Recent posts by Nokkenbuer on Kongregate

Topic: Off-topic / You Should Be Ashamed of Yourslefs

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / You Should Be Ashamed of Yourslefs

This is literally the worst board on the whole goddamn site.

 

Topic: Off-topic / WEST SIDE CHERRYBOY CRIPZ 4LYFE

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Off-topic / "BOY I SHO' LOVES MUH PORCH" -MFT THE MONKEY

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Off-topic / "BOY I SHO' LOVES MUH PORCH" -MFT THE MONKEY

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Off-topic / "BOY I SHO' LOVES MUH PORCH" -MFT THE MONKEY

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by kevinmitnick:

No, they aren’t.
You’re just an ignorant sexist.

While I do not agree with [him], simply insulting someone without any substance or basis or argument makes you no better. If you want to contribute to the discussion, then so be it. Whining about other people’s views, some of which you perceive to be “sexist” or “ignorant,” however, gives others the impression that you either don’t have an argument or you’re seeking to cause trouble. In either case, I doubt many will appreciate your fruitless endeavors.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by I_love_you_lots:

Intelligence is not gender specific, and men are stronger, bigger, and faster.

No. The genders are not equal; men are logically superior. However, our society focuses on intelligence, so…

Firstly, a citation is needed to support your claim of intelligence not being gender specific. Although I agree, my concurrence means little if the claim is false. Secondly, where is your evidence that “men are stronger, bigger, and faster”? While it is true that the male sex tends to be stronger, bigger, and faster, that in no way guarantees all males while have such superior qualities when compared to any female. Moreover, those qualities are not inborn, but developed over time; while a male may have more durable and powerful muscular and skeletal structures, that does not mean those innate physical superiorities will outperform a female’s body given she trained herself and developed a better physique.

Males are born with physically superior bodies to females when it comes to certain activities, such as labor, lifting, brawn, force, and speed. The male’s skeletal structure is ill-fitted for giving birth, however, and that is where females are physically superior. The only verifiable reason why males are born with these physically superior qualities is that the male sex evolved as the protectors, hunters, and fighters between the sexes. If females were to evolve in this way, they would be in the position of males in terms of physical superiority (and such instances of females hunting, protecting, and fighting can be found among certain species in nature).

Regarding males being “logically superior,” where is your evidence for that? It is true that males generally use the left hemisphere of their brain predominantly over their right, whereas females utilize both hemispheres equally. It is also true that the left hemisphere tends to process more logical and analytical data while the right hemisphere tends to process more abstract and creative information. Neither of the aforementioned necessarily indicates logical superiority on the behalf of males. To claim that males tend to be more logically apt would be a legitimate claim; however, logical aptitude is not the same as logical superiority. Females are more apt to comprehending and perceiving from an emotional or creative perspective, both of which are crucial qualities necessary for an ideal individual. One could argue that the female brain is superior because it provides for an equal basis between the hemispheres upon which an individual can improve and customize, whereas males tend to be biased toward logical and analytical thinking.

How does society focus on intelligence? From what I’ve observed, much of society belittles intellect and wisdom rather than exalt or revere it. The main focus of society is popular culture and entertainment. The reason for this is that humans are naturally self-centered and egotistic; therefore, society best exemplifies the natural tendencies of the human individual by adopting a hedonistic perspective. Evidence of this can be found in the types of television people generally watch: rather than viewing documentaries, educational programming, and lectures; people watch sitcoms, “reality TV,” and pop culture news. Rather than reading non-fiction, people would rather immerse themselves in fiction and fantasy novels. It’s not necessarily bad that people do these things, but it nevertheless indicates a pleasure-seeking mindset in society, or at least one that seeks to escape reality.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Yeah, I agree with you, but I think that there’s been a misunderstanding.

Galdos spoke of natural inferiority as if it makes a person less of a person. I disagreed. It does not.

So in a sense, his so-called natural inferiority, which means “rights come with competency”, does not exist.

What does exist is the natural inferiority that makes women not as good at jobs as men, etc etc.

Women are not as capable on average as men in specific positions. Women are generally equal in competency when it comes to jobs and employment as a whole, though there are some at which they are either better or worse than men. I agree that natural inferiority does not diminish the value of a human individual, only the chances that he or she will accomplish certain goals. I do agree, though: there is more of a misunderstanding than a disagreement between us.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

WRONG.

