spoonybard-hahs' comments

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@20years Your first post on this article was "**** all homos." What point is that exactly? It's one thing to have a guttural reaction to something you don't like or don't immediately understand. It's another to cry foul when people shoot you down for it. It's not, "You don't like gays, so shut up and go away." It's, "You can't articulate a clear argument outside of banal, hateful rhetoric. Either contribute meaningful dialogue or please leave."

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@Dorby5826and360 You claim to have the facts. You've stated where you got them. So tell me, o teacher, where exactly you got them from. What books did you read? And whom where they written by? What about archival documentation?

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@NightLord47 If we humans let nature do all of our evolving for us, we'd have died out by now. Evolution is way to slow to affect any kind of meaningful change when it comes to humans. Psychically and genetically, we peaked a long time ago. The only real evolutionary change that has happened recently to humanity is a slightly longer life span. Which is attributable to medical science. As a species we no longer have an inherent need to evolve as nature would intend. Therefore, we must do it ourselves. Can our self-evolution have backwards effects on our environments? Yes. However, being slightly self-destructive isn't proof that we aren't self-evolving.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@Dorby5826ad360 So... You have nothing then? I asked you to cite your sources, not direct me to the damned library. If that is indeed where you do your research, and if these are things you try to "educate" people about, you should have that information readily available. I am not just going to take your word for it. You're, "IT'S THE MATRIX!" mentality prevents me from doing so.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@Dorby5826and360 Nearly 3500 blacks being lynched isn't media sensationalism. Also, please site your sources about African-Americans being in government positions during the slavery period.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@NightLord47 So because I can infer from your statements that you dislike gay people, can compare your rhetoric to that of Hitler I'm like Hitler? Hitler said that non-Aryans where a defect to humanity. You're saying the same thing about gay people. Regardless of whether or not you want to kill off gay people - and regardless of how often you exclaim that you have nothing against them - your mentality is the same as Hitler's. Especially since he said the something about gays in the first place. But let's take you idea of "defect" and really put it to the test. Thanks to in-vitro-fertilizations, gay people can indeed conceive children. A sperm here, an egg there, and possibly a surrogate mother, gays can have children. Is it still a defect if modern medical science corrects it? No, it isn't. Because of our ingenuity, evolution means more than a change in our genes.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@NightLord47 Then maybe you should think long and hard before you speak. What gender would a gay man be other than a man? Or a gay woman? Despite the varying degrees of sexuality, humans still identify as either male or female. To place gays outside of that definition would be to classify them as nonhuman. "No, I mean simply that your gender should match your sexuality, and So stop comparing me to Hitler" Are you sure about that? Wanting gays to be something outside of male or female, and stating that there is something wrong with them physically and mentally is contradictory to your statement of "I have nothing against gays."

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@timoteo2k1 Hyperbole on my part. You know, sarcasm? Either way, using the word militant to describe an opposing view point does not lend any credence or validity to your own. Especially when the same can be said about your own position.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@Armysniper89 Thank you for explaining my hyperbole to me.

Avatar image for spoonybard-hahs
spoonybard-hahs

633

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

42

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By spoonybard-hahs

@timoteo2k1 If you actually want to have a discussion with me, try to actually use the @-feature appropriately. To your statement that "shcizoprhenics" have also been around for a long time: What point are your trying to make, exactly? So have rapists, murderers, thieves, Christians, straights, bi-polar people, autism, gangrene, tooth decay, child molesters, syphilis, Buddhism, blacks, whites, Jews, Asians, elephants, and the sun. So please, elaborate.