|
|
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Lazza
26
« on: August 22, 2008, 01:10:31 pm »
I changed it to reflect current events!
I'm now listening to: Antony and the Johnsons : "Hope There's Someone". Vladimir Putin watching telly in a space ship?
28
« on: August 22, 2008, 12:14:42 am »
Rockin da house after midnight with Audioslave - Show Me How to Live.
[video]MfMtivHV47A[/video]
29
« on: August 02, 2008, 10:44:48 pm »
lol. yeah, rammstein got me into metal  and i still crank their music as loud as it can go 
Breaking Benjamin - Until the end Sweet, I used Breaking Benjamin - So Cold in my Battlefield 2 video. Ok, a bit of Audioslave then some Beef 2.
30
« on: August 02, 2008, 10:31:48 pm »
Lol Rammstein made me want to learn German. so im trying now i have german mates to run words off lol.
Most of the german people ive talked to dislike rammstein due to the lyrics..
i cant blame them..
"you, you hate, you hate me, you hate me to say..." blah blah lol.
Still fucking kick ass tho! Lol, it's actually "Du Hast" = "You Have", the translation to "you hate" was only for "stylization" purposes, whatever tf that means. But yeh, gotta be loud :rnr: Man, Der Meister just once more, lol...
31
« on: August 02, 2008, 10:22:15 pm »
"Rammstein - Der Meister", fuck I wish they would release everything in English too though, I feel like a NAZI headbanger. But lovin' the guitars.
32
« on: May 10, 2007, 01:17:22 pm »
You guys should check out the new THAM clothing range:
 Nah, get the one that covers all the bases...
33
« on: May 09, 2007, 11:27:46 am »
esp. when there's a grammar nazi around.
wiki- "A rhetorical question typically ends in a question mark (?), but occasionally may end with an exclamation mark (!) or even a period (.) according to some writing style guides"
NOBODY CARES. MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Err, YOU CARED when you tried to correct me on it. Personally I don't think it's that important, it's you who raised the matter, not me. If nobody cares then why did you bother? You're very inconsistent.
34
« on: May 09, 2007, 10:06:21 am »
Or perhaps he didn't know that relatively obscure grammatical quirk of the English language. I certainly didn't. I only mention it as he suggested I look it up, with the implication it was me who didn't know and needed educated. At one stage an upside down question mark was used on rhetorical questions, but that was dropped. Another thing is that it's perfectly fine to ask answer a rhetorical question anyway. What makes it rhetorical is that you didn't "intend" the question to be answered, that doesn't mean it can't be answered. e.g. Poster A "What are you, a grammar nazi!" Poster B "Do fish swim!" So it's even possible to answer a rhetorical question with a rhetorical question. By the way, did you ever actually give any logical explanations as to why homosexuals are evil and terrible and make you sad in the pants? Sorry, you've got the wrong poster there? 
35
« on: May 09, 2007, 12:22:57 am »
we'll leave it at that. Now we're agreeing. But one little detail, next time you attempt an escape such as this... I wasn't expecting you to give answers dude..... They were rhetorical questions - look it up. :asian: ... a sample of those "rhetorical" questions... Do you think that chicken eaters/homosexuals getting discriminated against, beaten up, murdered or otherwise persecuted is a myth? Make sure you've looked it up yourself because "A question mark is not used when asking a rhetorical question, like Isn't that ironic! A rhetorical question is a statement in question form, but it isn't meant to actually inquire about anything or be answered by someone." So now you know, and in future when you're unable to respond to the answers provided to your questions, your "bwahaha they were rhetorical questions" quip will be seen for the farce that it was. :asian:
36
« on: May 08, 2007, 02:41:07 pm »
In all the toe to toe battles i've had on these forums i haven't once been reprimanded for personal abuse or anything else. I guess that explains your confrontational tone and abusive comments. To me it's a discussion, to you it's a "toe to toe". You're wrong anyway, I'm not the only one who percieves your tone as abusive, scroll back a few posts, you've missed some. I tell it like it is - then the crying starts. Lol you suggest I'm a voyeur, say I've got no balls, insinuate I'm crying, too stupid to respond to, need a hug, the list goes on, and on. And now you attempt to take the moral high ground, LMAO.
37
« on: May 08, 2007, 09:20:05 am »
That was a joke. HARDEN THE FUCK UP!!
One thing i've noticed is that when people start to get owned they either just disappear into the ether or they look for "personal abuse" - normally quoting the forum guidelines for good measure.
I know that bum secks comment was hard to deal with. Such a stinging attack uh huh. You feel hurt and confused that someone would attack you so :violin: Here's a cunning plan - hit the "report bad post" button on that post and the full weight of the law will come crashing down on me! Then you can jump and dance with glee on my grave! Mwahahaha make the nasssssty man go away..... So you are accused of personal abuse often, why am I not surprised. The only reason I mentioned your propensity for abuse is because it is given either in place of an argument, or to denigrate my character. Far from being "hurtful" I find it infantile at best. You claim to champion the cause of the victimised yet you yourself don't hesitate to indulge in the same behavior yourself, even so far as pisstaking with your sig. Water seeks it's own level, you're simply a self-important hypocrit.
