Don't some people regard him as a "role-model"? Then he's at least harming all the people who he's encouraging to pursue their self-destructive, mentally-ill condition as if it were just another "option," instead of getting help.
Don't some people regard him as a "role-model"? Then he's at least harming all the people who he's encouraging to pursue their self-destructive, mentally-ill condition as if it were just another "option," instead of getting help.
'Role-model'. Another revolting yank concept. I'm pretty sure he doesn't describe himself as such. I really don't know why people have to be so wanky about everything. I'm frankly far more concerned with the destructiveness of kkkristians.
When I say deviant I mean skewed in an unhealthy way from the baseline.
When i say pervert I mean sick twistoid who ought to get a taste of the business end of a baseball bat.
Child rapers are perverts; trannies are just deviant.
Harm the first (if you can); help the second (by breaking the delusion [not catering to it]).
No, he's not harming any one. So, the question is: is it humane to let insane people wallow in their disease, or is it humane to try and bring 'em back to the world of 'what is' (where one's nethers are sumthin' more than lego pieces waitin' to be swapped out)?
Me: stumped. On one hand, I just wanna wash my hands of the lot (Pilate-like); on the other, I wanna extend some of that compassion Mannie sez I got.
It's a quandry.
He's hardly 'insane'. He doesn't even come across as unstable to me--just eccentric. Eccentricity is not something to get your knickers in a twist about.
Do you know what the real problem is here? American 'reality' TV. That's what is truly insane.
Immanuel Scum wrote:
Don't some people regard him as a "role-model"? Then he's at least harming all the people who he's encouraging to pursue their self-destructive, mentally-ill condition as if it were just another "option," instead of getting help.
That's unfair. In just about every picture you see of Jesus, he's got bleached blonde hair and wearing what looks like a long dress, yet he's one of the greatest ever role models. Even when the Romans caught him and Judas shagging like rabbits in the Garden of Gethsemane it didn't do his image any harm. Apparently, his blow jobs were "heavenly", utterly divine, they say.
Immanuel Scum wrote:
Don't some people regard him as a "role-model"? Then he's at least harming all the people who he's encouraging to pursue their self-destructive, mentally-ill condition as if it were just another "option," instead of getting help.
That's unfair. In just about every picture you see of Jesus, he's got bleached blonde hair and wearing what looks like a long dress, yet he's one of the greatest ever role models. Even when the Romans caught him and Judas shagging like rabbits in the Garden of Gethsemane it didn't do his image any harm. Apparently, his blow jobs were "heavenly", utterly divine, they say.
You bet I'm right, VT. When you read the Bible you have to read between the lines: All that "washing of feet" is just a euphemism.
Was Judas the one who ran away naked from Gethsemane? It was obviously the local gay hangout. And Mary was a man, which explains the kerfuffle over 'her' pregnancy.
Sorry to bring philosophy into this, but it raises an interesting question. Are there specific thought patterns that distinguish female and male minds? A quick Google brought this up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29405467 from which it appears there are a lot of factors, and not much consensus. Given that people willingly mutilate their bodies with tattoos, piercing and whatnot, to assert their personality, why should anyone be more upset that people wish to alter their genitalia? They are exercising their choice after all, something which religion denies billions of people who have various bits of their reproductive organs removed without their consent.
Matthew 12: 36. [Jesus said] "I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."
I can see where you're at.
All I can say is this: you'd better be careful, for your own sake. That's all I can tell you, and the greatest kindness I can give you. One day, you may find you are very, very sorry you were not more wise in what you said -- both you and VT. Best you deal with that now, but I can't convince you that's wise. You'll have to figure that out. I truly hope you do, because you've picked a fight you won't win.
Meanwhile, I'm not getting in the middle of a fight between you and God.
uwot wrote:Sorry to bring philosophy into this, but it raises an interesting question. Are there specific thought patterns that distinguish female and male minds? A quick Google brought this up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29405467 from which it appears there are a lot of factors, and not much consensus..
Factors are overlapping and not distinctive.
There is no "female mind" or "Male mind". Although there are differences, they are only as distinctive as your selective bias wants them to be.
You can make the same sort of distinctions between any two arbitrarily chosen groups.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:It was obviously the local gay hangout.
Yes, I believe so. Jesus had already been at it with Peter (they didn't call him the rock for nothing) and the incident with Judas was what is known as the "second coming".
And Mary was a man, which explains the kerfuffle over 'her' pregnancy.
Are you saying that the conception wasn't as immaculate as we've been led to believe?
Immanuel Kunt wrote:
All I can say is this: you'd better be careful, for your own sake.
It's okay, I'm covered for flooding, theft, fire and brimstone.
