Eh. I'm really just curious. You see a lot of these one-note guys on here: hempster and his drugs, for example. But fucking, now, that's a new one.

5/30/2006 6:19:20 PM

How are you any different? Your ideas are all derived in the context of a one-note interpretation of the Bible, a work of fiction.

5/30/2006 6:31:53 PM

5/30/2006 6:38:39 PM

Tolerant: Adj. The act of not actively engaging in the brutal murder of someone you disagree with.

5/30/2006 6:40:09 PM

Quote :

"meanwhile all the intelligent and intellectual liberal geniuses are still puzzled 2.5 years later that the biggest idiot in the known universe is somehow president again"

wait, Dan Quayle is the president?

5/30/2006 6:49:20 PM

Quote :

"Woodfoot: i think shes like a "born again virgin" if that makes sense shes given up sex for a while or something who knows..."

I just got totally turned off by an old lover, and then three girls I know (not my lovers) shared that they had STDs. I did some research and was dismayed at how common STDs are, particulary HPV. No thank you on that shit!

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Calm down. This thread is just the final piece of the puzzle, if you will. It went from being about academia's bias to being about gay marriage because of her. And then look at the other threads where she gets the most vocal -- ones about abortion or abstinence, even when abstinence is a minor part of the discussion. She's still screaming about it in the AIDS thread, even though most other people have moved on. And I suspect that most people on this board are obsessed with fucking, but turning it into a prime political motivator is something else entirely."

I didn't realize discussions about AIDS and gay marriage equal an obsession with sex. If that's your opinion, I would suggest that you're the one who is a bit obsessed with sex. Yesterday, I wouldn't shut up about poor people and taxes--you must have missed it.

As far as my "screaming" in the AIDS thread goes, I wasn't screaming...and I really have no interest in discussing patents, intellectual property, and the availability of drugs in Africa. I have close ties to the drug industry and am uncomfortable discussing my bread and fucking butter. I'd rather discuss the article presented in the first post.

Also, if you'll take a look at this thread, GrumpyGOP, I started out by throwing out an example of an irrational move made by conservatives--I expected conservatives to do the same about liberals. When nobody did, I shared my opinion about the "topic" (I guess we'll have to check with TGD on this) and actually used the words "back to the original topic." Meanwhile, the conversation had moved to corporations, stupid electorates, desires for a new political party, etc... But throughout it all, TreeTwista10 would not shut the fuck up about how much Muslims hate homosexuals:

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i like how the liberals want to blame U.S. troop occupancy in Iraq for all the reasons why extremist Muslims hate the USA, but they dont realize policies like tolerating gay marriage piss them off just as much"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: maybe if all you fucking johnny cakes werent closet homos you would make gay marriages illegal to please the crazy muslims"

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: muslims love fags! if we made gay marriage legal muslims would never attack us! !!!11one!"

After those three posts, I finally responded, and now we have this thread.

In short, fuck off, bitch.

5/30/2006 7:07:37 PM

Quote :

"In short, fuck off, bitch."

Wow, I wasn't entirely sure Grumpy was right about his assertion until this line.

5/30/2006 7:12:54 PM

LoneSnark made me smile--now we must have sex!

While I'm not obsessed with sex, I am developing an obsession with user tags.

5/30/2006 7:39:23 PM

Well, I've got some free-time, but since your not obsessed with sex, have fun with your user tags.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/30/2006 8:12:57 PM

isn't hpv the one thats basically like "oh well" if a guy gets it

but if a girl gets its like "HOPE YOU ENJOY CERVICAL CANCER!"

5/30/2006 9:00:45 PM

No there's something like 100 strains of HPV, most of which do nothing. People develop an immunity to a lot of the strains over the course of a year.

Only a few give cancer to women, and they aren't the ones that cause warts.

5/30/2006 9:07:44 PM

^Some strands cause cervical cancer in women. Some cause warts. Most do nothing. They're different strands though. My bad, you said the same thing as me.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/default.htm

^^Typically, yes, men don't have to worry about it. But sometimes it can be bad for men.

Here's the fact sheet for men:

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm

It cannot be detected in men unless there are genital warts present. But there's actually a question on there for the men that says "Should I be worried that I cannot be tested or treated for HPV?" And the answer is "No." LOL

And facts on how common it is in general:

Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#common

THERE IS A VACCINE FOR THE LADIES COMING OUT THOUGH!!! They plan to give it to young girls before they are sexually active, and of course, there are already protests from socially conservative folks who think it will encourage sex.