38
« on: May 08, 2007, 12:29:16 am »
Holy fuck you have completely and utterly missed the point. My case is you dude. Your prejudice. And there is certainly a lot of substance to it.
Your too late with the "personalising an argument" card on these forums. Somebody already knows all about it.
Let me get this straight, your comment...
bum secks while lazza watches
...was not intended to suggest I'm a voyeur, but to reveal or identify my "prejudice". And not only that you go further to suggest that somehow there is "certainly a lot of substance to it (that claim). And that's just one example of the personal abuse from you.
Sorry but you're getting into the twilight zone there. It's impossible to counter incoherency.
39
« on: May 07, 2007, 11:49:44 pm »
maybe a catholic priest molested him? awww i love you too man. lets have bum secks while lazza watches headache-inducing repetition what you are - prejudiced Oh dear someone needs a hug. not a real phobia sob sob At least Killer has the balls to admit it are too stupid to respond to fuck knows what his problem is. i really don't care A parting word... "Equally important is the rule against personalizing an argument. Personal attack has become so common in our time, especially in politics, that it has an official title – “The politics of personal destruction”. When your own case is weak, you go after the opponent – impugning his character and the “purity” of his motives or intentions. This diverts attention away from the lack of substance in your case." From "The Vanishing Art of Arguing", by Woody Zimmerman.
40
« on: May 07, 2007, 10:03:24 pm »
(OMG he doesn't know what a rhetorical question is!)
I wasn't expecting you to give answers dude..... You open a series of questions with "I would rather examine your personal character...", then ask a series of questions and now claim they're rhetorical. Either literary structure and conveying your thoughts isn't your strong point, or the questions weren't rhetorical. If you didn't indicate you wished to "examine your (my) personal character", I may have taken the questions as rhetorical. No i got it ok. No problem there. Google is fantastic for shit like that . It doesn't btw.... make you look intelligent. It makes you look like the worlds greatest try-hard. So you're saying you didn't get a "Your search - Gallusdomesticusphobic - did not match any documents." Understood what I meant anyway, but chose to just insult me (as below)? Thanks for the insight. BTW if anyone is wondering what "gallusdomesticusphobic" means - it's code for "I don't really have much of a comeback but this big word might make me look intelligent." Why do you keep going on about the word 'homophobic'? I've already agreed with you that it is used incorrectly. Are you trying to score a point or something? You can't score a point if i've already agreed with you.... Your conspiracy theory above is bizarre to say the least. I simply responded to your post and repeated my points. I have a limit for petty bickering, it's been reached.
41
« on: May 07, 2007, 07:54:44 pm »
Rather than debating whether homophobia has been officially rejected or not *rolls eyes*, I would rather examine your personal character...
Do you think that steak eaters who murder/persecute/discriminate against people because they like chicken are having a tough time because they're views are being 'marginalised'?
Do you think that because you like steak it's unnatural for other people to like chicken?
Do you think that chicken eaters/homosexuals getting discriminated against, beaten up, murdered or otherwise persecuted is a myth? You've gone a bit feral there. I was only commenting on the definition, validity, and use of the term "homophobia". If you want answers to those questions then you'd fare better asking them of someone who holds those views. BTW if anyone is wondering what "gallusdomesticusphobic" means - it's code for "I don't really have much of a comeback but this big word might make me look intelligent." :thumb: Not at all, "Gallus Domesticus" = domestic fowl. Gallusdomesticusphobic is a word I obviously whimsically construed to demonstrate my comparison. I assumed you'd "get it". I seem to have over-estimated you. The fact remains the term "homophobic" is incorrectly labelled on anyone who expresses anti homosexual views. The deliberate implication of this is that it's the anti homosexual who has a mental disorder (a phobia). It appears there are those here that don't mind randomly accusing people they don't know of having a mental disorder. I'm quite happy not having to resort to that tactic for want of an actual argument. Having a wee hissy fit during sexual orientation discussions and branding someone as a "homophobic" may be a convenient escape at the time, but at best that's all it'll ever be.
42
« on: May 07, 2007, 01:42:44 pm »
I agree that, technically, the word is used incorrectly 95% of the time, but practically.............. it's pretty close :thumb: . Right, so inaccuracy is ok when it supports your side of the argument. Let's not hide behind semantics huh?
