|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 6:26:17 GMT -5
@ Redhunter it may be fun to have someone who will let you do what ever you want for a night, but I think it would be more fun if they let you do anything you wanted even though they could stop if they wanted to. (I hope that made sense, I am not very eloquent when it comes to writing) Yes! THAT is what I was attempting to say as well. The robot part of it would suck, but PRETENDING for a while is a whole 'nother sweet ballgame.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 6:15:04 GMT -5
WHAT? You totally mistook what I'm saying here. I don't think men are "hot", but I understand the appeal of certain men. I can see an underwear model and understand that the bulk of hetero women will find him attractive. I don't listen to Christina Aguilara (sp) but I understand WHY other people do. I DON'T understand or immediately see the attraction to NPH or the music of the Dave Matthews bad. I get there are going to be SOME people who like them, but if I went into this blind, I wouldn't peg them as frontrunners in these particular subjects (attractiveness and music). Girls swoon over brad pitt or johnny depp, I "get" that. I don't agree with it in that I swoon with them, but I understand that they embody many of the attributes that women find attractive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadpanwww.thefreedictionary.com/wryen.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaconicThis is me babe. It's Red. I have had to defend myself when I was AGREEING with someone because it is assumed everything out of my mouth is just me being contrary, and I was told less than six months ago by the powers that be and others that I am a troll and my only reason for coming here is to cause trouble. I have "derailed" threads trying to clarify innocuous, off handed points which were posted in good humour but resulted in page after page of rebuttals that made me wish I hadn't said a damn thing to begin with. It's seemed at times that folks were intentionally taking what I said out of context down to them accusing me of saying the mirror opposite of the point I was attempting to make. I've been forced to be on my toes and have to defend all manners of comments from all manners of insinuations and accusations, and as a result I suffer from a form of Posting Traumatic Stress Syndrome so it shouldn't be surprising that I was quick on the draw with your statement. And the dictionary definitions were awesome! I really thank you for that. Few folks have such a strong humanitarian streak and would take the time to so thoroughly point out the differences between the misidentification of a joke, with the dictionary definition of what a "joke" actually is. That was the icing on the altruistic cake. Bless you good madame, bless you to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 5:32:11 GMT -5
As a point of personal interest, why am I not yelling at all of you for putting an 'h' in there? Ok, you can't actually answer that question, but you might be able to answer this one: Neandertal or Neanderthal? No, I will not defer to the red squiggly line that appeared under one of those words in my Chrome, because I have proven several times today that Chrome's spell checker does not always know what it is talking about. OOOO! OOOO! I know it, I know it! I know it because I said it wrong most of my life.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 5:10:06 GMT -5
Not the whole time, no. He does for quite a few scenes, but it's never like blatantly offensive. Just a penis, sittin' there, being a penis. Not a big deal if you're an adult. Fundie's tend to have the maturity of a 12 year old, so I can see why they would be upset. (Ewww pee pees! Gross, mommy!!) Okay, so it's a little "worse" than I thought. Not that I'm completely surprised, given the source material. But still, it shouldn't be that offensive. I often wonder if it's a lack of maturity or just a fear that if we see genitals, we'll all get hot and want to have sex. Which makes me wonder what the Hell goes in their minds. "EW! PENIS! PORNOGRAPHIC!" How did we get so afraid of our bodies, anyway? RELIGION... God is perfect. God made man(kind) in his perfect image. But mankind is shameful and wicked because of genitals. Only organized religion can take something that is one of if not THE best thing EVER... like fucking EVER, and make it into something to be guilty about when it works exactly as it is supposed to, in order to continue the species.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 3:57:41 GMT -5
2) Sites were dead Neanderthals were buried with red ochre. I would feel uncomfortable doing any speculation, so what we know from these burials is this: Neanderthals had the ability to locate and process ochre and place it on dead bodies. It also means that they had (or believed that they had) motivation to do so. Obviously if someone did something, there was probably a reason for it. that being said, so what? They probably had a reason for hunting certain ways or living in certain places. That in no way, shape or form indicates or even implies a religion of any sort. It's true that we can only speculate what that motive might have been, but the inference that they had some reason for using ochre is logically sound. "Some reason" still doesn't mean or indicate a bloody thing. Cuckoo birds have a "reason" for laying eggs in other birds' nests, that sure doesn't mean they have/had religion!
