Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 79 of 79
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What you are trying to say is that homosexuals hurt themselves? How exactly?
    The homosexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle. The risk is not in the "homo" but in the "sexuality." Here is a white paper on the matter: Click Here
    Last edited by shopharim; 04/19/2005 at 03:16 PM.
  2. #62  
    This topic really deserves it's own thread, since it's so far off topic now.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. #63  
    I find it humorous that this thread has gotten way off the original topic and no one has stepped in to chatise the posters into getting back on topic.

    I know we are in OT but it just seems to happen alot lately.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    This topic really deserves it's own thread, since it's so far off topic now.
    true
  5. #65  
    Exactly Woof. Just don't mention Treohaters, and you're okay.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Exactly Woof. Just don't mention Treohaters, and you're okay.
    Hey maybe the five year olds in the original post were treohaters and that why someone was thinking about beating them up!!
  7. #67  
    This thread is BS. Where's tool?
  8. #68  
    You just can't win

    Kinda like that legion of five year olds coming at you (to get back on topic!)
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #69  
    Sorry for getting it off topic. I really was just trying to provide supporting evidence for clulup's progression argument
  10. #70  
    More directly to the topic...I think the standard of "consenting adult" is an intriguing one. Suppose, in the scenario that got all this started, the 5-year olds were 18-year olds. Would that make it any more palatable? Would it be acceptable given that all participants were of "legal age." Or would it still be attrocious?

    Or, how about 13-year olds? Not "legal" in the U.S. But in some cultures, of age. How about 17 year olds? Not legal yet, but not much different from 18 years olds.

    In reviewing this scenarion, I am reminded of how arbitrary standards are/become when there is not overarching moral basis for such.
  11. #71  
    But there is a big difference between a five year old and a seventeen year old. After all, even though at seventeen, you are still a minor, you can be tried as an adult.

    A five year old just doesn't have the physical and mental maturity of a seventeen year old. So pummelling a gang of toddlers is much worse, and pretty sick thinking.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #72  
    I tend to agree. The whole concept is pretty twisted. And it gets twisteder as the age of the gang decreases (and then again as the age goes way up...pummelling 75 year olds is probably on the same level as 5 year olds.)
  13. #73  
    Ahem... "twisteder" is not a word, but you already knew that.

    What if the gang of five year olds were a litteral threat to your life? Would it be morally wrong then? Suppose they were wielding knives and you could not run? The fantasy would then of course be a nightmare, but would it be wrong based on their age, to envision beating them up?
    .
  14. #74  
    Well, now we've gone from fantasy to the absurd. Fine, assume there is this maniacal band of marauding five year olds, plundering the streets. Then it becomes self defense. Taking the ridiculous out of this scenario, you would have that right. They initiated the hostility. You are defending yourself.

    Just as I can't just walk up to you and pop you in the mouth, or worse yet, shoot you in the head, I can surely do that to protect myself.

    The original scenario was fantasy, in which YOU are the instigator. YOU (not personally, but maybe...) were the one wanting to see how many five year olds you could take down, I guess to inflate some lacking manhood.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well, now we've gone from fantasy to the absurd. Fine, assume there is this maniacal band of marauding five year olds, plundering the streets. Then it becomes self defense. Taking the ridiculous out of this scenario, you would have that right. They initiated the hostility. You are defending yourself.
    Strange... I agree with Insertion. I guess I need some rest, maybe tomorrow things will look different.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #76  
    P.S.: I am a bit worried. Do you think dutchtrumpet will show up and yell at us again, calling for the mods and all that?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Strange... I agree with Insertion. I guess I need some rest, maybe tomorrow things will look different.
    LMAO
  18.    #78  
    Damn You Guys Are Crazyyyyy
    Old Nokia - Nokia 3390 – Sidekick 1 (black and white) - Sidekick Color - Treo 600 - Sidekick 2 - Blackberry 7100t - Treo 650 and razr black (best combo EVER) Iphone 8gb - Iphone 3G 16gb - BlackBerry Bold
  19. #79  
    (In)sanity is a matter of perception that is measured in degrees...

    We're all just a mixed bag of nuts.
    .
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions