(December 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm)Waratah Wrote: 1. You give a quote and change it. Was this on purpose?

I didn't change anything, he edited his own post and changed it. My quote is of his original post, just with one part bolded.

---

(December 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: He didn't even make an attempt to be discreet about it, either. It's such an obvious dodge, I'd almost think he's trying to play into the apologetic stereo-type. I thought Daniel was a genuine guy up until now =/

If a paedophile legitimately has a sexual orientation which attracts him to children, wouldn't you see it as wrong for him to have a lifestyle that gratifies it? Read this blog.

You'll tell me yes because it constituted a criminal act, whereas homosexual acts are two consenting adults expressing their love for each other, and there's nothing criminal about that. That's fine, but sin is sin.

Sexual orientation and lifestyle choice are two different things.

(December 21, 2012 at 9:16 am)Aractus Wrote:

(December 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm)Waratah Wrote: 1. You give a quote and change it. Was this on purpose?

I didn't change anything, he edited his own post and changed it. My quote is of his original post, just with one part bolded.

If that is what happened, then I retract that part of my post(You should also state it is your bold to make it clear) and BAD Gilgamesh for not showing what you edited or making it clear when I pointed it out.

Quote:

---

(December 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: He didn't even make an attempt to be discreet about it, either. It's such an obvious dodge, I'd almost think he's trying to play into the apologetic stereo-type. I thought Daniel was a genuine guy up until now =/

If a paedophile legitimately has a sexual orientation which attracts him to children, wouldn't you see it as wrong for him to have a lifestyle that gratifies it? Read this blog.

You'll tell me yes because it constituted a criminal act, whereas homosexual acts are two consenting adults expressing their love for each other, and there's nothing criminal about that. That's fine, but sin is sin.

Sexual orientation and lifestyle choice are two different things.

It is wrong because they are children, very fucking simple. So I am okay for their oppression and stigmatisation of paedophiles for the protection of children.

Whereas YOU are mentioning paedophiles with homosexuality. It remind's me of an ex liberal party member(they are very conservative bunch) who said that 30% of paedophiles were gay and all we had to do is get rid of all the gays. To my thinking he had it wrong, we should be getting rid of heterosexuals since there must be 70% paedophiles are heterosexual. So what I am trying to say is whether you are homosexual or heterosexual does not make you a paedophile, so stop fucking bringing it up together.

I think what Daniel is trying to say is, it's okay to be homosexual but wrong to express it. Daniel likes to hide behind his book, "sin is sin". Daniel just tell us in your own words why homosexuality is wrong without the god said so or pedo shit?

To Daniel and all who are against homosexuals marrying, leave it alone and start helping a part of society which has needless suicides.

I agree with everything in your most recent post, except for this:

(December 21, 2012 at 9:16 am)Aractus Wrote: sin is sin.

Because, um, well, I happen to be an atheist. Remove that little tidbit of fairytale bullshit from your post and it looks like we're in agreement about homosexuality.

Yes and that circular logic is exactly what draws people into problems with their lives. "Sin is irrelevant to me, because I don't believe in God".

(December 22, 2012 at 9:52 pm)Aractus Wrote: Yes and that circular logic is exactly what draws people into problems with their lives. "Sin is irrelevant to me, because I don't believe in God".

Define what sin is without reference to god, otherwise there is no circle and you are talking bollox.

63% of Australian adults are overweight. 63% of adults choose an unhealthy "gluttonous" lifestyle.

I'm sure you see the problem.

A percentage of these people are obese. They have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and low energy levels. Additionally, they get sick more often. In a way we're lucky we're not Indians because their bodies cope much worse with being overweight than ours do. But it doesn't change the universal fact that if you get fat bad health effects are to follow.

Cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and various forms of cancer are all caused by being fat and lazy. The 37% of us idiots that aren't fat have to foot their medical bills. We don't even get a choice in the matter - and I'm not saying that we should - but I'm pointing out to you that these idiots that endanger their health intentionally by their lifestyles live in a consequence-free environment; consequence-free in the sense that they don't have to foot their full medical bills and face all of the struggles it brings them head-on without government assistance and hand-outs.

This is why I have to tone-down my persona/ego in social situations. If I hear some fat person start talking about how much they hate smoking/alcoholism/violence/drugs/(other offensive trait) I'm known to say "and what would you know about anything, by burdening society with your gluttonous fat arse, why don't you try running on a treadmill before criticizing others who you see as problems in society".

"Waaaa we don't need Christians" - keep telling yourself that. 63% of people are so dumb they can't even use food correctly, let alone anything which is easier to abuse - alcohol, drugs, cars, ROFL, the list goes on and on and on, smoking, etc.

---

(December 21, 2012 at 10:30 am)Waratah Wrote: If that is what happened, then I retract that part of my post(You should also state it is your bold to make it clear) and BAD Gilgamesh for not showing what you edited or making it clear when I pointed it out.

It was an in-line quote, so of course the formatting would represent mine.

Quote:It is wrong because they are children, very fucking simple. So I am okay for their oppression and stigmatisation of paedophiles for the protection of children.

For the oppression and stigmatisation of their sexual orientation?

Danny, don't be obtuse. Pedophilia's issue is one of consent. Children cannot give sexual consent.

And food is just as easier (if not easier) to abuse than many drugs. It's all about hedonistic use.

(December 23, 2012 at 5:33 am)Aractus Wrote: 63% of Australian adults are overweight. 63% of adults choose an unhealthy "gluttonous" lifestyle.

I'm sure you see the problem.

A percentage of these people are obese. They have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and low energy levels. Additionally, they get sick more often. In a way we're lucky we're not Indians because their bodies cope much worse with being overweight than ours do. But it doesn't change the universal fact that if you get fat bad health effects are to follow.

Cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and various forms of cancer are all caused by being fat and lazy. The 37% of us idiots that aren't fat have to foot their medical bills. We don't even get a choice in the matter - and I'm not saying that we should - but I'm pointing out to you that these idiots that endanger their health intentionally by their lifestyles live in a consequence-free environment; consequence-free in the sense that they don't have to foot their full medical bills and face all of the struggles it brings them head-on without government assistance and hand-outs.

This is why I have to tone-down my persona/ego in social situations. If I hear some fat person start talking about how much they hate smoking/alcoholism/violence/drugs/(other offensive trait) I'm known to say "and what would you know about anything, by burdening society with your gluttonous fat arse, why don't you try running on a treadmill before criticizing others who you see as problems in society".

"Waaaa we don't need Christians" - keep telling yourself that. 63% of people are so dumb they can't even use food correctly, let alone anything which is easier to abuse - alcohol, drugs, cars, ROFL, the list goes on and on and on, smoking, etc.

What would you say the body mass index of this avarage group of christards is?

Slimming with Jesus is not as good as yoga, and neither are as good as science and learning about a proper diet.

Not everyone who is obese is "gluttonous" Daniel. What's your BMI?

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wor...6542833699

Some are rather ill ...so get off you derogatory high horse.

(December 23, 2012 at 6:51 pm)jonb Wrote: What would you say the body mass index of this avarage group of christards is?

Much too high, obviously.

---

(December 24, 2012 at 12:02 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Not everyone who is obese is "gluttonous" Daniel.

Not everyone, just most. So there are some anomalies, that's to be expected. When I was a kid I used to get grossed out, and a little scared, by obese adults. And they still gross me out, so sue me.

My BMI - 21.9, but everyone knows BMI isn't a complete answer in itself.