vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Spare me the self-righteous crocodile tears over being 'insulted'.
Was I crying? No, I was annoyed because you shit talk virtuality every forum member and discussion into the ground. (Does EVERYTHING have to be 'explained-by-numbers' to you?)
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are just as insulting, in fact more so because it's dishonest and slimy.
Errrr, no. I think I owned up to guiltily liking the opportunity to shit-talk back. (The masochism was referring to doing it with you, as it's so dreary.) The shower helps wash away the sliminess.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I was perfectly capable of thinking for myself even as a child so stick your patronising PC bullshit up your arse.
Be careful what you say in posts, then, as it can lead people to draw conclusions as to how fucked up you are.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:That really takes the cake when you start viewing a young child through your fogged-up PCscope.
I have a PCscope? Really?!! Oh my God, Santa usually sends candy cane! Yayyyyy! I have a PCscope! A 'PC'SCOPE! Now I can shove it up VT's arse! Might stop the continuous drivel of shit! (I'm yodelling this nonsense because I have no idea what you are talking about.)
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I was brought up pro-Israel actually. As I pointed out (but you seem to have trouble reading), the rigid kibbutz system of child-rearing is no longer practiced, and it's not as if all Israelis lived like that.
I didn't say they did. I merely pointed out that it was system where children didn't see their biological parents as much as YOU seem to think they should, and it hasn't ruined their lives. You are the one that then started shifting the whole argument to be about kibbutzes.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Even at their peak the Kibbutz system was never a standard way of life for the average Israeli. I would love to know which 'culture' you think the Kibbutz system represented.
And there you go again. You are banging on about the kibbutzes again, dragging the discussion away from the point you were so intent on poorly defending, about the overarching necessity of children to be with their biological mothers.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are obviously too stupid to grasp even the simplest concept.
Not at all, although I admit it's hard to follow your meandering way of thinking, as you stray from the point of every discussion, and a little distracting when I have to pick my way through the litter of your insults, and navigate the sewage that spills out of your head, at the same time as having to requalify everything I've already said, because you have a penchant for bending out of shape, the meaning of everything that everyone else has to say.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You don't mind offending mothers by saying the role of mother begins and ends with giving birth and after that the term is only subjective, yet you have a little PC hissyfit at some unPC comments that just happen to be true.
Not your finest put down, VT. It's so unspecific and meaningless as to make the put down null and void.
I didn't actually say that "the role of mother begins and ends with giving birth". I said that the only time a mother absolutely need be present is giving birth. It's a logical impossibility if she isn't, which is what I meant, you fool. Beyond that, if she rejects the child in post natal depression, or chooses to take off, or even dies in childbirth, whatever reason takes her away... no judgement on her... that child still stands the chance of a good life GIVEN LOVE AND CARE BY SOMEONE WHO ISN'T THEIR MOTHER. (Scuse the CAPS but I'm hoping it will remind you to stick to the point, which it hasn't so far). Now wheel on the mums I offended, if you would, so we can all laugh in your face, you numpty-dumpy.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The PC aren't interested in what is true, only in what they perceive to be the 'correct' way to think.
I'm not being PC . I'm being commonsensical. What on earth makes you think my argument is PC? Do you even know what politically correct means? You seem to hurl it as an insult at absolutely everyone that challenges you. That, and feminist.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I've had enough of you. There is no argument.
There is only what you have to impose on the rest of us, presumably?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Children need their mothers. And if they can't have a mother then a substitute is always going to be just that--a substitute. Now if that offends the little cockles of your terribly PC heart, then tough titty, because nothing you say or do is ever going to change that. Take it up with mother nature.
Don't worry, I'll be here when your children come running to me for a little PC love, and foster care. I'll even let them play with my PCscope.