Physical handicaps such as a woman being on average less strong than a man or being born with no arms or legs or mental handicaps are PHYSICAL inferiorities, not NATURAL inferiority. These are not always set in stone.

Otherwise, being self-sufficient is a choice.

Being competent is a choice.

Proving it is a choice.

So if men are better at a job than women, such as hard labor etc. etc., than they will be paid more, as it is common sense to pay the best workers more. Even if they happen to be men.

A physical reality is a natural one; therefore, the inferiorities or handicaps of the former is that of the latter. Both are “set in stone,” though they can be accommodated for. Women do not and cannot grow more muscle mass than their genetics dictate, especially after puberty, anymore than a male can. Women tend to have less muscle mass than males and what is not guaranteed is infallible consistency or absolute circumstances.

I don’t see how self-sufficiency is related to this discussion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by vikaTae:

That only holds so long as the person without limbs is unable to find a productive place in socity, like Nick Vujicic, or we are able to graft limbs onto them suitable for them to become productive (or anything else they require to be productive citizens). In some cases it could well be argued that a person without limbs is ‘naturally superior’ to one with limbs, as there is much more potential for structural grafting of specialised equipment to take place.

I would not use the term natural in this instance, but rather use the term primitive – prior to augmentation or improvement by sentient ingenuity. As such, a primitive individual with limbs may be seen as more desirable in many instances, to a primitive individual without limbs. However, once you move away from the primitive state, the potential is there for the balance to swing radically.

The choice is really yours; whether you wish to stay in the primitive state or not.


I stated later on in that paragraph: “That being said, an individual who can use his or her limbs is naturally more productive in a physical or laborious way than one who cannot. This should be obvious to anyone who has a reasonable brain and an ability to think.” That embolded part is what answers your refutation. Nevertheless, having limbs that do not function only indicates that the individual is physically inferior to someone whose limbs do. There is no promise or requisite that the physically inferior individual would be superior in intellect or creativity or inspiration. Due to that, arguing that the worth of an individual’s other abilities justifies or nullifies his or her physical inferiority is irrelevant, for that physical incapability is ever-present. Although that person may have other qualities that justifies his or her worth to society in another aspect, that physical inferiority is still there.

Regardless of whether technology can be created to accommodate for the person’s physical inferiority, that is similarly as irrelevant because the same equipment can be constructed without the existence of its designated user. The case you’re using with the handicapped individual having potential is fallacious, since you are misplacing the potentiality. The potential lies in the creators or constructors of such technology, not in the ones who would utilize it. The handicapped individual would be the recipient of the inventor’s competency and superiority, not the motivation or inspiration. If anything, the relatively limbless person is simply an excuse for or example of the technology’s capabilities. That is simply not sufficient to justify the physical inferiority of that person.

When I use the term “natural[ly],” I am referring to the intrinsic, inborn quality of any given organism; therefore, when I speak of “natural” inferiority or superiority, I am speaking of the innate quality of value or worth with which a person is born. The term “primitive” indicates a different meaning more akin to originality in primal qualities as compared to inborn ones. Whereas “primitive” is often used in a generalized and popular sense, “natural” can pertain to an individual entity. In order to render an individual without limbic ability equal in physical worth to one with it, extra time, energy, material, and accommodations would be needed. Those are not necessary, however, and it would be better to let these physically inferior people either find a position they can efficiently fill or fail and fall into the inferior crowd within society.

Everyone has a specific place in their community or environment and when those in power begin to accommodate or handicap as a means of creating an artificial equity of ability, it disrupts social order and oppresses the competent and superior in favor of the less able. Unless the handicapped individual has high intrinsic potentiality for productivity that justifies accommodation, doing so would infringe upon the rights and status of those who are naturally superior. In other words, why give a man with no arms bionic limbs when in doing so, the means of producing that technology takes away from the other uses to which the material could be put? Moreover, why diminish the accomplishments, status, and ability of those who were naturally superior when the process of doing so yields more consumption than production? Unless the accommodated individual produces more with the accommodation than he or she consumed by being accommodated, it’s simply not worth accommodating for the person.