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 3:47:56 GMT -5
What I find weird are the men that would go for this kind of wife. I'm not denying that there are those types out there but I'm confident in saying that most of the men I know (aside from the fundies) would hate to have a robot in place of a partner. I wouldn't be me if I didn't express my opinions, contradict my fiance and even at times, tell him to fuck off because he is annoying me. And if that wasn't me, he wouldn't love me. The same way I wouldn't love him if he became a domineering, controlling prick. And dammit if he is hungry, he is perfectly capable of making his own sandwiches! I don't understand these people who don't see marriage as a partnership where each partner has needs that must be addressed and looked after in order for it to work. Why must it be turned into a master and servant kind of thing? Why do fundie men feel the need to have a slave and fundie women feel the need to be controlled? Because religion is FUCKED! I don't understand it either. I would NEVER want a mate who is solely some automaton without a mind or will of her own. And don't get me wrong, as a perv, the thought of someone who will do whatever I want for a night or a weekend that would and could be great fun, but to marry someone like that? Fuck would THAT get old fast. And not to sound corny, but there is a huge difference between what folks call "making love" and simply getting ones rocks off. The feeling of connection to someone whom you respect and revere, whose mind and personality are also attractive is worlds beyond the often necessary yet base physical urges of simple biological fucking.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 3:11:11 GMT -5
A singer named Elvis Presley once lived, this I know for a fact.
It was reported that this singer died in 1977.
Despite this, some people claim he is still alive.
I don't believe Elvis is still alive.
But do I know for sure? No.
Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but I don't think it's likely at all.
So based on what I know about human behaviour and my own instincts I state pretty certainly that Elvis is dead.
Now about religion, christianity in particular...
A prophet named Jesus is reported to have once lived, this nobody knows for a fact.
It was reported that this prophet died in 2000 years ago.
Despite this, some people claim he is still alive.
I don't believe jesus ever even existed.
But do I know for sure? No.
Could I be wrong? Perhaps, but I don't think it's likely at all.
So based on what I know about human behaviour and my own instincts I state pretty certainly that jesus was a fictional character from a book of myths that isn't much different from all the other books of myths from all over the world.
But I never claimed that some prophet existed. Or some god. So my statement, "I am an atheist" is based solely on someone making a far fetched claim that doesn't hold water. Do I think santa claus is real? No. The story doesn't sound plausible and there is zero amount of proof that he ever existed much less has magic powers. Therefore when it comes to being an atheist I'm equally an a-santa-ist and an a-pixie-ist and an a-easter bunny-ist.
I'm an a-loch ness monster-ist and an a-bigfoot-ist too. Sure, I can't prove that bigfoot DOESN'T exist, but my being uncertain of that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt in no way urges me to believe for a second that those fantastical claims might be true.
The truly odd thing about it is that a religious person doesn't have to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their god DOES exist, though they often claim that they do know. So I don't buy into that, "You can't prove god doesn't exist therefore if you don't want to look like a fundie, you can't say "There is no god" because you can't really know..." The religionists are the ones making the unsubstantiated claims, not me, so my disbelief is not the stance that is under the microscope as far as I'm concerned. No, I can't prove that all million or so religions since the beginning of time are false, but only in an unreasonable mind does that stance equate credence to the stories. I am not the enemy of a religion simply because I don't buy it wholesale. Technically, other than some photos and maps that tell me that Italy is shaped like a boot; I can't prove that either. I've never even been there so I can't prove the country even fucking exists! Doesn't make me an a-"Italy exists and it's shaped like a boot"-ist.
