|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:32:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
1. So are morals relative or our they absalute?
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal?
I cannot believe that you are this obtuse. I have already answered you several times.
Apparently, you haven't visited the Logical Fallicies sites yet.
B'gal, #3 is just another straw man, and I casually piss molten lead on it....
Now, I'm off to the VA, where I will whine about my osteo-arthritis and they will tell me to lose weight and offer me narcotics.  And I will promise to try, and refuse the junk -- I have access to an oxycodone prescription that Rush would fellatate a syphiletic hyena to get hold of, and I don't take the miserable things. They're hard on my stomach and mess up my head even beyond what it already is.
"Better your pain, than be caught by co'dine" -- Buffy St. Marie
How in the hell can anyone get addicted to that shit? 
quote:
Apparently, you haven't visited the Logical Fallicies sites yet.
I just want to here it in your words. Not be wisked away in cycber space. The question is very simple.
1. So are morals relative or our they absolute?
Neither. They are a set of behaviors which society considers proper/improper behavior of varying degrees. Within a country's borders, several societies may be housed. As morals are set by a society, they evolve over time to fit the pressures and challenges of the society. Individual groups which do not agree with the pervailing morals continually try to convince the rest of society to adopt sections of their ethical code.
Morals are set by society. Ethics are set by indivduals.
quote:
2. Is man the only social anamal with morals, knowing right from wrong?
I think the society of naked mole rats were brought up to show that moral codes are not unique to humans. Societal morals are also common to primate clusters as well.
quote:
quote:
B'gal, #3 is just another straw man, and I casually piss molten lead on it....
Please tell me more. I will repeat the question.
3. If morals are relative are you not making an intolerant judgemant on nambla for your stance that man/boy sex is immoral, therefor illeagal? If your not making a judgement then your not saying man/boy sex is immoral or illegal, you can't be. The only way you can say nambla is discusting, wrong, distirbing is if you make a judgement on their morals or lack there of. By who's authority, or by what standard did you come to the conclusion that your belief of what is moral out trumped namblas belief in what is moral and make a judgement on them?
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral. The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer. What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 07:56:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Yep, natural as death, which doesn't mean it's moral. See my point? Natural, but not necessarily moral. I don't condone murder, not at all, pretty boy Natural, in my conception, does not equal moral. If it does in yours, then it's your problem.
You told me last post that because we see homo sex in nature (does this nature include or exclude man?)that means it is not immoral for man. I point out that in "nature" mothers eat thier young, cats kill for sport etc... You next say just because it happens in nature, this by default, does not make it moral. So which is it? Do other animals have morals? Who decides what is moral and what is unmoral?
Societies decide what is moral and immoral (where did you come up with unmoral anyway?).
As such, the actions which are deemed moral and immoral shift over the ages.
If "society" decides what is moral and immoral then who in society is making these decisions? The Gov.? Is it the Gov. who dictates right and wrong? Is it what ever the genuine consensus is, majority rules? If the majority of the people think murder is immoral and illegal then it is? By either standard then we can say that homo sex and marriage is immoral.
There are several societies in the United States alone, which one do you want to compare moral codes vs. homosexuality. The general consensus of a society determines morals and weight given to individual morals.
quote:
1. The majority of the population is against it, therefor it is immoral.
A majority of population does not consider gay marriage to be proper due to the co-mingling of religious marriage and legal marriage done by gay marriage opponents. The two are different as one is a religious ceremony and unaffected by government and the other is a legal contract imbuing the union with legal benefits and duties.
quote:
2. Many states in the union still have laws on the books that say homo sex is illegal and immoral.
Which have been completely wiped off due to Lawrence v. Texas. And laws only define what is illegal, not immoral. Morality is defined by societies. There are laws which have moral basis.
quote:
But in the last 10 years the homo community has really stood up and become vocal. And their battle cry is "tolerance." Who are the Christians, the politicians, general society, that they can dictate morality and tell us what is right and wrong. We don't care if is against the law and the majority of society frowns on it. (sodomy) It is a perfectly moral activity in our book and that is all that matters.
Actually, their battle cry is "Equal protection under the law". Something they believe is granted to them by the 14th Amendment. They are right and Lawrence v. Texas made laws against sodomy unConstitutional. Some elements of the society still believe it is immoral, but it is no longer illegal. As this is a section of morality which is in flux, there are sections of societies which are resisting the change.
quote:
Why can't nambla make the same argument against filthy who says man/boy sex is immoral and illegal?
