10/10 would bang.
Infracted for minor spam.
10/10 would bang.
Infracted for minor spam.
Last edited by Wikiy; 2012-11-24 at 01:48 PM.
What the fuck are you on about.
Rape, illegal, paedophile acting on their feelings, illegal, sex with animals, illegal. Having a partner that is the same sex as you, OH THE HUMANITY!
---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 08:50 AM ----------
http://bit.ly/U3FQ3r Little google help for you.
It's a sign of respect to God.
Mod Warning: Please refrain from making "Let me Google that for you" posts.
Last edited by Wikiy; 2012-11-24 at 01:54 PM.
Ofcourse, there is a lot less bigotry from men about the sexual preferences of women.
---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 01:55 PM ----------
That's true but only someone who lives in a perfect world like Equestria, and not planet Earth, would think human beings can be logical and not subjected to their own values, mostly being wrong.
God, that show should be banned for ages 9 and up, it just turns kids into delusional fools who know nothing about the REAL and ugly world.
Last edited by mmoc6342521c29; 2012-11-24 at 01:56 PM.
I don't really care if she is the first bisexual congresswoman or not, I just hope people didn't pick her because she is considered beautiful or bi, if so, then I hope she quits her job. :x
No, that's just moronic. You've subtly changed from "sexuality can only be self-defined" in your previous post to "sexuality... is completely self-identified", which is just being disingenuous. If a man (who identifies as a man 100%) only feels attracted to women but self-identifies as a homosexual, are you saying he therefore must be considered a homosexual man? No. He is a heterosexual, because that's what he is according to what he expressed is his sexuality.
I would agree that a person's sexuality can only be defined by themselves. However, it is the rest of us who apply labels like homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual to that person based on what they defined their sexual orientation to be. And what has became apparent is that sexual orientation of humans is on a continuous spectrum that does not fall neatly into just three distinct groups. Someone who identifies as a heterosexual but feels attraction to another person of the same gender is on a sliding scale regardless of their professed identification.
---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 02:45 PM ----------
Heh. I thought elected officials are supposed to lose their jobs only when they committed some major wrong, or when they fail to serve the public they represent. Apparently supposedly getting votes from people for the "wrong" reasons is also a reason to quit.
It is if they are under-qualified to boot (not saying she is, I know nothing about her). But, if politicians lost their jobs regularly for that reason, Capitol Hill would appear to be abandoned...
Anyway, one openly atheist and one openly bisexual member of Congress. That's progress. Very slight progress, but still progress.
If they are not capable of doing the job then they shouldn't be voted into office in the first place. If they are already in, then why call for resignations before they even did anything wrong? Again, I don't understand this logic of firing an elected representative before they even did anything (or at least, when they are not about to do anything wrong).
It's not like elective office is a college degree with clearly defined prerequisites that a candidate need to qualify for. Saying someone is unqualified is just a subjective, meaninglessly unspecific attack. And while I appreciate you changed your mind to say it doesn't matter, Majad (and so this part isn't directed at you), all this "people voted her because she's bi and beautiful" crap really just comes across as excuses to put down her victory.
I mean, I don't recall anyone saying any male heterosexual politicians should resign if people only picked them because they're good looking. Most people usually have the good graces to invent lies like "he's born in Kenya".
I know that the "people voted her because she's bi and beautiful" might sound crap, but I think it's pretty absurd that people vote for someone because of that.
That doesn't change the fact that the person might be qualified for the job(or not), despite being voted or won because "people voted her because she's bi and beautiful", so yeah, we just need to see how it goes, taking the person out of the office/job right away because of those reasons isn't a very good idea.
But yeah, I understand why people might have voted because she's bi and/or beautiful.
You did perhaps not read my post? If it impares the persons abillity to do the job, the person should be removed from the position. If not, it should have no bearing. Nice jab at MLP too, bet you feel real proud of that, even if it has no bearing whatsoever on what is being discussed, eh?
It just ridiculous that anyone would have a problem with her sexuality regarding her job / what ever shes been elected for
Grow the fuck up and get into this century
Desktop: Zotac 1080 TI, I7 7700k, 16gb Ram, 256gb SSD + 1TB HDD
Laptop: Zotac 2070 MaxQ, I7 8750, 32gb RAM, 500gb SSD + 2TB SSD
Main Game: Warcraft Classic
Haters gonna hate
I don't think Majad was talking about firing her, I think he was saying if she felt she was only voted in because she's attractive and ticks a political correctness box, she might consider stepping down/declining. Not force her to resign because she might have been voted for because of those reasons (not exactly something that can be determined without considerable, pointless effort).
Also, didn't loads of people think Obama wouldn't be able to hack it because he was too young or hadn't served in the army and various qualities like that which are unrelated to presidential competency? People will be cynical about and turn their noses up at anything that threatens the status quo.
Why is this a big deal? Dafuq do you care what sexual orientation are the political people? What difference does it make? Why should this be news anyway? It's like making a fuss about a horse taking a shit.
Good to see some parts of the US making progress.
---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 04:54 PM ----------
A big part of the US is Christian, some parts a lot more than others, to be elected to congress and being openly "deviant" is quite big. Ofcourse, here in Sweden no-one'd give a crap.
Alright, but "I hope she quits" comes off a lot stronger than that.
I do recall a lot of people saying wasn't experienced enough. Can't say I remember things like his age specifically, but then again I didn't follow politics that closely. Though I would say that even though age and experience in the army aren't really important for being a good president, they are at least tangentially related to holding the highest office of the land that also doubles as commander in chief. In general these attacks seem to be made on points that are superficially related to the office even though they fall apart upon closer examination.Also, didn't loads of people think Obama wouldn't be able to hack it because he was too young or hadn't served in the army and various qualities like that which are unrelated to presidential competency? People will be cynical about and turn their noses up at anything that threatens the status quo.
But yes of course, people in general like to use unrelated things to attack a person when facts aren't on their side.
---------- Post added 2012-11-24 at 03:58 PM ----------
Because it's progress.
It's an empty victory really, in a society that largely treats women like damsel's still. A bisexual woman is typically seen, by the intolerants, as a victim of confusion, so they are pitied by those who care negatively, they are accepted into the LGBT community with open arms, and the 'straight-but-don't-care' crowd is like "AWESOME YOU GO GIRL/ THAT'S HOT!"
Ever met an openly bisexual man? Probably not. Because the intolerants see them as perverted deviants, the LGBT community treats them like shit, and the 'straight-but-don't-care' crowd treats them like sissies.
So when I see the first openly bisexual MALE politician, then I'll believe society has become more enlightened.