DCI Gene Hunt

OOhhh ladies please...... back to your hole with you *** boy.........

Anne Robinson

Unclebuck, whoever you are - look, I *know* this might be difficult for you, but try, just TRY, to understand that one very unfortunate incident does NOT make a rule for all. Can you do that for me? Do you have the mental capacity to consider it as an option? We have all seen the article you have linked to, there is no need to insult our intelligence by re-posting it, especially coming as it does from somebody with an obviously very limited understanding of reality, but just TRY to understand that homosexual doesn't necessarily imply paedophile. You see that word necessarily? Hey, I even took the trouble to italicise it for you. Get your head out of your **** for just *one* second, quit with the trolling exercise, and make just the smallest attempt to grow up and show some maturity. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it. Cheers.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

UB,

I think you should read the court proceedings in more detail.

It was made very clear in court by the Judge that this case was not related to homosexuality but to abuse of trust and abuse of a young boy.


When this case was prosecuted I did not see you getting on your bandwagon about heterosexual women...

Disgusting


Nor in this case did I see you get on your bandwagon about adult couples being in charge of young children...

Baby Rape


Abuse is an horrific thing and people do it for many reasons - the fact that a gay couple prosecuted abuse does not make gay people abusers any more than it makes all female teachers abusers, or all men rapists or all adult couples potential child rapists.


PS And if you go and do some Psych 101 homework you will read that sexual abuse is NOTHING to do with sexuality and all to do with significance, power and control.

Suresh

!! Circular Reference at post # 240 !!



Pete, stop trolling your own troll!

Anne Robinson

Ah, evening Rannoch, almost synchronous posts there!! Do you know this character unclebuck? Is he this much of a mental cripple in all aspects of his posting, or is he reserving this gala performance especially for us, do you know. I mean, he can't seriously be this retarded, right?? Is this one big wind-up - is that his style?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Morning Anne,

no idea, just one of the many posters on Snet with interesting views that tickle the intellect!

You know my views on prejudice - I don't like it in any form - and this is another form of prejudice where I hope to share views on my prejudice that might offer some balance to the wider readers of these posts.

If you are really interested in people like UB then read Spiral Dynamics and you will see that he is actually incapable of changing his views at his current level of conciousness - whether he believes what he writes or not it is something he is stuck with in how he currently expresses himself. Over time that may change - it is unlikely to change overnight

DCI Gene Hunt

There's some SERIOUS 'brown nosing and tree hugging' going on here between the 'aren't we educated and intelligent' PC Pro Bummers.........

Give it a rest..................

Diablo

Thats easy too

People from edinburgh are gay

Leslie

GCollier,

I stand by what I have said about unnatural practices, supported by natural law by the way.

Are you saying then, with the first remark in your post, that all scientific theories are wrong because of the lack of facts to support them? There are sufficient facts to support what I have said anyway.

Rannoch,

Show me where I brought God into this discussion! Yet another assumption I feel. You did not answer my last question to you either.

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Leslie,

perhaps you are also making assumptions regarding my question to you which you have entirely failed to engage with, the facts perhaps get in the way of your story.

To suggest that something can be 'unnatural' or in some way bring 'punishment' would suggest that there is some universal law or universal order.

To many this may be abbreviated as God - so my comment was not made in the religious sense but in the theological. For you to believe that something that actually occurs in nature and can be observed happening in nature is unnatural is paradoxical. What happens in nature is by definition natural. Therefore 'punishments' for the 'evil' being prosecuted must be meted out from somewhere.

As I don't imagine that it is you executing these punishments I can only imagine that you refer to some other/higher order.

So it is either God/universal law or you make a paradoxical argument.

In terms of you latter question all I can say is that I enjoy a full and varied sex life that I try not to limit based on imaginary limitations.

Rannoch

DCI Gene Hunt

Wow....... err..... no, not wow, more like..... Rannoch I suppose you could justify animal sex if you put your mind to it............ or maybe you already have?

Trout

iTrader: (1)

That is one of the funniest posts I have seen.

Please explain to me why, when some people happen to agree with each other but not you, that we should accept insults and give it a rest.

Whereas when the 'anti-bummer' crowd should be allowed to post freely. In what way should your opinion carry any more weight than anyone else's.

I also can't speak for anyone else, but I have no clue what politically correct or PC means. I have no political interests at all and I am not aware of any form of special indoctrination that I have taken on board that requires me to have certain views.

Have a lovely afternoon

Rannoch

DCI Gene Hunt

Because you are pro-bummers, what part of that didn't you understand?......

Thank you, I will have a lovely afternoon, and unlike some that won't include a bumming session..........