Homophobia as a clinical condition certainly does exist and has not been "officially rejected" as you so ridiculously claim... In 2005 the APA rejected inclusion of homophobia in the DSM-IV, i.e. official rejection. You can justifiably argue about the terms of that rejection, but not the fact that it happened. Your George Weinberg is a sexual deviant of enormous proportions (no pun intended) and to use even his own words "I was loose in all the heterosexual ways that I could think of, and in other ways that I'd rather not put in print", and has a wierd fixation for attempting to normalise sexual deviations. Simply put, the man is abnormal. Even he himself would restict the terms use to "A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it", i.e. a clinical syndrome, a classical phobia, not petty schoolyard namecalling in a forum. Actually i've done a bit of reading up on you....
Cheers for the personal abuse. What your trying to do is hide your prejudice behind semantics and the precise definition of the word 'phobia'. Pretty fucken lame. It's not a prejudice, it's my preference. I prefer steak to chicken, am I prejudiced against chicken, or gallusdomesticusphobic , or do I just prefer steak for some reasons? Rather than being lame I'd suggest it exposes the homophobia myth for what it really is, an attempt to marginalise anti homosexual opinion. It would seem my understanding of the term "homophobia" matches more closely with Dr. Weinbergs anyway.
43
« on: May 06, 2007, 07:28:54 pm »
^ an 'in-depth' analysis to match an 'in-depth' prejudice.
Which is sadder? The fact that a minority of the population have been subjected to constant bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice since always, based purely on misinformation, irrational fear, and holy scripture. Or, as a reaction to such prejudice, said minority formulate a term slightly incorrectly?
Which one is the sadder indictment of a person's character?
I think a discussion of homophobia fits in just fine in the religious thread. I've shown why it's not a phobia, and now it's a "prejudice", again erroneously. It's not ok for me to hold anti homosexual views yet it's ok for you to make a large number of erroneous assumptions about me (above). Homophobia has been officially rejected as a clinical syndrome. It does not exist because nobody can be diagnosed with it. The term wasn't formulated slightly incorrectly at all, it was deliberately chosen to mislabel anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as having a mental disorder.
44
« on: May 06, 2007, 12:08:56 pm »
I've had about 8 hours sleep in the past three days, cut me some slack for not being verbose.
Homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people" (Link). You say that you are against homosexuality. That's pretty irrational. There isn't a war going on. The Village People aren't coming to take your penis away. In that case the formation of the word is nonsensical and contradicts the intended meaning. Simply not liking or agreeing is not irrational, and is not a phobia. To classify as an anxiety disorder type the phobic must demonstrate either a measurable "fight or flight" physiological response and / or significant psychological impairment (e.g. hiding in the dark). As I said, to use the word homophobic or homophobe is falsely claiming a scientific basis (by being classified as a phobia) when there is none. So how did this misconception arise? Well the queer community chose this definition for those who oppose them to turn the tables, and suggest it is in fact their opposers who are not normal. And in my view this is a sad indictment of the character of those who perpetuate the myth of "homophobia". I think any discussion of homosexuality should happen in another thread, this one is big enough. You're probably right there.
45
« on: May 06, 2007, 02:03:44 am »
The distinction is valuable because according to many homophobes, homosexuality is not natural. They argue that it is "wrong" that a man should "lie with" a man, because it is not natural. My comment intended to prove this allegation incorrect and completely without basis. To suggest a behavior is natural just because it occurs in nature is extremely narrow minded definition of "natural" (your sheep example). Saying it's natural in itself is as meaningless as saying it's unnatural in itself; without expansion the argument has no point. Homophobes? You do realise that to qualify as "phobic" you must meet certain criteria, the fear must be irrational, and the resulting behavior must also be irrational. Personally I'm against homosexuality. I have dozens of reasons why. But there is no medically recognised disorder known as "homophobia" and the use of the word deliberately attempts to falsely claim scientific support (as in other real phobias).
46
« on: May 05, 2007, 07:30:22 pm »
Pardon? No. I did not "condone" homosexuality because other animals did it. That statement was simply proof that it was natural, which in case you hadn't noticed, was the point I was arguing. L2read. The things you mention are all naturally occuring, and yet they are not what most people would consider good. However, you cannot say that because these actions are "bad" that all actions animals perform must therefore be "bad" or immoral or whatever you wish to call it. We're off on the wrong foot. I didn't say YOU condone it. I'm simply saying that the "natural or not" distinction is meaningless, so why bother. It has no other value greater than the value of the distinction itself.
47
« on: May 05, 2007, 01:57:52 pm »
Interestingly enough, a recent study has shown that the vast majority of the animal kingdom take part in homosexual acts. 1 in 5 male sheep are gay. Some penguins will bond in male-male pairs, fuck a female penguin and then drive her away after she's laid the egg to raise it with their male mate. We also have naturally occurring in the animal kingdom... Pack rape / abduction - dolphins. Copraphilia - rabbits. Infanticide (child murder) - lions. Suicide - ants. Cannibalism - baboons. ... the list goes on. Condoning a behavior because other animals do it doesn't make that behavior good or right, just shared. This argument is fundamentally flawed.
|
|
|
