News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

If the conservative government is so anti-gay, why the heck do they have John Baird and Jason Kenney as party members? Were they just some token gestures to absolve them of homophobia? How many liberal MPs are gay? You have no nuance to your logic. Everything has to be your way or the highway. You don't get to arrive at ludicrous conclusions and think they should stick based upon your faulty arguements. You adhere to your own subjective truth and are unable to distinguish it from reality. I don't think any of the issues are the main reason why the conservatives did so poorly this election. They certainly weren't hurt in the previous one. I think most people just wanted to tip the pendulum the other way (this happens all the time in politics; Americans will most likely elect a republican next year in response to their distaste for Obama).

Many people, including conservatives, wanted Harper gone. Additionally, conservatives are the worst campaigners ever. If you're not at least middle-aged, few of their policies and little of their message relates to anyone below the age of 40. Liberals are more savvy in that they recognize the power of culture and reaching out to young people; i.e. Trudeau and his stance on pot. How many meathead Tweens voted for him asked on this position, alone? Additionally, Trudeau, has excellent charisma (no doubt aided by his drama background), he is handsome, has warm body language and seems like a genuinely nice guy. Contrast that with helmet head Harper, who stands there, looking like a slab of ham, awoken from a thousand year slumber. Who is going to appeal to your average reality television, social media obsessed young person? Image and culture matter in politics, and the conservatives in both Canada and America need to find that out fast or continue to face an uphill battle. How many people actually voted for Trudeau based on important issues? The man has no substance, nor the education needed for such an important role. He would be performing King Lear somewhere if it wasn't for daddy. No one could have honestly thought he was the best choice to lead the country, given the wealth of intelligent liberal MPs and otherwise that would be better suited for that position. Given all of Harper's faults, at least he is an intellectual.
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
That has nothing to do with morals. Body parts do not have innate moral values. The fact that you think it's gross isn't a moral value.


You're exposed to far worse things outside of your rectum. Your hysteria is unwarranted.


Human existence is thanks to putting ourselves in dangerous situations. Bubble wrapping ourselves now seems a bit late to the party.


I'd love to see any information to support the claim that anal play will invariably lead to a colostomy bag. I doubt it exists, but I'd be happy to review any such study.


It's taboo for immature children, I've not meet any adult who would view it as taboo.


That and a large number of them are simply willfully ignorant. Like the people protesting the new sex ed curriculum.
Click to expand...

Fisting is immoral because it is perverse. What makes it perverse is the deliberate action of knowingly using the rectum in a way it isn't meant to be used (everyone knows its purpose). It's not normal (rationality should be sufficient reminder) to stick things in one's bum just because one has a desire to do so; and that begs the question where such desires originate; I'll get into that later.
It is a filthy portion of the body. If it's perfectly normal to do so, why does such behaviour potentially have severe ramifications? Does the thought of poo in one's ass not make you think: maybe this isn't a good idea? I guess that is where the strange excitement comes from? The fact that anal play is so revolting. The dirtier/kinkier the taboo, the greater the high. People have to constantly find news ways to stimulate themselves as they get tired of the same old tricks. What would Worf think of his captain's actions; or Captain Reeker...I mean Riker? Would Number 1 approve commands of human torpedoes into number 2? Dr. Crusher must know a thing or two about that sort of pressure, with a name like that. Sorry, just needed some comic relief after all this discussion.

If every thing we know is learned, then why were we introduced to such acts in the first place? No one is born with a desire to fist someone's butt. Someone/thing placed those types of ideas in our minds and made us curious. Do you ever ask yourself why? Why is anyone (and this is actually promoted in the sex ed curriculum) being taught to experiment with acts such as this? Do you believe that the government is so concerned about others engaging in all these 'fun' acts and they just want us to enjoy ourselves? Why do they care so much about the sexuality of children unless they are grooming them for easier access? Why do you suppose they are trying to 'educate' children at an even younger age, before they have developed critical thinking skills and have reached their formative years? They know that if they persuade them to think a certain way before they mature and are able to question things, they are much easier to manipulate. It's no surprise that young people are so obsessed with sex. It's constantly pushed on them. There has been a concerted effort to sexualize young people and the evidence of that is everywhere.

If the government truly cared about the health and safety of our youth, they would tell them to wait until they grow up and are mature enough to make decisions about very personal matters, such as this. The same people that think politicians and government officials are shady and untrustworthy are the same ones that trust them with teaching such an important topic to the most impressionable members of our society. Do you believe that 'educating' kids about sex is going to result in everyone being responsible? The message isn't working and it never will. STDs only exist because people haven't been taught to control their most primal desires. If you play with fire, it's no surprise when you get burned. If you don't want to sexually contract a painful or deadly illness, don't put yourself in dangerous situations. It's really quite simple. Those that abstain from risky behaviour have nothing to fear and they aren't missing out on anything. They're arguably happier.

I'm not deliberately exposing myself to hazardous situations. Which things, in particular are you referring to. Whatever the case, that doesn't justify doing something which you know defies the normal intent of the rectum. That's poor reasoning.

How is human existence due to putting ourselves in dangerous situations? Who said anything about bubble wrapping people? I just think people ought to question themselves and what they've been taught (this applies to myself and everyone else). Maybe people should be less reckless with their bodies and respect them more and not use them in ways that defy their function?