Because your premise is fundamentally flawed. The argument is a 14th Amendment "equal protection" one, not tolerance. The "tolerance" argument is an attempt to change morality to accept them as full members. As such, the NAMBLA argument fails because there is equal protection under the law concerning pediophilla.
quote:
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
Because sex in general pubic areas is illegal in all cases. They have no 14th Amendment argument.
quote:
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
Same stuff here. Crystal meth is an illegal controlled substance. No 14th Amendment problem here.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/06/2006 07:58:17 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 08:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
[quote][i
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral. The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer. What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
Neither. They are a set of behaviors which society considers proper/improper behavior of varying degrees.
(bill)Who in society gets dictate proper/improper behavior?
Within a country's borders, several societies may be housed. As morals are set by a society, they evolve over time to fit the pressures and challenges of the society.
(bill)Who in society sets the standard for morals and then approves of any evolving? Society is rather vague term.
Individual groups which do not agree with the pervailing morals continually try to convince the rest of society to adopt sections of their ethical code.
(bill) So since homo sex remains against the law in many states and the majority of the public don't approve of it that makes it immoral and illegal by your definitions and you have no right to call anyone a homophobe who says homo sex is immoral. Society already said it was immoral and illegal through the majority rules concept and legislation.
Morals are set by society.
(bill)Who in society?
Ethics are set by indivduals.
(bill)So ethics are relative then, right?
I think the society of naked mole rats were brought up to show that moral codes are not unique to humans.
(bill)Who gets to dictate the "codes" in mole rat society? The gov.
Societal morals are also common to primate clusters as well.
(bill)Who gets to set the standard for morals in the primate society? My guess is you will say the Chistian monkeys. Or at least they try to force their morals on everyone else by saying monkey sex between an audult and child monkey is immoral. They are so intolerant. And really? You think monkeys can comprehend right from wrong let alone what is right behavior and what is not?
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral.
(bill)Who gets to approve or disapprove of this change? And morals that live and evolve is another way to say they are relative.
The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer
(bill)Who in society considered it moral and why did their values trump? Who considers it "no longer" and what would be the reason theirs should trump.
What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
(bill)Society, through law and legislation has made homo sex illegal and immoral in many states. The homos say this violates all kinds of constitution rights blah blah blah and who are they to force their morality on us blah blah blah and they flaunt their illegal action in public.
How is the nambla gang any different? They say society has no right to force "their" morals on us as we don't share their morals.
How are people who want public animal sex to be legal any different? They don't share the values that condemn this and consider those who inforce the law as intolerant of their personal "ethics" and will sue in court for intolerance of a "lifestyle" and try to have their charge of animal or child/adult sex overturned as unconstatutional
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 08:45:50 [Permalink]
|
Well said, Val; no way I can improve upon it.
Hospital visit went as predicted -- sometimes I wonder why I bother to go.... Need to get my blood pressure down a bit and, of course, lose weight. I'll try to do this.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 10:48:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral. The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer. What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
Neither. They are a set of behaviors which society considers proper/improper behavior of varying degrees.
(bill)Who in society gets dictate proper/improper behavior?
Consensus of the members. No one individual dictates moral or immoral behavior. If that consensus changes over the years, the morals change with them.
quote:
Within a country's borders, several societies may be housed. As morals are set by a society, they evolve over time to fit the pressures and challenges of the society.
(bill)Who in society sets the standard for morals and then approves of any evolving? Society is rather vague term.
Society is a group of individuals bound together by most tenets of a moral code. They are often identified through common nomenclature.
quote:
Individual groups which do not agree with the pervailing morals continually try to convince the rest of society to adopt sections of their ethical code.
(bill) So since homo sex remains against the law in many states and the majority of the public don't approve of it that makes it immoral and illegal by your definitions and you have no right to call anyone a homophobe who says homo sex is immoral. Society already said it was immoral and illegal through the majority rules concept and legislation.
Except, it isn't, Bill. Lawrence v. Texas struck down each and every law which applied to consentual sex between adults. Most societies still consider it immoral. However, individuals are working towards changing the consensus.
quote:
Morals are set by society.
(bill)Who in society?
Again, Bill, society is made up of individuals and works by mob rule. It is not a dictatorship or elected council.
quote:
Ethics are set by indivduals.
(bill)So ethics are relative then, right?
Ethics are personal, not relative. In some cases, people believe in situational ethics which differes from their main ethics. For example, someone who believes in not killing anyone for any reason, may decide to kill an attacker who poses a direct deadly threat to their loved ones.
quote:
I think the society of naked mole rats were brought up to show that moral codes are not unique to humans.
(bill)Who gets to dictate the "codes" in mole rat society? The gov.
Now you're just being obtuse.
quote:
Societal morals are also common to primate clusters as well.