JTaylor

Referring to someone as PC is a cheap way of discrediting their argument. Often used when logic and reason has won out, it has been popularised by readers of The Mail and their ilk. Whilst political correctness in the real sense (think overt and patronising inclusiveness) was undoubtedly irksome, it's over use by part-time thinkers has rendered it obsolete.

DCI Gene Hunt

A bit like you......................

Anthony Crichton-Wheeler

Right, let me analyse your post: you are seriously lacking in intellectual ability; you seem to have a concern with the modern world and are extremely insecure. Were you bullied as a child? Did daddy abuse you when you were four? Mmmm you have a serious social phobia and I think you need help

By the way all the clues are in your pseudo name stolen from a poorly written BBC1 cop serial

Go away and frequent the Chavs R Us website

GCollier

A theory is an explanation for a natural phenomena that is well substantiated and can stand up to rigorous scrutiny. However, once a body of evidence is discovered that disagrees with the theory, then by definition the theory is incorrect because it no longer explains the phenomena being observed. Scientific method dictates that the greater the claim, the greater the justification that is needed for it. Your own theories as stated in this thread are that "homosexual acts are not natural" and that "acts which are not natural bring their own punishments" .

Your theory that "homosexual acts are not natural" has already been well refuted by previous posters who have pointed out that such acts have been extensively observed within the animal kingdom.

I refuted your theory that "acts which are not natural bring their own punishments" in my previous post by providing two examples which your theory could not explain (although there are many more), both of which you have failed to comment on. I'm sure other posters have done likewise.

To continue to obstinately stand by your initial prejudiced views of people, despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary is not the hallmark of a rational mind. The term we use to describe such a person is a bigot, and I believe there is ample evidence from this thread to apply such a term to you.

Gary.

Moray

*** u also

Moray

*** u also

DCI Gene Hunt

Ooops.. a 'double-ender' by moray..... probably not for the first time either...

Leslie

Rannoch,

The fact that **** sex can mean that you are risking unpleasant diseases was nothing to do with any kind of supernatural force of course, I stated that being silly enough to go against nature can bring unfortunate consequences which can be regarded as a punishment for doing just that. If you are careless enough to hit your thumb with a hammer it hurts!

If you wish to say that **** sex is a natural act for your own convenience, that is your own affair and you are entitled to do what you wish in that respect.

In the same vein I am also entitled to my own opinion and also to state it without people immediately making untrue assumptions about me.

GCollier.

Your long peroration about scientific theories etc proves nothing whatsoever and is merely an inneffectual defence of your own previous statement in an earlier post. a theory is exactly what it says it is and as you said, if there are no positive facts to support it then your statement earlier can only mean it is untrue.

I have lived in the country, surrounded by farm and wild animals which I love to observe, for many years and I can honestly say that I have never seen an animal rogering another one up the **** so far! This is just an excuse to try and justify **** sex for your own convenience.

You must show me where I have displayed any kind of prejudice to other people. If you read my previous post you will see that I have had and still have homosexual acqaintances. They are good friends and I hold no prejudice to them whatsoever. If they wish to have **** sex that is their affair and is none of my business. It does not mean to say I can't view **** sex with abhorrence. There is no bigotry there, just my own feelings about it which I am entitled to hold.

If you accuse me of this then since you are not cognisant of the facts then that makes you the bigot rather than me!

Les

DCI Gene Hunt

Surprised you could stop bumming your boyfriend long enough to type ACW (you **** bandit....) or are you babysitting?

GCollier

If it's not a supernatural force doing the punishing, then who is? The whole concept of punishment involves someone experiencing something unpleasant as a response to behaviour deemed incorrect by some other party. Who is the other party in thise case?

You may have trouble accepting this, but your failure to observe **** sex in your sample group of 0.00000000000001% of the planet's animals hardly constitutes statistically meaningful data with which to refute others observations.

Your statement earlier in this thread:
How can this be interpreted as anything *other* than prejudice against homosexual people? Or would you state that dieing in an aircrash was "punishment" brought upon by the "unnatural" act of flying? Or being date-raped "punishment" due to the "unnatural" act of being flirtatious and wearing a short skirt in a club? Or having your house destroyed in a gas explosion "punishment" due to the "unnatural" act of using a gas supply instead of a campfire. The list goes on, but your mind is so stuck in its Dark Age viewpoint of "homosexuality is unnatural and thus brings punishment" that I doubt a thousand examples would make a difference.

Gary.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. When that opinion is expressed consistently as 'punishment' then please forgive me, the reader, in assuming that you actually mean punishment.

As far as I can see this post is the first where you have diluted the phraseology of punishment with the addition of 'consequence'.

Punishment - Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a subject as a response to some unwanted behavior or disobedience that the subject has displayed.