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 9:17 PM. Reason : sss]

5/30/2006 9:10:29 PM

lets open this bag

whats wrong with young girls growing up knowing they need to be more concious about the sexual decisions they make

i mean, didn't you yourself just have a moment of clarity?

5/30/2006 9:16:16 PM

^Oh Hell yeah, they need to know about this shit; I was shown pictures of gross outbreaks, but I was never told about HPV and how common it is.

I think sexual discretion should be sold as safety and self-preservation, not purity. The whole purity thing can be offensive and degrading to women.

5/30/2006 9:25:10 PM

oh...well if something could be offensive we sure shouldnt do it

5/30/2006 9:26:41 PM

trikk311, perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by purity. Associating a girl or woman's virginity with her self-worth and value to society and men is simply wrong. Do you disagree?

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ?]

5/30/2006 9:29:08 PM

yes i agree. but to say that a girl might be offended by someone suggesting that they not have sex in order to remain pure is nonsense.

I misunderstood.

5/30/2006 9:31:00 PM

i honestly couldn't care less if sluts get offended at being called sluts

[Edited on May 30, 2006 at 9:48 PM. Reason : `]

5/30/2006 9:48:27 PM

^That's not the issue we're talking about. I thought we were talking about "young girls"--at least that's how you posed the initial question to me six posts up.

5/30/2006 10:38:49 PM

i see no difference in what i posed and what i contended

making concious decisions about who you open your cooch for =/= being a slut

5/30/2006 11:40:38 PM

^I can't tell what you're contending. All I know is that you don't care if women get offended when they're called sluts, and I'm not sure what that has do with educating young girls on the importance of sexual discretion.

???

I need more words, Woodfoot. I don't think like everyone else!

5/31/2006 12:02:02 AM

Quote :

"All I know is that you don't care if women get offended when they're called sluts,"

no, i don't care if SLUTS get offended when they're called sluts

thats what i'm saying

we should teach girls the dangers of being a slut (STDs, pregnancy, decreased self worth, whatever else they can think of)

and then should impose social punishment on girls who do not heed this warning

5/31/2006 12:07:20 AM

Okay, I get it. We're simply having a vocabulary problem. You would walk into classroom and warn young girls against being "sluts." I would warn them against being promiscuous and indiscriminate in choosing their partners. Same thing, I suppose.

So what would you tell the fellas?

Avoid the sluts? LOL (I'm joking; I know that's not you, but it's a pretty common theme.)

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 12:23 AM. Reason : LOL]

5/31/2006 12:21:08 AM

dude avoid those sluts boys. They have cooties.

5/31/2006 1:32:07 AM

hey bridget

the us is tolerant of gay marriage...its pretty obvious

just because we dont encourage gay marriage and promote it doesnt mean we're not tolerant of gay marriage

please look up the definition of tolerance

5/31/2006 11:18:46 AM

Quote :

"we should teach girls the dangers of being a slut (STDs, pregnancy, decreased self worth, whatever else they can think of) and then should impose social punishment on girls who do not heed this warning"

???

did you steal that one from the Religious Right's playbook?

5/31/2006 11:23:05 AM

more like "society's playbook"

5/31/2006 11:25:11 AM

so you personally aren't advocating it, just saying that it's what we do?

or are you advocating it?

5/31/2006 11:26:09 AM

Yeah, I totally chose to ignore that part of Woodfoot's post. Beyond being absurd, such a system is impractical (even though I'm sure it seems practical as far maintaining a healthy society). But seriously who's gonna turn in the people having too much sex with too many partners?

And I totally assume we're talking about placing punishments on both men and women, right?

Yeah, I'm trying to imagine working something like that out, and I must say NO. NO. NO.

5/31/2006 12:07:18 PM

Quote :

"and then should impose social punishment on girls who do not heed this warning"

No need, nature has already instilled very stiff punishments.

5/31/2006 12:36:27 PM

Okay, I just realized that I took your idea of social punishment to the extreme. You're obviously not suggesting we have the Ministry of Sex, watching over us, checking to make sure we leave the club alone.

With the size of our communities though, I just don't see how the social punishment thing would work out the way it has in the past. Also, in the past, it's always worked out that boys will be boys, and the girls just have to deal with it--not cool at all.