I apologize if what I said was confusing or unclear. I only say this because I feel I may have been either (or both) and if that is the case, I’m willing to clarify.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

Self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. If they want they can live on the street for drugs and alcohol.
Competency doesn’t matter. People have the choice to be idiots or not.
There is no such thing as natural inferiority. That is called racism.

What matters is that RIGHTS are RIGHTS and they are UNDENIABLE to citizens when not in the case of social contract. PERIOD.

If someone or a group of people is better at a job than another person or another group, the employer has the RIGHT to pay the better workers more, even if those better workers happen to be men.

Actually, self-sufficiency is extremely important in a society, even on the individualized level, as is competency. That being said, there is such a thing as natural inferiority and that is evident in daily life, regardless of whatever idealistic beliefs you may hold. For example, who is naturally superior: an individual who was born without functioning limbs or the contrary? Natural superiority is determined by the intrinsic worth and value any given individual holds. Worth and value, however arbitrary, are typically defined along the parameters of ability, function, and potentiality for productive behavior. In a society, the most able-bodied and productive people are intrinsically worth the most within that community because their ability and potentiality for productivity can yield more fruitful results than those who are not recognized as having such qualities. That being said, an individual who can use his or her limbs is naturally more productive in a physical or laborious way than one who cannot. This should be obvious to anyone who has a reasonable brain and an ability to think.

What I’m saying is not racist, for it is not targeting any specific race; in fact, I have not mentioned or alluded to racial differences once in all my posts. My points are discriminatory, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Does not nature discriminate against those who are not the fittest for survival? Do not employers discriminate against those who cannot fulfill the duties necessary for a given position? Do not leaders and organizers discriminate against those who are incapable of performing the best for a given job or assignment? A manager firing an incompetent employee is discriminating against that employee just like nature allowing a species or group to die out is discriminating against those organisms for being unfit to survive in the environment in which they lived. Are those forms of discrimination wrong? If not, then neither is the discrimination against the incompetent in favor of those who are naturally and intrinsically superior. If so, then we have nothing else to discuss.

When I refer to an “incompetent individual,” I do not mean Negroids or Mongoloids anymore than I do Caucasoids or Australoids; race is not the target of my discrimination. I similarly do not mean males or females or hermaphrodites of any sort, for sex is not the target of my discrimination. Neither are short people or tall people or handicapped people or mentally retarded people my target. The people I am discriminating against are those who fail to competently fit in their given position or environment. This can include anyone from the aforementioned demographics, as well as anyone outside of them. In society, just as in nature, there are those who are naturally and intrinsically more superior than others, for not all men are created equal.

Just because not all people are created equal in worth or value or ability, that does not mean the inferior do not deserve the same rights of equity of opportunity that those who are superior can exercise. That is the point in my counterargument: equality among all in society does not necessarily include equity of ability, only equity of opportunity. If the latter is given, then the inferior will fall—and the superior rise—to their designated positions and statuses within society. Will more people of a given demographic be inferior than others? That is entirely possible, but that only indicates an issue in either society or in the demographic, not in the means of discrimination.

Rights are deniable, but that in no way indicates that the denial of those rights is ethical or appropriate whatsoever. Rights also do not require equity of ability in a constitutional democracy or egalitarian society, only equity of opportunity. Once you realize that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is fallible and that ethics extend past the writings of century-old colonists, you may be able to discuss this further. Until then, I foresee that we are simply at different states of perceptual reasoning and ethical belief, thus meaning we will never agree until at least one of us changes our view.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by Galdos:

rights come with levels of competency.
we are not the same just because we are all human beings. we are physically and mentally different.

some companies do reward men with higher payment, but only because they are more valuable(like you said – physically better for the position) . <labor jobs and such

at this moment in time, women have the mentality of an infant, and it raises the question as to whether they should even be allowed to vote anymore.

The rights of an individual is dependent upon the perception of that person by the society or community in which he/she lives. Depending on which sociopolitical concept you support, the rights of any given person can vary from heavily discriminatory policies to ones that provide social equity for all, regardless of ability or skill. From what I’ve learned, however, competency generally does not have—or should not have—any causal relationship to rights. Moreover, why should the rights of the incompetent be less than the more able? Oppressing those who already cannot succeed through their own self-insufficiency is not only unethical, but it’s unnecessary.

