it the truth will be obscured?  It is about a transference of official power, not love of any kind.

You avoided the question, and, ironically, you were actually the one who simply repeated what was already being said there. So, let me bold it for you:
Why would Jonathan, upon meeting David for the fist time, give up his most prized possessions in a show of giving himself up to David's power? i.e. Those two never met before, and Jonathan just suddenly goes, "Oh, hi. Here's my stuff, and I'm giving my power over to you." Why? How are we supposed to understand his actions?

Quote
Not sure what this bowing is about, as I didn't bring it up. Explain?

I think I see the problem, you are just copying and pasting things you have found online without bothering to try and verify them for yourself?  That is very dishonest, I have been telling you to trust in God and his word rather than the lies of other people, many of whom have apparently abused you.

I have copied that one piece of text for ease, but you're assuming that I haven't verified them. My words and my understanding of this are my own, not God's or anyone elses. They are not words I have simply been force-fed by my parents and church, but rather ones I have come to after thinking about this for a very long time on my own.
As for you, how do you know that your words are not the words of Satan? He can make you feel happy, content, and very self-righteous too, you know.

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." - Samuel 20:41 (The couple crying over their parents forcing hem to break up)"

Since we both agree a kiss does not imply a sexual relationship, what could you be referring to but the bow, unless you didn't read what you posted?

Ah, yeah, sorry, it's that thing about you not knowing what is platonic love and what is romantic love. A kiss like that likely implies a romantic relationship. People don't cry and kiss when they are forced to part.  Not even in cultures where they kiss to say hello. No one else in the bible has ever parted that way either. Frankly, I don't know of any cultures where kissing to say good bye is just a normal, casual thing.

Quote
Kettle <-> Pot. Homosexuality was not illegal, and love between men, and even marriage between male monks, wasn't that uncommon until some time in the 1400's (I think, though I may be off by a few centuries). Marriage itself was simply a property transfer contract until the liberalization of the last 2 or 3 hundred years or so. So, perhaps the bible has always spoken out against homosexuality, and gays are just trying to make it fit the current (new) culture, or perhaps the bible never said anything against homosexuality because it was never considered as anything weird, and Christians are just "taking a little bit out of the Old Testament (about 5 to 7 "mentions?") to try to make it fit into their own (still somewhat-new) culture?

Please stop attempting to troll, it's painfully obvious when you do so.  

Not attempting to troll, and if you just brushed that off as such, that's rather sad. But I guess I can keep history lessons out of it. (though you'd be surprised how many gays have actually contributed to your religion to make it what it is today)

FAtlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


Violenth ith not compathion.


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 02:38:27 AM
 #214

Still have some popcorn left if anyone wants some

Hey, I've heard you moved on from incompetent business practices to outright scamming.  How's that working out for you?

1KKptP9dKU6mZ6DkmwTmPERG7je7rStiuR

“Thith ith where I live. Thith ith me. I will not allow violenth againsh thith houth.”
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 02:42:57 AM
 #215

withdrawn

FAtlas
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


Violenth ith not compathion.


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 02:45:38 AM
 #216

Still have some popcorn left if anyone wants some

Hey, I've heard you moved on from incompetent business practices to outright scamming.  How's that working out for you?

WARNING! BLATANTLY OBVIOUS TROLL DETECTED! WARNING!

that honestly wasn't even a little bit creative. try harder.

You're right, simply stating facts isn't all that creative
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44939.0;topicseen

1KKptP9dKU6mZ6DkmwTmPERG7je7rStiuR

“Thith ith where I live. Thith ith me. I will not allow violenth againsh thith houth.”
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 02:47:01 AM
 #217

You're right, simply stating facts isn't all that creative
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44939.0;topicseen

JUST came across that myself. I withdraw my statement and apologize. Though do provide a link next time please.

PinkiePie
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


GROUNDED FOR TROLLING


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 03:19:12 AM
 #218

Actually I have repeatedly told him platonic love is just fine, but that his insistance on perverting it into a sexual relationship later is the problem.

