Prove there's a god.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#565972 Nov 26, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think if everyone was running around naked, it would affect kids SO much more than adults?
If anything, the reverse is true, since kids- little ones, anyway- see nothing wrong with nudity and many little kids LOVE running around naked.
No- what it would mean is that most PEOPLE would have a considerable amount of crotches invading their personal space, with that being found offensive by more ADULTS than children. Children probably wouldn't find it offensive at all as children are not born with a sense of shame or modesty about their bodies- that is learned behavior.
nudity and overt sexuality is the most base of human desires and it's always prevalent in the fall of every society. read history!

it's kinda like what every sitcom does when the writers run out of inspiration and try to sneak an extra season or two in by pushing more flesh & crude sexual inuendos.

good bye america - it's was good while it lasted!

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#565973 Nov 26, 2012
And what is the difference if we can proof his existence or not? So far we know that the Universe could have been created without him. That does not mean he exists. IT just that he wasn't needed to make it all happen. Christian Schirnhofer

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#565974 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, it wasn't well said. It was an appeal to violence.
Puleeze

It was simply some creative hyperbole to illustrate I would be pissed to have my God-child subjected to something I found that offensive and invasive of his personal space. Do you really think I would beat a man in front of a 4-year old child unless we were in physical danger? Clearly seeing a violent assault would do more damage to his psyche than seeing someone naked, even though both would be traumatic. All due respect but commons sense should made this obvious. If it didn't, you could have asked.

(T) Peace

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565975 Nov 26, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>I really can't say regarding actual sexual assaults on children, but I think it's safe to say that the proliferation of child porn has dramatically increased as a result of the internet.
Hey- don't get me wrong- I think the internet is GREAT- but like anything else, not without a negative side as well.
Agreed...

3rd time...

Holy shitballs.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#565976 Nov 26, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. what makes you think any gay or lesbian cares whether someone dislikes homosexuality, that we seek approval ??..
<quoted text>
.. you cannot cause me mental anguish, only I can do that to myself. What makes you think you have that much power in my life ??..
<quoted text>
.. tell you what, I'll keep my lesbianism private if you keep your misogynistic belief system private. Fair ??..
i never heard of any misognyistic parades, legislation or agenda being forced down the public's throat!

why do we even know if you're a lesbian, thesbian or any bian???

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565977 Nov 26, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>There is a difference between "obese" and "fat", RR. I don't use the word "obese" to be PC- I use it because obesity means much more than simply being fat or overweight.
Yup.

You say obese. I say really really fat.

No dif
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#565978 Nov 26, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
nudity and overt sexuality is the most base of human desires and it's always prevalent in the fall of every society. read history!
it's kinda like what every sitcom does when the writers run out of inspiration and try to sneak an extra season or two in by pushing more flesh & crude sexual inuendos.
good bye america - it's was good while it lasted!
Economic collapse destroys empires. Read history.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#565979 Nov 26, 2012
cschirnhofer wrote:
And what is the difference if we can proof his existence or not? So far we know that the Universe could have been created without him. That does not mean he exists. IT just that he wasn't needed to make it all happen. Christian Schirnhofer
"So far we know that the Universe could have been created without him"

lol - this just might be about the dumbest argument i have ever heard yet! it's like saying that we know you could have come into being without sperm and an egg!

try again if/when you can give us a lil something more to work with.....

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#565980 Nov 26, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
nudity and overt sexuality is the most base of human desires and it's always prevalent in the fall of every society. read history!
it's kinda like what every sitcom does when the writers run out of inspiration and try to sneak an extra season or two in by pushing more flesh & crude sexual inuendos.
good bye america - it's was good while it lasted!
LOL