Ignoring the arbitrary subjectivity of the term “competency,” the incompetent will naturally fall to the bottom of society unless subsidized, or given support, by those in-power. If society would abstain from positively discriminating in favor of certain demographics, most of which are incompetent, then the inferior would remain inferior and the superior would rise above the latter. Then again, the reason for positive discrimination is to negate the oppression those demographics receive from society, but that’s a discussion for another time. Nevertheless, it’s generally true that the incompetent would oppress themselves by natural inferiority; therefore, the superior oppressing them with intent is unreasonable. Prohibiting the same rights the competent enjoy to the incompetent is similarly as absurd.

Social equity is necessary for a productive and progressive society. Social equity does not require positive discrimination or handicapping in order to provide equal ability among all citizens, though; that would actually lead to social stagnancy. Equity of opportunity is what society needs, for it will provide all with the opportunity to achieve greatness if they are capable to do so. It would not raise the incompetent above the status they could achieve on their own accord, nor would it handicap the competent in any way. Like you said, “we are physically and mentally different.” Equity of opportunity would respect these differences while also not oppressing anyone for an arbitrary or unethical reason.

As for the rest of what you said, I seriously doubt it’s true. Which companies reward men more than women because they assert males are more valuable? Unless that company is in some foreign, developing nation, where the exploitation of children and women is common, I call bullshit. With your misogynistic and inaccurate claim of women having the “mentality of an infant,” care to provide a citation to support that? Or are you just being a sexist fool? Considering the next sentence after that claim, I’m assuming the latter.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Apparently, my above posts were removed by a moderator, despite how they aren’t necessarily all that bad.

For anyone curious, I was just telling Karma that I was not talking to him and that his responses to me were uncalled for. I also used a couple pejoratives, which may be the reason for their removal.

 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by Aerilia:

Simply Google: Women vs. Men on pain threshold
Since YOU want to challenge the statement,,,
why don’t ya simply AND EASILY go find something that does?
Here is one link

I’m looking for scientific studies, not a glorified blog or a web search. Here is evidence to support my claims:

Pain Tolerance: Differences According to Age, Sex, and Race
Differences between the sexes in post-surgical pain
Sex differences and hormonal influences on response to cold pressor pain in humans.

If you want an article to support your weak claim, I’ll give you one to be nice:

Altering gender role expectations: effects on pain tolerance, pain threshold, and pain ratings

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

Originally posted by Aerilia:

actually women have a higher pain theshold, guys are just taught not to let their pain show.

Care to provide a citation for that?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Feminism and Sexual Equality

No, the genders not equal. Males are generally stronger and more capable of physical labor and tolerating higher thresholds of pain than women; however, women are generally more capable of a higher sensitivity to the emotional input of others. Males also predominantly use the left hemisphere of their brain, whereas females utilize both hemispheres equally. Males tend to think in more spatial parameters whereas females are more inclined to object location memory. Although some are highly disputed and even controversial, there are many differences between the sexes.

Despite the apparent physiological, neurological, and psychological differences between males and females, that in no way justifies unequal treatment. Regardless of one’s race, sex, ethnicity, genetic background, disabilities, or even species if it comes to it, all organisms deserve the equal opportunity to any and every available position. Just because all organisms are given equal opportunity, that in no way means they are all equally capable of achieving the same success. For example, women should be allowed to serve in the military and in any position they apply for; however, this does not necessarily mean they will pass. If an equal number of men and women applied to join the U.S. Military and, given no discrimination outside of physical fitness and aptitude, tested, a higher percentage of males will pass than females because the former are physically superior to perform such rigorous activities. This does not mean there probably isn’t a woman that can kick all their asses; rather, it simply implies that there is a greater chance of the available positions being filled by males when the discrimination is based on physical fitness. Similarly, a woman would be more capable of nurturing a child, being a nurse and perhaps a therapist, and helping others in a supportive environment.