In theory, we could have yearly mandatory STD tests for people over the age of 16, like car inspections, and you'd get a little smiley face on your license for being clean. And before you had sex, you could compare licenses with your partner or something. And there would be PSAs coming on all the time, reminding you to get tested, use condoms, and check for the smiley face...

LOL

^Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I wish I knew what Woodfoot was going for here though.

5/31/2006 12:40:59 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: hey bridget the us is tolerant of gay marriage...its pretty obvious just because we dont encourage gay marriage and promote it doesnt mean we're not tolerant of gay marriage please look up the definition of tolerance"

Okay what if I say that you're right, we are tolerant of gay marriage? Please respond to this:

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: ONE of the few things that Bush and radical Muslims agree on is that homosexuality is wrong...all I've been trying to say is that sure Bush caused some shit over in the Middle East...but all the liberals who are very pro-choice / pro-gay marriage need to realize that the Muslims hate hate hate homosexuality...whereas some liberals or anybody in the US might say "oh well, what they do in private is fine, just dont do it around me", the Muslims might say "lets kill those homo loving infidels""

And you finally said it. The bold part is stated so flippantly that I'm not sure where your head is at. Here is what you just said: "Sure, Bush and Co. started a war where thousands of people have died, families have lost their homes, the US is deeper in debt every month...and, by the way, linberals need to realize that Muslims hate fags..."

????

Liberals understand that Muslims do not approve of homosexuality. What the fuck do you want us to do about it? There are very few people who want to unjustly please the extremist Muslim community.

You're comparing a desire for gay marriage in the States to the starting of a war in Iraq.

JUST STOP.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : sss]

5/31/2006 1:20:41 PM

i already read that when you posted it the first time salisburyboy

please see what LoneSnark already said and pay attention to the content instead of just the spelling

Quote :

"That said, you seem to mis-using the word "tolerate." You seem to believe that the U.S. is not tolerant until itself begins marrying people of the same sex. There is a lot of difference between tolerance and supportive. The U.S. is undeniably tolerant of gay marriage, while at the same time we are not supportive of gay marriage. A society that is not tolerant would be arresting them and ripping up their marriage licenses, not recognizing them in court and letting any business recognize gay marriage that wanted to. In a society that is not tolerant of gay marriage these business managers would be arrested for criminal behavior. You may take it as a slap in the face, but morally speaking America is meeting the minimum requirement of being a tolerant society. Give credit where credit is due. A democratic society has the right to make certain decisions, the rules governing the granting of state marriage licenses is one of them. Call me when the system transitions from "tolerant" to "mildly oppressive," such as secret arrests, banishment from legal preceedings, revoking ones right to exit, etc"

5/31/2006 1:36:29 PM

5/31/2006 1:39:06 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: i already read that when you posted it the first time salisburyboy please see what LoneSnark already said and pay attention to the content instead of just the spelling"

Okay, I'm going to make this very clear to you. I am conceding that the US is tolerant of gay marriage. I don't mind making that concession because it's not at the core of my argument with your assertion. It's fine, whatever. Now please respond to this.

One of your points:

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: ONE of the few things that Bush and radical Muslims agree on is that homosexuality is wrong...all I've been trying to say is that sure Bush caused some shit over in the Middle East...but all the liberals who are very pro-choice / pro-gay marriage need to realize that the Muslims hate hate hate homosexuality...whereas some liberals or anybody in the US might say "oh well, what they do in private is fine, just dont do it around me", the Muslims might say "lets kill those homo loving infidels""

My response:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: And you finally said it. The bold part is stated so flippantly that I'm not sure where your head is at. Here is what you just said: "Sure, Bush and Co. started a war where thousands of people have died, families have lost their homes, the US is deeper in debt every month...and, by the way, linberals need to realize that Muslims hate fags..." ???? Liberals understand that Muslims do not approve of homosexuality. What the fuck do you want us to do about it? There are very few people who want to unjustly please the extremist Muslim community. You're comparing a desire for gay marriage in the States to the starting of a war in Iraq."

What relevance does the extremist Muslim community's hatred of our tolerance for homosexuals have? Like, what the fuck are you getting at? Liberals realize that extremist Muslims do not like our tolerance of homosexuality. There are a lot of things they don't like about us. But what is your fucking point?

Are you just really proud of yourself for making a connection? If that's the case, then good for you. You made an extremely obvious connection, one that was so obvious people really don't devote much time to it.