Hey waaasssuuup, I saw a barely legal hot babe on another thread. Wanna link? I know you doooooo.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#565981 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, Al! hahaha!
I don't want to see old naked men walking around either! Blach! And the smell....
I just didn't like their argument that kids shouldn't see genitalia. It's a stupid argument, since kids have genitalia.
And I didn't bring up the Christian angle - you did! It's an inevitable comparison, though, since we're talking about San Francisco. They weren't really making a Christian argument, however. Their whole point was that "we'd like to allow nudity, but if we do, these gay men take advantage of that and walk around naked." hahaha, what a hypocritical position - the "we want nudity to be legal for the very occasional time someone wants to exercise that right, and we'd love it if more women were naked, but since old gay men want to walk around naked and, let's be honest, their bodies aren't much to look at, we're going to repeal our law. For the kids."
I personally find it disingenuous and silly. But you know what? I don't want to see old naked men when I'm drinking my coffee at Starbucks, either. Yuk! Now, if the law was for "mostly unclad male and female models, professional athletes, and actors" I'd be a bit more interested.
They should have used a better justification, though. Silly San Francisco.
So you think there is nothing morally wrong with kids being forced to see adult strangers walking around with their genitalia because they have genitalia??

What about defecating? Is it ok for adults to pull down their pants and crap in front of children because everybody poops?

Children will grab their own genitalia and think nothing of it. As they get a little older they may even become curious and start to fondle it. Should adults be able to fondle themselves in front of children because children do it too?

What kind of bizarre rationalization is that? It is flat-out morally offensive and inappropriate to subject a child to seeing an adult stranger naked. Under no circumstances should they be given the impression that is ok. This is like parenting 101. It doesn't get more basic than that. I simply can't understand you defending it.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#565982 Nov 26, 2012
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
The few instances I was bullied in my adolescence were mainly one-on-one encounters, or perhaps a few friends witnessed it. With the advent of Facebook, the bullying is simultaneously viewed by thousands. That amount of humiliation would be devastating to someone in their early teens. The Internet has made bullying more convenient and a much more pervasive element simply due to its sheer convenience.
The one differnce, though it probably doesn't make it any better for a lot of young people is that one can not look at the bullying on the internet if one has the courage not to, whereas in school or in the playground, you are surrounded and have nowhere to turn.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#565983 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Why??? That's crazy! You think someone else's nudity hurts your child???
That's insane. What do you think is going to happen to the child? Do you think s/he will explode? Suddenly become a Muslim? I mean, get real.
I hope you are not a caretaker of any children Hiding. I find it beyond disturbing that you see nothing wrong with it. I am not saying by any means you are a child molester, I want that to be very clear. But your rationalizations sound the same. "Oh it is not abuse, it is love". "everybody has genitalia so what is wrong with me showing mine to a child?"

I seriously hope this is just some misguided attempt to justify the unjustifiable that just went off the tracks and now you are having trouble reeling it back in. Because I am telling you straight up my friend that the things you are posting are frightening to anyone that has a child and probably to just about anyone who doesn't.
Anon

Lakewood, OH

#565984 Nov 26, 2012
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! the new 4th reich mentality!
here's a clue for those being bullied over the internet: turn the damn thing off!
Sure, one could do that. Only problem is, their friends will show them the damaging text the next day.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#565985 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.
Yep

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#565986 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
When I was a teen in 9th grade, I realized that the best way to avoid the bullies is to bully them back. That's exactly what I teach my kids to do, too.
"Never start a fight. Ever. But ALWAYS be sure that you finish it." -me
Actually though I know of a lot of people who will agree with that and have done it, it only works if the odds aren't grossly stacked against you, but it also identifies you as a violent person, and of course you have to be the stronger.

If the bullies frighten a lot of kids then the others are going to stand back and not protect you, so then if you say take a punch at a bully, you might have 4 or 5 of his friends all over you. Some bullies might respect you standing up for yourself but others will just use it as justification for hurting you more.

Of course, I was taught as a very young child to turn the other cheek, so when I was bullied I just let them do it. Being the first in my family to attend the school, I had no allies if the kids decided to 'pick on' me.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#565987 Nov 26, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Go, my son.
Your work here is done.
Cather

Whatever insecurities that seem to drive you each day are your problem. I am not interested in them. If you constantly need to play side-kick or tell people that you (referring to yourself as 'we') are watching them as if they need to consider how they post if they want your approval, and your repeated attempts like in this post to try to assume some authority you don't have is becoming just sad to watch. I don't need your permission or approval to post here.