Regarding feminism, it is a fallacy. The modern definition of feminism is so misconstrued and distorted due to the various differing ideologies within the feminist philosophy, any single and coherent synthesis is virtually impossible. Do I think the liberation of women was bad for society? Absolutely not. I would argue, however, that the liberation of women was bad for society in the form it took. (Reread the italicized part at the end of the previous sentence because that’s and important distinction.) The liberation of the female sex from a male-dominated society or culture is, in my opinion, a progressive step to a better society; however, the result of such liberation is appalling. The extremist, sexist ideologies of most feminists is offensive to say the least and the delusional victimization and over-dramatization of even the most minute of perceived injustices is absurd.

The “empowerment of women” has turned into the oppression of men and the exaltation of the female form over that of all others. The last good feminist was Mary Wollstonecraft and that’s because she was what modern egalitarians would call humanism. She advocated for equal rights between men and women, not the vengeance of women against the oppressive tyranny of men. She wanted men and women to be on equal grounds, not for the oppressed to become the oppressor. I am a humanist, not a feminist, and I despite the feminist philosophy with a passion akin to my abhorrence for the corruption and obstinacy of contemporary fundamentalism in religion and theology.

To answer your questions shortly:

1. No, the genders are not equal.

2. Both genders—as do all organisms—deserve the right of equal opportunity and freedom from unjustified or illegitimate oppression and discrimination.

3. Yes and no: Yes, more work needs to be done in order to give both genders equal opportunity and availability to the same positions. No, because neither sex will nor should be equal in ability or capability. Both sexes have distinct characteristics, some of one being superior to those of the other and contrariwise. The equality of the sexes should be of opportunity regardless of ability or intrinsic equality. Humans are not created equal. All organisms have instrumental equality, or equality of opportunity. To suggest that all have equal ability, however, is absurd.

4. The radical, extremist ideologies of feminism needs to be abolished entirely and filed as an outdated philosophical doctrine. Women are no longer oppressed by the male-dominated patriarchy that existed centuries ago. While feminist ideology may be needed in undeveloped or developing nations, where women are still oppressed, it is no longer a constructive or productive school of thought to entertain in contemporary developed society. Humanism and egalitarianism and equality of opportunity regardless of ability needs to replace the feminist regime because before long, feminist ideology will pacify the masculine form and render the male gender subordinate rather than equal to their female counterparts. You may think I am being extreme, but I am simply responding to the extremism of the radical feminists. Don’t believe me? Read some of their trash for yourself.

I’m a humanist, not a feminist or a masculinist. I support equal rights for all, not the favoring of the perceived oppressed over the alleged oppressor.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Pick a MMO you hate most

Originally posted by Torpedo_Silenced:

wallquote It’s funny, because that post was defending gay rights. I don’t see how you misinterpreted it, I thought it was pretty clear. I was telling him that just because something is “a sin” or “fucking disgusting” to one person, it could be the opposite to another. Then I went on to explain that if a god hated homosexuals so much, then why would he create them. I don’t believe in any religion, and I understand that being gay isn’t a choice, it’s just part of your personality from a genetic mutation, but I was just trying to put it in terms that could get through his thick “Religion solves everything” mindset head. Furthermore, my post had nothing to do with STD’s, being able to be sexually immoral, or the Bible justifying it being a sin, so I don’t know why you brought those up. I honestly believe that people should get the fuck over people being homosexual, it’s like hating someone for having blue eyes, because it’s not up to them to decide. If they’re gay, okay that’s great. If they’re not, I’m fine with that too. I just hate when people believe that since its in the Bible, it’s obviously true.

I apologize, I quoted the wrong person, I meant to quote GiveMeMalice. I agree with your words and I didn’t mean to offend you. My problem is with GMM, not you. I’ll go change that now.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Pick a MMO you hate most

Originally posted by GiveMeMalice:
Originally posted by Nokkenbuer:
Originally posted by Torpedo_Silenced:

Text

Gigantic fucking wall of text

He mad.
Also:
>Grills somebody about hating gays
>Calls them a fudge packer.