The word is the abstract substantivation of the verb to punish, which is recorded in English since 1340, deriving from Old French puniss-, an extended form of the stem of punir "to punish," from Latin punire "inflict a penalty on, cause pain for some offense," earlier poenire, from poena "penalty, punishment".

Colloquial use of to punish for "to inflict heavy damage or loss" is first recorded in 1801, originally in boxing; for punishing as "hard-hitting" is from 1811.


So if you would prefer that your reader does not make assumptions about your opinion then perhaps you should learn to communicate it more clearly.

Have a splendid evening,

Rannoch

PS I still think your observations are blinded by prejudice - if you live in the country and actually open your eyes to see young bulls regularly mounting each other, the same with dogs given the chance! Or maybe you live in Chigley

Diablo

Ah, but Dave, most mounting of male dogs by male dogs is not sexual, but dominance.

Don't have any experience with bulls, so can't comment on that one.

Leslie

GCollier,

I have read your post very carefully and I cannot find a single argument or fact which counters what I have said. You have as before gone around in circles trying to justify your prejudice against me and it just does not work. It does not have to be a supernatural force "punishing" unnatural practices and I have never said that, it is purely a consequence of the action taken. How many people have you heard say an unfortunate result of a bad act is a punishment to the instigator? How can I be prefudiced as you say against homosexuals when I have friends who are. Did you not notice that in my last post and before that as well? Show me where I have said that action should be taken against homosexuals!

Rannoch,

Re "punishment" please notice what I said above. Your great long trip into all the semantics means nothing in relation to the way I used the word which is the way it is often used-naturally of course Perhap's you have never noticed it before since you are so tied up in the theoretical meanings and the roots of English words. I hesitate to mention where your head might be as a "consequence" of all that.

Of course I have seen bullocks mounting each other as an experiment due to their youth and inexperience but I have yet to see one actually rogering the other. I have also seen the occasional dog do the same thing but never actually doing the entering and climax bit. All that does not justify the full act of **** sex by humans in my book.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the fact that I abhor **** sex does not make me prejudiced towards those who do that. That is their business and as long as I don't have to have anything to do with it thats fine with me.

You are totally in the wrong to make assumptions about my general feelings because I am prepared to state how I feel about one particular thing. You are perfectly justified in expressing your attitude towards what a person writes but it is usually better to be guided by what a person actually writes in their post rather than jumping to the wrong conclusions.

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

All I can say is I am not the only reader to 'assume' the word punishment actually means punishment. I would also note that the majority of your posts use the word punishment.

Please accept my apology not in terms of semantics but the simpletons perspective that when someone writes punishement to assume they actually mean punishment.

I am now happy to reveal that in any post where I may have used the phrase or inferred '**** sex' what I actually meant was eating ice cream and anybody who dares suggest I would be being theoretically semantic to say that was ridiculous is indeed being ridiculous!

Rannoch

GCollier

So you bleat that you're not prejudiced...yet in the same paragraph describe homosexuality as a "bad" act.

Your hypocrisy really does have no bounds.

Gary.

VJ_STi

iTrader: (1)

Being a foster carer I would just like to point out that this is actually a common misconception, I do not have figures to hand but IIRC it is only circa 10% of abused kids that go onto abuse. The majority of abuse, approx 90%, is actually carried out by a family member, hence when a child is abused the finger normally points straight at Dad !

IMO being homosexual does not mean you are a peado, however I do feel that this has not been thought through properly, but then we need to consider that to become foster carers it can take somewhere between 6-9 months from start to finish with weekly/twice weekly visits including family/friends and ex partners (this is through an IFA not council) so it SHOULD be apparent to the person carrying out the assesment that people may pose a risk to kids or not.

However the real problem here is the lack of carers in this country, IIRC during 2005 the numbers that are circulating are that at any one time 52,000 (YES 52,000) kids need to be homed and at present there is something like a 12,000 shortage of carers (which will probably mean 12>15000 kids places) so the question is :-

Your a Social Worker and a kid is brought into the office on a Friday afternoon. Where do you put them ?

a. The gay foster couple with a spare room
b. Send them back home
c. Kick them back onto the streets to rough it with drunks and junkies
d. Take them home with you to your already over crowded home

Now you also may want to consider that the 'At Risk' register is growing steadily, this means kids are still living in households where they may see abuse/be abused (sexually/emotionally/mentally/physically or neglected or even all of the above) but there is nowhere to put them so they stay where they are. So why doesn't anybody do something about becoming a carer rather than bitch about the choices made about where to put kids, then maybe just maybe as a society we wouldn't need to put kids with gay couples (and I am not saying they wont make fantastic carers) and these kids are not easy either because of the abuse they have faced.

Just my 2p but a subject close to my heart

Bubba po

You forgot to add the option "Psycopathic pie-making couple with a mincing machine" in your list of ridiculous options.

BTW, which one is you?