If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Slut Walks.

1235710

Comments

  • So apparently not being a completely inclusive liberal means your opinion is Wrong™ and must be shut down through shitposting.
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    Chagen, the shitposting has nothing to do with you.

    If you're going to be biased, at least have a good reason.
  • Exactly, Chagen. Us having fun and making weird jokes with each other is obviously all a subtle method of attacking your opinion. Well, you've figured us out.
  • You shitposted because you found the original topic to be useless.
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    No, we shitposted because that's what we do.
  • ^^Yes, exactly, we just...

    Fuck it, I can't even come up with a sarcastic reply to this bullshit.
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    ^ Just shitpost some more, it'll make you feel better.
  • Okay. Unrelated, but for some reason, when I read "slut walks", I read it in the way meaning a person named "slut" walks, which reminds me of "Jesus walks", and now I have Kanye West stuck in my head. :<
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    ewwww Kanye West?

    ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    I feel for you.

    I would not wish that fate upon my worst enemy.

    Well... maybe him, but still.
  • I don't have a macro for this, so I'll just use big Arial:

    THIS THREAD IS STUPID
  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
    SHUT UP

    THIS THREAD IS WIN
  • Big Ariel, you say?

  • Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day.
  • edited 2011-05-23 01:24:31
    ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    She's kind of cute.

    And actually chagen, you were being stupid way before we even decided to shitpost in this thread, you kind of brought it upon yourself. Maybe if you were aware of how idiotic your responses were then maybe we could have had hope in trying to discuss this completely fucking retarded topic seriously.

    Unfortunately the pot boiled over already so try this thread again except with less asstardery and more "I am willing to discuss this and post statements that don't make people frown and roll their eyes".
  • You can change. You can.
    -noms on her suffering-
  • They're somethin' else.
    Que la chingada?
  • Vorpy: No, it's just that not being a "Progressive" is Wrong™ and therefore I am wrong because I am wrong.

    At least, that's what I've been getting from this thread.
  • MODS ARE ASLEEP, DOGPILE TIME

    No, you're wrong because you can't argue your way out of a paper bag. You're solipsistic to the point were such an empheral idea as love suddenly has a single correct definition, and your only argument so far is Appeal to Tradition. Even if that's your gut feeling, you need to find better justifications than that.

    /devil's advocate: Polyamoury is not really my cup of tea, since I think a lot of people step into it unprepared and inevitably end up unable to treat all partners equally, in spite of their best intentions. While it's not that detrimental if you have a main couple plus flings structure, it is a tad too idealistic for me in how it views how humans act. I'm fine with people trying it, but I get wary when they tack on a grand vision of an alternative relationship model that embraces freedom, tolerance etc., etc.
  • Chagen: If love can only be given once, what about people who get divorced or have their spouse/significant other die, and then find love again? What about breaking up?
  • They broke a new love and gained a new one. It's still one at a time.
  • I don't see how it can dilute then.
  • Because they stopped loving one person and started to love another.
  • edited 2011-05-23 08:25:36
    What about a widower who genuinely loves his new girlfriend...but at the same time, loves his deceased wife?

    I'll level with you. I also object to polyamory on a personal level, which would be why I wouldn't engage in it. But I accept that other people will, and I don't think it neccesarily means their love is fake. I tend to object to polygamy as well, but mostly because a) most examples are men with multiple wives, and if a guy thinks he can be married to multiple women but that his wives can't, say, date someone else, there's something seriously skewed with the dynamic there, and b), can you imagine the legal hassle if a man had 3 wives, and one of those wives had another husband, and the other husband had another wife, who had three husbands, who etc.

    Perhaps I'm not a very good christian, but I wouldn't want to worship a god that I genuinely believed wanted me to hate people in His name.

    EDIT: Ah, polygamists are in the minority, I know, so I highly doubt it would balloon as much as I said in example b, that was just, well, an example. At most in society right now, you might get 2 or 3 layers of polygamy. Like russian nesting dolls!
  • edited 2011-05-23 08:27:22
    Tableflipper
    I don't understand.

    Say that love in this case is like water.

    You have two bottles of water.

    If you can somehow not waste water when only pouring one bottle at a time, then that bottle would be considered an unlimited supply.

    This doesn't make any sense, especially when considering how pouring two bottles at the same time would then cause both bottles to empty. Either that, or they somehow started to pour a smaller amount regardless of if you're pouring them in the exact same way, and the total amount is lesser than if you only used one.

    Now say that both bottles were actually unlimited, but using them both causes them to empty.

    But at the same time, breaking one of those bottles and throwing it away will cause the other one to remain unlimited, even though it's supposed to be the same bottle that causes limiting.

    Why is the bottle of water unlimited, and why does using two cause limit?
  • Say love is like a bad analogy. Even though you theorize about it all you like, it still can't catch all of humanity's diverse experience into it.

    Also, polyamory=/=polygamy.
  • That's not a correct analogy, Ed.

    My belief would be more like having only one bottle. You can pir this one a fill a bowl to its capacity. But you can only fill two bowls to half height, three bowls to one-third their height, etc.
  • So the solution is to break a full bowl and then recycle the water?

    Cause that sounds even worse to me...
  • Some people's love is more like a bottle of vodka: the less you pour it into one person, the less delirious the person will be, and the less bad the hangover will be.
Sign In or Register to comment.