(bill)Who gets to set the standard for morals in the primate society? My guess is you will say the Chistian monkeys. Or at least they try to force their morals on everyone else by saying monkey sex between an audult and child monkey is immoral. They are so intolerant. And really? You think monkeys can comprehend right from wrong let alone what is right behavior and what is not?
Why not ask them that question? Get back to us on the answer, will you?
We have determined that these societies of non-humans exist due to observed phenomenon.
quote:
Morals are neither relative nor absolute. The current moral standard places the change the wish to propose as immoral or not currently moral.
(bill)Who gets to approve or disapprove of this change? And morals that live and evolve is another way to say they are relative.
Society's consensus shifts what is moral and immoral. There is no approval process. And no, relative does not apply to the situation as relative has a connotation that the moral code holds conflicting positions concurrently, not in series.
quote:
The act of which is illegal. Centuries past, society considered what they were doing moral. It is no longer
(bill)Who in society considered it moral and why did their values trump? Who considers it "no longer" and what would be the reason theirs should trump.
Moral codes in Greece during the reign of Agamemnon (sp) had such a moral code. Romans of the 1st Century had similar moral codes. The societal consensus has shifted from this.
quote:
What the ACLU was defending was their right to voice their disagreement and associate with like minded individuals for the purpose of effecting legislative change.
(bill)Society, through law and legislation has made homo sex illegal and immoral in many states. The homos say this violates all kinds of constitution rights blah blah blah and who are they to force their morality on us blah blah blah and they flaunt their illegal action in public.
I find your unlearned disregard for the US Constitution to be typical. Again, Lawrence v. Texas removed the illegality of their actions under the 14th Amendment. They only focus on the 14th Amendments provision for equal treatment under the law. And where have you heard of people flaunting sodomy in public who haven't been liable for indecent exposure?
quote:
How is the nambla gang any different? They say society has no right to force "their" morals on us as we don't share their morals.
There is a world of difference between moral and legal. NAMBLA says that they do not ascribe to the moral stricture against man/boy sex. They a |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/06/2006 10:49:14 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 15:36:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
Because sex in general pubic[sic, Freudian slip?] areas is illegal in all cases. They have no 14th Amendment argument.
It's more to it than that. Focusing on the "in public" part is a dodge. The key issue was probably bestiality. I'd say there are two concerns in this case (which also relates to paedophilia):
1. Consensual sex: While adults are considered responsible enough, children are too easily influenced to do things against their wishes and or manipulated. Animals, especially domesticated are bred to be dominated and accept domination. I have no clue as to how people engaged in bestiality actually go about their business. But acquiring consensus from an animal to have sex cannot be an easy task, and even more difficult to convince a jury that was the case.
2. Physical and psychological injury. Children and most often animals aren't physically equipped to engage in sex. Neither psychologically nor physically, which means there is a very high risk of injury.
In Sweden, the law against bestiality was decriminalised at the same time as homosexual acts. This was an unfortunate side effect caused by constitutional technicalities. The law wasn't written in such way that the two issues could be separated. (There are movements in Sweden for making bestiality illegal again)
However, people in Sweden still get prosecuted for having sex with animals, it just files under animal protection laws where animals come to harm, instead of sexual assault (or whatever code it files under in the US).
My point is that there are still very good arguments against legalising paedophilia, aside from a strict moral/a-moral/immoral view.
quote:
quote:
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
Same stuff here. Crystal meth is an illegal controlled substance. No 14th Amendment problem here.
In the Netherlands pot may be legally bought and smoked in selected coffee-shops. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
trogdor
Skeptic Friend
198 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 20:46:17 [Permalink]
|
okay. I haven't quite finished reading all this yet but I feel I have to step in:
Bill (I can call you bill right?) Morals change! in case you didnt get that let me say it again morals change!!!and in case you don't believe me let me give you some examples:
consider slavery in the US. as society changed so did the morals of that society. I hope you are up to snuff on your US history so I dont have to explain this further.
or try to think about the Spartans of ancient Greece. this more directly relates to the conversation at hand because they were into the man/boy sex thing. but now the Greeks are not. how? because morals change!!!
but you will ignore this right? |
all eyes were on Ford Prefect. some of them were on stalks.
-Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2006 : 22:25:48 [Permalink]
|
What Bill wrote is in bold:
If morals are relative you do not have a basis to condem child molestation.
The hell I don't. My personal basis is that I find it repulsive because I empathize with the suffering children and fear that children I know and love will eventually be harmed if I do not fight against such behavior becoming a social norm.
If morals are relative then your making an untollerant judgemant of the child molester.
LOL – you really don't get the wonderful irony of what you are saying, do you? Saying something is “intolerant” is itself a moral judgment. If morals are relative, then I can do whatever the hell I damn well feel like.
