Lolcow Andrew Peter Carlson / Anaiah Carlson / Tamarlover / Xtamarlover - Jewish/Christian Wannabe Cult Leader, Stalker, Ugly af, dogfucker, mayor of spitsville

His comment is dumb because he doesnt actually like her hes just speaking out of his ass.

Her content is lame to me. Hence why i wouldn't pay for her stuff. paying for subscription for thousands of videos is different than paying per video. per video would be far too expensive for me
Who wouldn’t like Belle? I think she’s genius.

Paying for a subscription is still paying for a subscription. Why would someone ever need to pay for porn. It’s the one thing the Internet has an endless supply of.
 
His comment is dumb because he doesnt actually like her hes just speaking out of his ass.

Her content is lame to me. Hence why i wouldn't pay for her stuff. paying for subscription for thousands of videos is different than paying per video. per video would be far too expensive for me
You dont know me. You have no idea who I am. I like Belle Delphine.

Having said that, you are a SIMP and a cuck for sending random Arab and Jewish women thousands of $$$ without getting as so much as a hug.

Marshall got to fuck Melinda in the butthole for free. You had to pay Melinda $15,000 for a "Hennlo".
 
Who wouldn’t like Belle? I think she’s genius.

Paying for a subscription is still paying for a subscription. Why would someone ever need to pay for porn. It’s the one thing the Internet has an endless supply of.
Free porn sites usually have tons of ads that potentially can harm your computer. No ads. Also many videos are only available if you pay. Some of them can be found illegally but many cannot

These cam girls arent geniuses. They literally have to take their clothes off and theyll get money. Its that easy. No actual talent.

You dont know me. You have no idea who I am. I like Belle Delphine.

Having said that, you are a SIMP and a cuck for sending random Arab and Jewish women thousands of $$$ without getting as so much as a hug.

Marshall got to fuck Melinda in the butthole for free. You had to pay Melinda $15,000 for a "Hennlo".
Prove it.
 
Free porn sites usually have tons of ads that potentially can harm your computer. No ads. Also many videos are only available if you pay. Some of them can be found illegally but many cannot

These cam girls arent geniuses. They literally have to take their clothes off and theyll get money. Its that easy. No actual talent.


Prove it.
Bruh. Have you heard of protection? Not condoms, but for your computer? Ad blocking? Sure, some videos are only available if you pay. But why would you want to? You have some weird fetish that only shows up in paid content?

Belle is a genius. She sold tiny containers of water as her “bath water” for 30 bucks a pop and they sold out in minutes. Could you do the same? Maybe you think she’s not a genius because she strips and how hard can that be? But the woman has a market, conquered it, has a monopoly on it, and has plenty of simps and weirdos to buy whatever inane shit she comes up with next and is always guaranteed to profit.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redcent
Belle is a genius. She sold tiny containers of water as her “bath water” for 30 bucks a pop and they sold out in minutes. Could you do the same? Maybe you think she’s not a genius because she strips and how hard can that be? But the woman has a market, conquered it, has a monopoly on it, and has plenty of simps and weirdos to buy whatever inane shit she comes up with next and is always guaranteed to profit.
I don't think she ever actually sold any "bath water," and it was some kind of joke or something. Vito did a whole big work about vaping it but he admitted that he actually made that jar himself with a label printer and it was all a bit, since you couldn't actually buy any on her site.
 
Bruh. Have you heard of protection? Not condoms, but for your computer? Ad blocking? Sure, some videos are only available if you pay. But why would you want to? You have some weird fetish that only shows up in paid content?

Belle is a genius. She sold tiny containers of water as her “bath water” for 30 bucks a pop and they sold out in minutes. Could you do the same? Maybe you think she’s not a genius because she strips and how hard can that be? But the woman has a market, conquered it, has a monopoly on it, and has plenty of simps and weirdos to buy whatever inane shit she comes up with next and is always guaranteed to profit.
On pornhub, there are many videos which are only accessible in premium. Premium is a mere $10 a month. Typically such content is higher quality and better made. One small fee for millions of videos of all kinds. And no there is nothing in particular i am itching to see. It was seeing so many videos i was missing out on for a simple $10 a nonth. So its a bargain. Last year they offered a lifetime subscription for $300. I wasnt able to do it. If they do it again though ill buy it immediately asap.

Any semi attractive woman can sell their used lingerie and make lots of money. No talent. Just be beautiful looking and have an already established fanbase and they'll buy anything sexy you do
 
On pornhub, there are many videos which are only accessible in premium. Premium is a mere $10 a month. Typically such content is higher quality and better made. One small fee for millions of videos of all kinds. And no there is nothing in particular i am itching to see. It was seeing so many videos i was missing out on for a simple $10 a nonth. So its a bargain. Last year they offered a lifetime subscription for $300. I wasnt able to do it. If they do it again though ill buy it immediately asap.

Any semi attractive woman can sell their used lingerie and make lots of money. No talent. Just be beautiful looking and have an already established fanbase and they'll buy anything sexy you do
Still baffling you need to pay for your porn needs when there’s so much out there.