It’s called an ironic insult, you homo. You’re clearly too mentally deficient as a failed abortion to comprehend my words, you asinine, clinically retarded pole smoker. I’d say you should kill yourself by blowing what’s left of that meth-melted brain of yours out with a gun, but that’d be a waste of a bullet. Kindly go back to drinking the piss your father brings home from his pseudo-scientific job and go get a dictionary while you’re at it. Snarky is a word that’s been around since 1906, NOT from Dane Cook (who, by the way, is horrible beyond all belief). If you’re too pathetic and spineless to actually read my words, then go play in traffic. I almost feel bad for whatever vehicle has the misfortune of using your blood as paint.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Pick a MMO you hate most

Originally posted by Torpedo_Silenced :

So if fucking a woman is disgusting to a homosexual, then we shouldn’t be able to do it, because that homosexual finds it gross? Get your head out of your ass and look around you, if homosexuals weren’t natural, then why would your said god make them?


Originally posted by GiveMeMalice:

It’s disgusting and unnatural.

My brother, Zachary_Greene, called me in to deal with your stupid shit.

Homosexuality is merely a genetic mutation of the DNA structure that deals with sexual preference. Nothing more, nothing less. There is possibly 1% of the entire LGBT community (basically a minute portion) that is “gay by choice,” or rather gay/bi due to psychological trauma, but the majority (if not all) of gays are that way upon birth. Do you seriously think people would pick to be something that they know is hated on, persecuted, and ridiculed?

“Well, being gay allows sexual immorality because you can have sex all you want and never get your partner pregnant because you both have the same sexual organs.”

Look up vasectomy. Look up birth control. Look up condoms. Trust me, homosexuals are no different. They may have it easier when it comes to contraception, but that’s not always a good thing. What if that person WANTED a child? Since he/she is gay, that person would not want to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. So, that person would have to give their seed (males), or take someone else’s (females) artificially and hope someone will be generous enough to help with the conception.

“Being gay gives you a higher risk of getting STD’s.”

There’s no correlation between the two. Just as long as you’re safe and not a whore, you’re just as likely (or unlikely) to get an STD/VD as everyone else.

“But it’s a Sin!”

And? To anybody thinking that the Bible “justifies” hatred against homosexuality, IT DOESN’T. In fact, it speaks of TOLERANCE towards them and forgiveness of their “supposed” Sins. So, any of you people hating on Christians is not only showing ignorance, but also conveying your own hatred and arrogance, as well. And for any so-called Christians still saying homosexuality is “an abomination,” read the following verses from the Bible itself:

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” ~ 1 Corinthians 6:7-10 (NIV)

So, I’m supposing homosexuality is just as bad as being a drunkard, a thief, a scammer, a promiscuous person, and greedy people? Now, how many of those “abominations” are YOU guilty of? By the way, do me a favor and read the verse that comes RIGHT AFTER them…

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” ~ 1 Corinthians 6:11 (NIV)

So, even IF homosexuality is a Sin, it’s been forgiven. So stop judging so many homosexuals and bisexuals and transgendered people alike; God – given one exists – MADE them that way and even IF it was a Sin, they’re all “washed… sanctified… justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Also, read this CHRISTIAN article regarding just that. It might help (I do not, however, condone the final statements): http://christianteens.about.com/od/whatthebiblesaysabout/a/wbsaHomosexual.htm

The reason why they are more effeminate and homosexual is because while in the womb, all humans are originally female. Whenever the unborn child begins to develop, some of them become males due to a surge of testosterone and like chemicals that makes their ovaries “drop” and become testicles, and have their clitoris to come out and become a penis. That extra testosterone halts breast development, as well, hence why males have under-developed mammary glands.

Sometimes, however, those chemicals don’t distribute properly, thus allowing for there to be people with male sexual organs and a female sexual preference, as well as vice-versa. This also explains why some people are born hermaphrodites (a person with sexual organs from both genders), along with transsexuals (someone that is biologically one gender, but has a brain that is chemically the opposite).

Stop hating. Homosexuality isn’t a disease; homophobia is.

Got that, moron? Now stop being an ignorant fudge packer and go fuck yourself.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Myslef Yourslef on KYM

Originally posted by Deadrights:

are all those big pictures at the bottom really needed

I’m still figuring out how to put them in a tile list. I’m not good with encoding.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / Myslef Yourslef on KYM

Bamp for reception.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / American Censorship Day

Originally posted by Turk_Stink_Dog:

No, no I won’t.

STFU MFT. You won’t even show your fact and talk to me.

@Everyone Else

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now

Sign it.
Share it.
Spread it.

Learn more here: http://www.americancensorship.com/