Ask a doctor or nurse. I know plenty and they have told me about gay patients that can't hold in their stool because their anuses are so stretched out. I didn't say invariably, either. I suppose some people are lucky and don't end up with prolapsed rectums, but I still don't see the reason or need to use the anus as a stimulant. If that floats your boat, then that's your prerogative, but don't complain if something goes wrong. Where do we draw the line on bizarre practises?

Perhaps you need to expand your line of friends and acquaintances? What makes anal play normal? Deriving pleasure from it isn't an answer.
 
Last edited:
Armour said:
Fisting is immoral because it is perverse.
Click to expand...
Christianity is peverse, does that make it immoral?

Not at all, what immoral, are Christians (or anyone) who try and make out that they better than others who are Muslim, Buddhist, not religious at all, gay, black, blue ... and who try and tell others how they should live.

Though surely the jedi have better movies coming out.
 
Last edited:
Armour said:
Fisting is immoral because it is perverse.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll correct this for you... 'Fisting is not my cup of tea but consenting adults can do what they like in bed'. You're welcome.

Armour said:
If the government truly cared about the health and safety of our youth, they would tell them to wait until they grow up and are mature enough to make decisions about very personal matters, such as this.
Click to expand...

The government/school system's mandate and responsibility is to education children. Knowledge is power and it has been demonstrated time and again that children exposed to sexual education make better choices, have lower incidents of teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexual diseases etc. You may not personally 'agree' with everything taught but that's life. You can and should continue the discussion at home, with balance, and then let your children make the choices that are right for them.

Armour said:
Ask a doctor or nurse. I know plenty and they have told me about gay patients that can't hold in their stool because their anuses are so stretched out...What makes anal play normal? Deriving pleasure from it isn't an answer.
Click to expand...

Oh dear. Anal sex has been practised since the dawn of time, and by straights and gays... so has oral sex by the way. They were and are alternatives to avoid unwanted pregnancies. You see, unlike animals humans do not have a rutting period. We have sex anytime, for bonding, for pure pleasure and emotional reasons etc. far far more often than we ever have sex for procreation... then again, if you'd ever been exposed to sexual education you might know some of this.
 
The number of homophobes who claim to have had extensive discussions with doctors and nurses about gay men holding in their stool is always just hilarious to me. It just goes to show how desperate, and laughably irrelevant, the anti-gay movement has become.
 
Skeezix said:
The number of homophobes who claim to have had extensive discussions with doctors and nurses about gay men holding in their stool is always just hilarious to me. It just goes to show how desperate, and laughably irrelevant, the anti-gay movement has become.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe one is trying to self-diagnose the symptoms of head-in-the-ass.

AoD
 
Armour said:
That's poor reasoning.
Click to expand...

You're the definition of poor reasoning. Nothing you've said would pass as a reasonable thought except to other irrational individuals.
You've bought into whatever nonsense someone has manipulated and conditioned you to believe in as a child, and hopefully future generations can be protected from similar fates.
 
Armour said:
What would Worf think of his captain's actions
Click to expand...

Um...among all of the other really out-there nonsense you've posted, I feel that I should point out that Patrick Stewart isn't gay (and neither is Captain Picard, unless he was hiding it for some reason).
 
I am now, officially, confused. We were told that terrorists are not hiding in the camps where we will rescue the 25k refugees from....we were also told that between our own and the UN screening we had nothing to fear about terrorist infiltration of the refugees we are to re-settle and now, according the CBC, we are going ban single male refugees....we will filter for women, children and families only.

This seems to me a bizarre contradiction....either we have the ability to filter out or screen properly or we don't. I would think we do and would have no need to replace islamaphobia with maleaphobia.

It is also a decision that plays into the hands of the people who oppose any refugee settlement.....it acknowledges there are security concerns and since not all of the terrorists who have hijacked the good name of Islam for their purposes have been men it will lead to criticism.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185
 
TOareaFan said:
I am now, officially, confused. We were told that terrorists are not hiding in the camps where we will rescue the 25k refugees from....we were also told that between our own and the UN screening we had nothing to fear about terrorist infiltration of the refugees we are to re-settle and now, according the CBC, we are going ban single male refugees....we will filter for women, children and families only.

This seems to me a bizarre contradiction....either we have the ability to filter out or screen properly or we don't. I would think we do and would have no need to replace islamaphobia with maleaphobia.

It is also a decision that plays into the hands of the people who oppose any refugee settlement.....it acknowledges there are security concerns and since not all of the terrorists who have hijacked the good name of Islam for their purposes have been men it will lead to criticism.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185
Click to expand...

Wow, they can't ever win can they?

If they didn't ban single men from coming over, people would complain that it is too risky. Now that they suggest a ban on single men to quash fears, people complain.

We get it... people don't want refugees coming over. The government is trying to ease as many fears as possible. Lets not turn everything into a conspiracy now. There's enough of that going around already.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Wow, they can't ever win can they?

If they didn't ban single men from coming over, people would complain that it is too risky. Now that they suggest a ban on single men to quash fears, people complain.

We get it... people don't want refugees coming over. The government is trying to ease as many fears as possible. Lets not turn everything into a conspiracy now. There's enough of that going around already.
Click to expand...
What in my post led you to the conclusion I don't want refugees to be re-settled in Canada? What, in any of my posts, leads to that conclusion?
 
It is unnecessary to exclude single men from the 25,000 refugees, and it was clearly done as a sop to the hand-wringers out there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top