I'm going to repost another one of my posts so we can be clear on how long I've been trying to understand you:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: They hate our media, our liberal religious beliefs, our arrogance, our excesses, our meddling, our inordinate amount of power, our hand in the creation and maintenance of Israel, etc... But all you're saying is "They hate us!!!" No shit. I have family that used to live in Iran, and my cousins used to get out of school for a day to celebrate their hatred of America. Like, they literally danced around and chanted "Death to America!" And this was in Tehran, not some small town. No fucking joke. But what's your point? What are you getting at?"

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : aaa]

5/31/2006 2:35:03 PM

Quote :

"Your ideas are all derived in the context of a one-note interpretation of the Bible, a work of fiction."

I don't recall ever citing the Bible as my reason for...well, for any public policy. I don't support the death penalty because of the Bible -- if anything, I support it in spite of the Bible. Ditto most wars.

Quote :

"If that's your opinion, I would suggest that you're the one who is a bit obsessed with sex."

People keep saying this, and yet, there's no logical reason for that to be true.

It is almost identical to someone saying that since McDanger thinks I'm obsessed with the Bible, he must be the one that's obsessed.

Until you can point to me talking about it more than the average poster, or in places where it doesn't really belong, you're basically just saying, "I know you are but what am I?"

Quote :

"Yesterday, I wouldn't shut up about poor people and taxes--you must have missed it."

I did in fact miss it. That doesn't mean a hell of a lot. I certainly recall several threads in the past where your focus lay almost entirely in the matter of fucking, specifically any regarding abortion in which I have seen you post. And that type of thread certainly seems to attract you.

Quote :

"I'd rather discuss the article presented in the first post."

And to some extent you did, but out of that entire article you focused on only a fairly small part. Now, on the one hand you could just be a blinder-wearing liberal who will only see the one fault in one of the few things Bush has done that most people agree is generally good. More consistent with the rest of your behavior, though, would be your overwhelming compulsion to talk sex.

Quote :

"After those three posts, I finally responded, and now we have this thread."

So it's just that you're easily trolled, is it? Would that warrant the blistering defense of gay practices that you met it with?

Quote :

"In short, fuck off, bitch."

Oh, come now. This is so different from the last PM you sent me:

Quote :

" From : BridgetSPK To : GrumpyGOP Received : Monday April 17, 2006 at 11:10 PM Subject : Re: Hey yo... Okay, I am always available for sex. Just let me know."

5/31/2006 3:30:19 PM

she never sends me pm's saying she's up for sex

5/31/2006 3:32:19 PM

Quote :

"I am conceding that the US is tolerant of gay marriage"

good it only took you about a day to understand something oh so simple

5/31/2006 3:38:04 PM

^It wasn't even the core of my argument. Now respond to the point I've been making repeatedly, and maybe I'll consider having a discussion with you again.

^^You know that's a lie.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: People keep saying this, and yet, there's no logical reason for that to be true. It is almost identical to someone saying that since McDanger thinks I'm obsessed with the Bible, he must be the one that's obsessed. Until you can point to me talking about it more than the average poster, or in places where it doesn't really belong, you're basically just saying, "I know you are but what am I?""

Let me make it clear. I discussed AIDS and gay marriage. You said, "She obsessed with sex!!!" So you're the one who has made a big deal about sex, in the context of my discussing AIDS and gay marriage...so perhaps you're the one who has sex on the brain? Get it now?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: So it's just that you're easily trolled, is it? Would that warrant the blistering defense of gay practices that you met it with?"

Yes, I am easily trolled. That's pretty obvious. Blistering defense of gay practices?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And to some extent you did, but out of that entire article you focused on only a fairly small part. Now, on the one hand you could just be a blinder-wearing liberal who will only see the one fault in one of the few things Bush has done that most people agree is generally good. More consistent with the rest of your behavior, though, would be your overwhelming compulsion to talk sex."

Most people agree it's generally good? Well, golly...it must be good then! By the way, I'm not going to apologize for criticizing one of the most backwards moves in the fight against AIDS.

Quote :

"From : BridgetSPK To : GrumpyGOP Received : Monday April 17, 2006 at 11:10 PM Subject : Re: Hey yo... Okay, I am always available for sex. Just let me know."

I'm still up for it now the same way I was then, big boy...which would be not at all. You should know a joke when you see one, boo.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : sss]

5/31/2006 3:55:24 PM

Quote :

"You should know a joke when you see one, boo."

