@PhilKmorgan 334613 wrote:
As I have said previously, there is no clear cut answer as to what is right or wrong (actually I like the ambiguity of 360 shades of grey). Really it just depends on you personal politics and you will find all sorts on this site. At the end of the day, this is warehouse party site not a god damn facist convention. There are some people who are free spirits or creative and just like to do their own thing (Ian Brown from the stone roses was a doley). Would you also condemn a generation of hippies who opted to get off the grid and sit round the camp fire at festivals with a big fat spliff instead of going to work. I don’t care if someone’s on the dole or not, it is certainly not a criteria for pidgeonholing someone as worthless. I have met all sorts and I am not the sort to point a long moralistic judgemental finger.
To sum up, based on the totality of your postings, I would say that you are a woman who likes (and in fact needs) to be tied up and spanked. This is not just a passing thought, I have a sixth sense and am normally spot on this kind of thing.
you just pointed the long moralistic judgemental finger yourself
@joshd96320 334616 wrote:
you just pointed the long moralistic judgemental finger yourself
I am done here..
i doubt it
To sum up, based on the totality of your postings, I would say that you are a woman who likes (and in fact needs) to be tied up and spanked. This is not just a passing thought, I have a sixth sense and am normally spot on this kind of thing.
i’m not a facist and it is low to say that.
Ian Brown was on the dole…so what, it is still wrong if he isn’t looking for work…but i dont know the facts about his case.
If the hippies didn’t claim JSA then no i wouldnt, if they did then yes i would. I wouldnt hurt/abuse them. I just think its wrong.
I havent pidgeonholed anyone as worthless, never used that word. Morally wrong yes, worthless no.
If they are taking money they arent entitled to the least they should get is the long moralistic judgment finger.
To sum up, you are a man who sits on his phd (if you really have one)thinking he can argue but can’t, and then has to turn to sexual suggestions when he can’t win an argument against a woman.
And to think, i thought you were going to provide a good debate.
ellie ftw!
ha ha – i had to look on the urban dictionary to find out what that meant!
Many thanks :love:
hhaahaha i always forget those
i had to look up ftw 3 or 4 months ago aswell
fuck the world?
more worryingly, my first guess was fuck the woman :crazy: :crazy_diz :crazy_dru
lol
for the win
like photo, ftw
or, cider ftw!
what the smeg does for the win mean?
@ellie 334624 wrote:
i’m not a facist and it is low to say that.
Ian Brown was on the dole…so what, it is still wrong if he isn’t looking for work…but i dont know the facts about his case.
If the hippies didn’t claim JSA then no i wouldnt, if they did then yes i would. I wouldnt hurt/abuse them. I just think its wrong.
I havent pidgeonholed anyone as worthless, never used that word. Morally wrong yes, worthless no.
If they are taking money they arent entitled to the least they should get is the long moralistic judgment finger.
To sum up, you are a man who sits on his phd (if you really have one)thinking he can argue but can’t, and then has to turn to sexual suggestions when he can’t win an argument against a woman.
And to think, i thought you were going to provide a good debate.
You are right I am a bit tongue in cheek. The truth is I don’t know you at all, so I don’t know if or not you like any kind of spanking. My apologies if I am misjudged you on this score.
However, you cannot truthfully say that you have won any argument because you do not really offer any substance to back most of what you say, beyond falling back on societies all purpose rhetoric – that collection of beliefs floating around and held up to be written in stone when often there is no rational basis (another analogy is old wives tales or mates-in-the-pub type logic). Maybe this is why I am not too serious.
The point about sitting on anything at all is at least to build a credible argument that sustains your point with some kind of facts –not prejudice. raaa
However, you cannot truthfully say that you have won any argument because you do not really offer any substance to back most of what you say, beyond falling back on societies all purpose rhetoric – that collection of beliefs floating around and held up to be written in stone when often there is no rational basis (another analogy is old wives tales or mates-in-the-pub type logic). Maybe this is why I am not too serious.
The point about sitting on anything at all is at least to build a credible argument that sustains your point with some kind of facts –not prejudice. raaa
I asked you for the evidence that went against my ‘old wives tales’ beliefs and you gave me none.
Where is your credible argument?
I see what i’m saying as basic common sense, but please explain to me why i am wrong.
0
Voices
161
Replies
Tags
This topic has no tags