Again, there's a huge difference between platonic love and romantic love. You can love your close friends, but you can be in love with only one person. I would ask if the love you feel for your parents is the same as you feel for your friends, and is the same that you feel for Jesus, but since you've apparently never been in love, this question is likely pointless.

Again, if you are having sexual relations with men you are sinning.  It's a sad example of cognitive distress that you are unable to come to terms with what I am telling you.  You are free to disagree and take the wrong interpretation if you wish, but you will not change what God is telling you.

Quote
I base my moral compass on whether something is causing harm or hurting someone. Do you know what the one main difference is between rape and a consensual relationship? Or between any of those things you listed, and a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?

It's troubling that you took I reply I made to someone else and applied it to yourself automatically.  It suggests your cognitive dissonance is again in action.  Why did you assume your own situation was comparable to rape or theft?  I hope it isn't because you have engaged in such actions.

Quote
Frankly, I don't even remember the details of why Saul is so pissed at Jonathan.

I'm sorry if you don't like what the passage says, but it is what it is.  It doesn't matter how you would like to remember it.

Quote
You avoided the question, and, ironically, you were actually the one who simply repeated what was already being said there. So, let me bold it for you:
Why would Jonathan, upon meeting David for the fist time, give up his most prized possessions in a show of giving himself up to David's power? i.e. Those two never met before, and Jonathan just suddenly goes, "Oh, hi. Here's my stuff, and I'm giving my power over to you." Why? How are we supposed to understand his actions?

It must be very chaotic in your mind, as the truth tries to peak through and your perverted urges shut them down.   As I said, it is a transference of official position in respect of David's great victory over Goliath.  It is the respect of a soldier.  Had you actually read the bible, instead of just googling for quotes to support your perversion at random, you may have been aware of that story and why the people, even aside from Jonathan, had such respect for David's reputation.  

--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
Revalin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g


View Profile
September 21, 2011, 03:24:42 AM
 #219

There are similar explanations for everything you can bring up here, you are trying to fit what you wish God was telling you into what he is telling you.  It doesn't work that way.

That sword cuts both ways.  You're preaching God's will as you see it.  People taught it to you because of their own skewed interpretations fit to what they wanted to hear.  Perhaps there's some guidance against homosexuality, although I believe the reasons for it are historical and not meant to apply to the modern world, like vast amounts of the Old Testament.

An objective reading of the bible has very little to say on this subject; Jesus didn't mention it at all.  But even if you believe that this is really against God's will, it's an item of vanishingly small importance.  The sheer amount of effort Christians put into this crusade is, in itself, a violation of God's will to love each other, support each other, and build a better world.

      War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.  --Ambrose Bierce
Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics.  --Revalin 165YUuQUWhBz3d27iXKxRiazQnjEtJNG9g
PinkiePie
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


GROUNDED FOR TROLLING


View Profile WWW
September 21, 2011, 03:32:11 AM
 #220

There are similar explanations for everything you can bring up here, you are trying to fit what you wish God was telling you into what he is telling you.  It doesn't work that way.

That sword cuts both ways.  You're preaching God's will as you see it.  People taught it to you because of their own skewed interpretations fit to what they wanted to hear.  Perhaps there's some guidance against homosexuality, although I believe the reasons for it are historical and not meant to apply to the modern world, like vast amounts of the Old Testament.

An objective reading of the bible has very little to say on this subject; Jesus didn't mention it at all.  But even if you believe that this is really against God's will, it's an item of vanishingly small importance.  The sheer amount of effort Christians put into this crusade is, in itself, a violation of God's will to love each other, support each other, and build a better world.

There was  very little for Jesus to say.  Homosexuality was forbidden in both the Old Testament and the New in plain text, historical revisionism is the only reason we even need to have the conversation.  Jesus was not on this Earth to make rules, he was here to sacrifice himself for our sins.  We might as well be arguing about the justifications in the bible for murder, there are some situations that look wrong to modern eyes, but we cannot use them to ignore the plain language that forbids it.

--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!