There may be some serious things missing in your life if Topix has become this important to you that you think you are standing in judgement and dictating who can or should continue posting. Good luck in combating whatever it is that has you so desperate for validation and control.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#565988 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your evidence to back up the claim? Also for the divorce rate thing as well?
Correlation does not equal causation, don't pull that fallacy on me, it's the most idiotic one ever thought of. The problem with the divorce assertion, there is no solid evidence to suggest any particular reason is more common, there are a ton of opinions on the matter, most range from personal issues to "the secretary affair." You need to learn to be more careful with jumping to conclusions, it's a bad habit I see you do more often than my assumptions, and most of my assumptions are not serious but made in jest or to rile your feathers because I know it does.
Here's an experiment you can do yourself, pull up the statistical data, cross check it with major events effecting the locale, and see if there is a pattern. I know what you will find, that there is little to no pattern at all, it's why the FBI told Killary to shut up, and it's why we still have GTA on the shelves. That's the perfect example of what you are trying now, she pulled a correlation equates to causation fallacy and tried to ban video games, now they're more popular than ever, and her mysterious increase in violent crimes is still nowhere to be found.
In this one I will have to disagree with you, as I think that straying from your marriage is partly due to opportunity and temptation. On the net the opportunity is unlimited, and the temptation is phenomenal.

Just look at the marriage breakup in the entertainment industry relative to other lines of work. I suspect that occurs because the people spend great amounts of time away from their spouses, and with other people either in acting or touring as singers. Singing groups, especially, are plagued by people who want their attention. I have/had a couple friends who traveled with singing groups years ago, and they said sex was available all the time.

Regardless of ones morals and upbringing, when the temptations are easy and frequent, hormones often play the greater role than brains.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#565990 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that you just contradicted your own assertion with your assertion, correct?
If kids know how to use the computer better than the adults, then how would that help the adults figure out how to find the illegal materials better?
I don't think I was speaking to what you asked. If I misread what I replied to, I apologize, as I am confused now. I was not saying, if it seemed that I was, that the parents know better how to find things, but rather the kids know better and thus whatever was the topic (which I truly forget) is more prevalent due to the internet.

I perhaps Should have gone back and taken a look at the whole line of conversation, but I am trying to catch up here.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565991 Nov 26, 2012
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong you are on the 50% divorce rate.
I KNOW you hate it when I use reliable sources to back up what I have long known, but.....the divorce rate was actually higher in 1981 than it was in 2005.
"The divorce rate in 2005 (per 1,000 people) was 3.6 -- the lowest rate since 1970, and down from 4.2 in 2000 and from 4.7 in 1990.(The peak was at 5.3 in 1981, according to the Associated Press.)"
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS....
See my post to Koder about an hour ago. You have your stats, I have mine.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565992 Nov 26, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
It is reported though, RR, that the 75% or 80% figure is grossly over-stated. Yes, relative to Saudi Arabia or Egypt you are a Christian nation, and so is Canada. But looking at what people actually do with their time, how many attend religious events etc., a very tiny minority, except most likely in rural areas, where the activities in a community often centre around a church; your country is very much not into religion.
I think I have read reports (several actually) that state the more reasonable estimate of actual church attendance, which IS a measure of how seriously one takes their religion, is around 20% in the USA, much the same as Canada.
If you live in an area where you know a good cross section of the population, would you say that on a Sunday, the majority of your town, village, or city, are in church?
I know where my mother goes to church which is now in a town of about 900 population, with many of the church attenders coming from the rural areas around the town as they had to amalgamate due to small populations, her church would be the largest congregation of all the denominations in that town, of which there are perhaps 4 different Christian denominations, and the attendance will vary from 30 to maybe 100 at the best, but usually somewhere closer to the low side.
I would guess also that that area would be more highly religious than the more urban centres.
One doesn't need to attend church to be a Christian.....

America is roughly 75% Christian.

Deal with it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 min RiccardoFire 41,138
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min June VanDerMark 603,285
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 27 min Pegasus 272,878
anyone got cheap cigarettes for sale? (Mar '12) 30 min David96_ 15
Golden Virginia and Amber leaf wanted 58 min David96_ 1
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 1 hr dollarsbill 8,029
Ruthlessly GREEDY New Yorkers earned 9-11 1 hr WasteWater 14
The Christian Atheist debate 2 hr MrAnderson9 3,845
is it wrong i like to wear womens underwear (Nov '12) Sat i fkedurBeezyanally 279
More from around the web