So I am an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 1:52:08 GMT -5
'Redhunter Probe'... I LIKE it! Reaching into deepest space...s
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 1:24:51 GMT -5
There is an ad at the top of the screen right now for bible.org. I chuckled when I saw it I noticed Transformers ads at the top of the sky threads. I actually sniggered at that. And I don't just go around handing out sniggers willy-nilly lest someone think I have gone a tish cattywampus to reality, by gum.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 1:16:51 GMT -5
This reminds me of the 'crossing the street'/'car crash' scene in Desperado when Selma Hayek causes hella havoc just sashaying across an intersection.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 7:46:04 GMT -5
God is a pervert, he likes to watch us touch ourselves. Then I WAS made in his image! I'll be damned...
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 7:19:48 GMT -5
And the problem with nudity goes back to psychotic old testament bullshit.
ANCIENT FUNDIE: Smash the roman god statues, I see a penis!
ANCIENT FUNDIE'S LACKEY: But this statue here is labeled, "Michelangelo's David".
ANCIENT FUNDIE: Oh, well, we'll keep that one because it's a beautiful representation of the human body as perfected by god himself...
These are probably the same sicko's I used to see being extra careful about covering a little baby's genitals in photos. I used to work at a photo lab and sometimes there would be roll after roll, hundreds of pictures of someone's little child. They are eating and bathing and so on. So the bathing pics--I get it, baby's first bath, relatives there to see him, probably some for the first time and yada yada so I get WHY they are doing it--all feature the baby with a carefully placed washcloth over it's "shame". I've heard the defense; "I don't want some pervert getting sick thoughts looking at MY baby..."
Gah...
First off, you're not gonna stop some sicko from thinking ANYTHING. Secondly, why does your mind go there automatically? And thirdly, your kid really isn't that hot... (kidding)
Granted, I like strange things, freak show shit and some pretty bizarre-to-most-people things, but how does, "OMIGOD, if someone sees a picture of our naked baby when they develop our film they are so gonna get aroused" thought dominate your actions when sitting around taking pictures in your own home with your family?
It's a bit of an obsession when there are 200 pictures and that kid doesn't get his picture taken unless he has a big blue square of terrycloth over his junk. Or girls junk, it's hard to tell if a really little baby is a boy or girl when they are sans clothing but without seeing the genitals. My fucking nongod, do you think that those folks put fucking diapers on their dog too? Or yell at the cat for being "perverted" for licking it's own asshole?
I mean I see sex in just about everything and I think they are obsessed to an insane degree if they think that all nudity or the mentioning of sex organs in any way, is always sexual.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 7:02:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I bring the sound of screeching tires with me. Me too, but that's more because I make a hobby out of cavorting naked in the road yelling about the end of the world Yeah, I don't have to try or even be present at the time. If I did that, they'd just bypass alerting the national guard and call godzilla to come and battle me.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 6:43:36 GMT -5
It depends on the storyline. If you're going to make a war movie, then yes, you have to put violence and language if you want it to be realistic. No one is going to put fluffy bunnies and kittens in a movie about WWII, and if they did, then they are a moron. By the same token, if you're making a historical romance, then dropping F-bombs all over the place and having characters engage in all-out brawls (unless the story calls for it) wouldn't make any sense. But I guess that's over the fundies' heads. yeah. But especially when taking something established and shocking us with the idea of radically changing the whole message. the message of that movie didn't revolve around a lot of sex or bad language, so it wasn't needed. No, I wouldn't want to see it added to something that didn't need it nor would I want it taken out of something that did need it. And odd he would mention that particular movie as the "I don't give a damn" line while the lead character is TELLING the leading lady that he is taking her upstairs to fuck and her opinion on it doesn't really matter WAS a big deal for its time. But sure, I mean, I like The Wizard Of Oz but I don't' want them to go back and change it, at ALL! Who would do that anyway? What a ridiculous thing to say on nearly every level. That guy bagged himself a carico sized strawman.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 6, 2009 6:36:07 GMT -5
We need boobies... bring back my boobies! You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
|
|