And you know what I feel like supporting? Gay sex and gay marriage! (by the way, only bigots call it “homo sex”.) And you know what else? People who support gay sex and marriage are winning in Western society. That's right, Bill, we're winning. We may have not won yet, but if you look at social opinions of gay sex and marriage, you will find that tolerance has been steadily increasing for decades. There are other signs of social change: Many more gay celebrities and even gay doctors, lawyers and politicians are starting to come out publicly, many huge companies - such as Disney - offer partner benefits. Some states offer it to government employees even! In many states gays are now protected from discrimination like any other minority. Gay civil unions and gay marriage is already legal in some parts of the nations. The supreme court threw out Texas's anti-sodomy law. The bigots are losing.
And you know why we're winning, Bill? Because times have changed in our society due to technology and education. Men and women do not have totally segregated social roles anymore, and the extended family has been replaced by the mobile nuclear family. Equal heterosexual partnership and a greater sense of individuality threw the door wide open for *gasp* families based on monogamous gay unions.
Now go get a spellchecker.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 02:17:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who gets to dictate the "codes" in mole rat society? The gov.
Evolution.
No individual dictates moral or ethical codes, although many have tried and many are still trying. These are decided by consensus in the existing society and no amount of individual demogoguery will change that.
Why is this so difficult to grasp?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 06:27:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Why can't people who want to have sex with their farm animals in public use the same argument?
Because sex in general pubic[sic, Freudian slip?] areas is illegal in all cases. They have no 14th Amendment argument.
It's more to it than that. Focusing on the "in public" part is a dodge. The key issue was probably bestiality. I'd say there are two concerns in this case (which also relates to paedophilia):
1. Consensual sex: While adults are considered responsible enough, children are too easily influenced to do things against their wishes and or manipulated. Animals, especially domesticated are bred to be dominated and accept domination. I have no clue as to how people engaged in bestiality actually go about their business. But acquiring consensus from an animal to have sex cannot be an easy task, and even more difficult to convince a jury that was the case.
2. Physical and psychological injury. Children and most often animals aren't physically equipped to engage in sex. Neither psychologically nor physically, which means there is a very high risk of injury.
In Sweden, the law against bestiality was decriminalised at the same time as homosexual acts. This was an unfortunate side effect caused by constitutional technicalities. The law wasn't written in such way that the two issues could be separated. (There are movements in Sweden for making bestiality illegal again)
However, people in Sweden still get prosecuted for having sex with animals, it just files under animal protection laws where animals come to harm, instead of sexual assault (or whatever code it files under in the US).
My point is that there are still very good arguments against legalising paedophilia, aside from a strict moral/a-moral/immoral view.
Sorry, Doc. In some states some forms of bestiality are legal. I couldn't use an anti-bestaility bias from local law. I had to focus on the "sex in public" aspect as it is universally illegal to have sex in public.
quote:
quote:
quote:
What can't people who want to smoke meth at the smoking lounge in the mall use the same argument?
Same stuff here. Crystal meth is an illegal controlled substance. No 14th Amendment problem here.
In the Netherlands pot may be legally bought and smoked in selected coffee-shops.
Pot is a different class of drug than crystal methamphetamine. The law sees a clear difference between the two. There are some movements within the US to legalize pot. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 08:37:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Sorry, Doc. In some states some forms of bestiality are legal. I couldn't use an anti-bestaility bias from local law. I had to focus on the "sex in public" aspect as it is universally illegal to have sex in public.
Oh... I didn't realize that.
Well, I think this is something to put on Bill's agenda:
Changing the laws in those states to totally ban the "immoral" "deviant" behaviour of bestiality where it is still legal.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 09:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Sorry, Doc. In some states some forms of bestiality are legal. I couldn't use an anti-bestaility bias from local law. I had to focus on the "sex in public" aspect as it is universally illegal to have sex in public.
Oh... I didn't realize that.
Well, I think this is something to put on Bill's agenda:
Changing the laws in those states to totally ban the "immoral" "deviant" behaviour of bestiality where it is still legal.
So that some folks don't think I'm making this up.
Clawson, MI - There is a law that makes it legal for a farmer to sleep with his pigs, cows, horses, goats, and chickens.
West Virginia - It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 10:53:14 [Permalink]
|
| ... chicken? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 12:28:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
... chicken?
I don't ask. It makes my brain scared.
The little I did learn about it indicated that the fowl in question was likely to be killed by the act. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 12:43:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
... chicken?
I don't ask. It makes my brain scared.
The little I did learn about it indicated that the fowl in question was likely to be killed by the act.
Shall we set Greenpeace on their tails, then? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
