28 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/increase-homophobia-violence-new-york
What?
There's a long history of homosexual men being attacked by straight men. Gay men often talk about how this is evidence of how they are oppressed. I suspect it's just payback. Because men do rape men and the prison culture is leaking out onto the street into street gangs and skinhead circles and the like.
But no I've never been victimised in case you're curious.
28 Jun 13
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNeither have I, and that is the most ridiculous hypothesis I have ever heard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/increase-homophobia-violence-new-york
There's a long history of homosexual men being attacked by straight men. Gay men often talk about how this is evidence of how they are oppressed. I suspect it's just payback. Because men do rape men and the prison culture is leaking out onto the street into street ...[text shortened]... skinhead circles and the like.
But no I've never been victimised in case you're curious.
28 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperC'mon man I seen it in the movies
Neither have I, and that is the most ridiculous hypothesis I have ever heard.
Remember the Pulp Fiction sword scene?!
😞
Bruce Willis: "You ok?"
Marsellus: "Nah, man, I'm pretty f'n far from ok."
(Rape scene is not in the above clip)
01 Jul 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedyes, he did get over it. as did i. it just seemed you were itching for a chance, any chance, to tell us about a serious problem. but you chose to do that after a seriously minor comment, in a thread completely unrelated. no sane person will disagree with you on the subject of rape, maybe only on the exact amount of pain a rapist deserves.
and as i said, launching in a serious talk about the holocaust if someone mentions gas makes you come off as a crazy person.
04 Jul 13
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedexactly. i am not discussing his off-topic-ing. i am discussing yours.
he was slightly off topic with a slightly dirty joke. if the thread was a road, he was in the corn field by that road doing number 1. you took off on a spaceship and nuked all that road from orbit.
the reason i am discussing this with you is because others might perceive this behaviour of yours as uncool and because i think you are a decent person with good ideas. if it was normbenign doing what you did, i wouldn't have bothered paying attention.
EDIT:
"You (Zahlanzi) may like to attack me because you dislike me-"
i haven't made up my mind yet, in fact quite the opposite, i am leaning in the opposite direction. i got pissed when you were attacked by the "special" people in this forum for something that in my view didn't deserve attacking. in this instance it seems to me that you exaggerated and i pointed out that. disregard my opinion if you wish.
07 Jul 13
Originally posted by EladarLimiting to 3 or 4 in a traditional sense might work and be more feasible. Yet, people like you would still complain that hypocritical and discriminating to set any limits.
It seems to me that such laws should not apply to marriage at all. Trying to tie children to marriage is a joke in the modern world. In the same way, property rights tied to marriage is a joke. Why force people into a marriage simply to get rights that one should be able to get through any legal document?
Even so, limiting the number of a plural marriage to three or four would work just as well as 2. Why limit it to 2?
Also think about this, taking 4 as an example, you would have to account for the 4 marrying each other (for a total of 6 marriages).
Further, in the case of only 1 marrying 3 (with 4 total marriages), the number of marriages linking people could go on for infinity with members of the first plural marriage marry additional people outside of the first plural marriage.
If I am in a plural marriage, one of my spouses could marry someone outside of our plural marriage, and so on, for infinity. I would not like that the secondary and tertiary spouses would have legal rights to the property of my spouse who has legal rights to my property and shares my checkbook, can sign for my check or credit card, etc.