And indeed I do. The point of posting it wasn't to say that you're cruising for my dick, it was to say that you damn sure do bring up sex a lot, even in places where it has no business being. That PM came as a response to one about alcohol, and you took a new direction. That wouldn't be the only time in this forum you've said something similar to me specifically, and it's just one of many, many where you've said it to others. In Chit Chat, I could understand that -- attention whoring and all that. But the Soap Box?

Quote :

"I discussed AIDS and gay marriage."

You were talking about AIDS via abstinence and railed specifically against that.

Quote :

"By the way, I'm not going to apologize for criticizing one of the most backwards moves in the fight against AIDS."

I don't expect you to. I agree that it's largely useless and possibly counterproductive. But you condemned our entire anti-AIDS initiative based on that one aspect of it. I could maybe see an apology for that. The fact that you focused on it and it alone indicates that you either have liberal or sexual blinders on.

5/31/2006 4:03:13 PM

ok bridget, i'll answer your question, which i believe is:

Quote :

"Liberals understand that Muslims do not approve of homosexuality. What the fuck do you want us to do about it?"

how about dont support gay marriage

5/31/2006 4:04:47 PM

wait

is the hardcore republican now saying the terrorists get a vote?

5/31/2006 4:13:56 PM

lol @ hardcore republican

just cause i dont bash bush as much as some others im a hardcore republican

even though ive never voted

yeah gg

5/31/2006 4:15:22 PM

^^Yes, and I can't believe he finally said it.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: how about dont support gay marriage"

You just said on page two that you didn't want to take it to that extreme. Here's the exchange:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Are you suggesting that we shouldn't permit gay marriage because it would make us appear too tolerant of homosexuals in the eyes of Muslim countries? Like, that's your reason? Because THAT IS RIDICULOUS."

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: no thats not my point, i'm not trying to be that extreme"

By the way, not supporting gay marriage in order to appease certain Muslims is silly, ridiculous, absurd, etc...if I had bothered to download that blocking program, I'd be putting you on the list right now.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And indeed I do. The point of posting it wasn't to say that you're cruising for my dick, it was to say that you damn sure do bring up sex a lot, even in places where it has no business being. That PM came as a response to one about alcohol, and you took a new direction. That wouldn't be the only time in this forum you've said something similar to me specifically, and it's just one of many, many where you've said it to others. In Chit Chat, I could understand that -- attention whoring and all that. But the Soap Box?"

I do that because it's funny to me. Try and stop me, stud.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I don't expect you to. I agree that it's largely useless and possibly counterproductive. But you condemned our entire anti-AIDS initiative based on that one aspect of it. I could maybe see an apology for that. The fact that you focused on it and it alone indicates that you either have liberal or sexual blinders on."

That "one aspect" is pretty fucking huge. "Research and common sense tells us that encouraging abstinence does not work in decreasing teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs, but I'm a born-again Christian with 'moral values' and some religious voters to please, so fuck research...they don't call me arrogant for nothing, bitches..."

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 4:19 PM. Reason : sss]

5/31/2006 4:17:44 PM

Quote :

" I do that because it's funny to me."

Clearly. So even your sense of humor sees through, well, sex-tinted glasses.

Quote :

"That "one aspect" is pretty fucking huge."

Except it isn't, in terms of the money being spent and the work being done. It's pretty much a given of modern American democracy that even a really spectacular bill will have two or three retarded things in it.

5/31/2006 4:21:23 PM

Quote :

"Except it isn't, in terms of the money being spent and the work being done. It's pretty much a given of modern American democracy that even a really spectacular bill will have two or three retarded things in it."

We disagree, and in this case, I genuinely hope you're right.

5/31/2006 4:25:40 PM

hey bridget...i want you to read what you wrote right here...see if anything stands out to you

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that we shouldn't permit gay marriage because it would make us appear too tolerant of homosexuals in the eyes of Muslim countries?"

let me paraphrase since apparently you dont know what you're talking about...here is what you just said in that quote:

We shouldnt allow gay marriage because it would make us appear too tolerant of homosexuals?

now bridget tell me this...how the fuck am i supposed to attempt to argue with you when you suggest that NOT ALLOWING gay marriage would make us appear MORE TOLERANT of homos to muslims?

5/31/2006 4:33:26 PM

ha

treetwista has never voted

that means hes more of a whiney bitch than anyone in the soap box

gg troll

5/31/2006 4:40:01 PM

not voting = whiny bitch, eh?

i see logic isnt your best asset

5/31/2006 4:43:04 PM