And that is a very simplified version of e-thots that isn’t as easy as you think it is. In order to actually get a fan base, some work has to be put into it. Think of all the onlyfans pages with no subs even if the woman is attractive. Or selling feet pics. If it was easy as taking a pic of my tits or feet to rake in lots of cash, hell yeah I’d break into that. Sadly, it’s not. I’d say a successful e-thot puts in the same work as a porn star.

@Shaka Brah Huh. It could very well have been a troll knowing her. Who knows. I love her because I love watching her crazy antics.
 
Still baffling you need to pay for your porn needs when there’s so much out there.

And that is a very simplified version of e-thots that isn’t as easy as you think it is. In order to actually get a fan base, some work has to be put into it. Think of all the onlyfans pages with no subs even if the woman is attractive. Or selling feet pics. If it was easy as taking a pic of my tits or feet to rake in lots of cash, hell yeah I’d break into that. Sadly, it’s not. I’d say a successful e-thot puts in the same work as a porn star.

@Shaka Brah Huh. It could very well have been a troll knowing her. Who knows. I love her because I love watching her crazy antics.

Send me a pic of you on all fours with a wig on and a side smile. Be wearing all yellow.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: xtamarlover
Send me a pic of you on all fours with a wig on and a side smile. Be wearing all yellow.
Okay, but you still owe me 5k for the feet pics.

D2D7F18B-6169-40A2-AFF0-FB3033FFA105.jpeg
 
Sorry guys I need to sperg
All e-thot content sooner or later ends on imagefap (western thots) or e-hentai (cosplay thots).
Paying for pornhub? Have you ever heard of porncrawlersites? Like Tube Galore or Wankspider (I think that one is mostly dead now)? Those search on also on pornsites which are not part of the Mindgeek conglomerate, that means you will find their content for free.
Also: Ads that hurt your computer? Are you seriously browsing the net without an ad- and/or scriptblocker? Are you daft?
 
Morally superior in your individual perception by the criteria you individually outline. A different person might come to perceive a different moral choice as superior - would you expect this person to override your right to choose if that person believed its choice was morally superior? How would a society function if everyone acted on this notion, in your view?

Why?

Why? The former I at least get for people (or from the perspective) who adhere to certain ideologies - the latter I don't quite see the reasoning behind even then.

Why? You provide a chain of events, but you do not provide the mechanism by which that conclusion is drawn.
Intimacy past --> insistence on permanent relationship irregardless of individual feelings.
What is "-->" .

An objective paradigm would be one that is external, based on facts, unemotional and consequently perceivable by everyone (because personal experience is not a factor). It is not a widely applicable one (objective reality is usually complex), especially not in non-physical realms.
I feel this is an important point because the term "objective" is used by a lot of people in a broad manner to make their ideas seem more credible, when really it's just not a great word to use in the context of anything involving introspection or intangible matters like morals - things in short, that are not objects.
A better term in this case would be "absolute" - applied to all matters consistently without relativism. An absolute moral paradigm.

And this "supposed" design is revealed by your perception of it I assume? Some body parts fulfill more than one function, sometimes with different priorities, as is the case with genitals. How can you be certain that you are perceiving all functions in their correct order of priority? The penis is used to excrete fluids, both for the purposes of sanitation as well as procreation. Which function matters more and how can you know?

The anus itself has a stupefying amount of nerve endings and the rectum can, in some women, be close enough to the vaginal walls / their nerve endings to increase stimulation through pressure (which is why there are indeed women who get equal or more pleasure from butt stuff). What if a function of the anus is to aid in stimulation for the sake of procreation (vaginal contractions for women and strength of ejaculation for men)? What if the excretion is in fact, only the secondary function? (if we fx accept that in the case of the penis, its primary function is procreation)

I think one of my main gripes is that if you acknowledge your fallibility, how can you exhibit behavior that can only be excused through infallibility - or is hinging upon the fact that you can't be wrong.
If my choices are uncertain, even minutely uncertain, how can I elect to override others merely by what is then nothing but my own conviction (just personal subjective investment in one's own position).



For dudes, just from a tactile perspective (horniness/hotness is a mind thing as well obv), it really isn't, because the butt mostly just feels like a smooth tube (there are no little nubs or ridges or spongey areas or anything that makes it more interesting). You can get a similar tactile experience with a couple of rubber bands around the base of your penis and a very very boring blowjob.
Morality is absolute. Whether you insist on me not calling it objective and instead calling it absolute, regardless, my point is the same. morality is in fact the same for everyone. but here's the key: morality is not determined based on what is common knowledge to everyone. rather, morality is based on what everyone is capable of doing properly. as an example of common knowledge not being the basis of actual true morality, until recently, most people believed slavery was not immoral. as we came into modern times, more and more people began to believe slavery is immoral. you cannot say that slavery wasn't immoral because it wasn't common knowledge and wasn't obvious to everyone but now its obvious to everyone so its immoral. many times, things that are plainly false are obvious to everyone. For example, geocentrism until the modern period was "obviously" true, even though it was proven to be scientifically false only in the last few hundred years. Morality is not some simple thing, but it is highly complex, comparable to biology and physics. There are core tenets of morality easily perceivable and undeniable, but the greater details of morality are very difficult to comprehend, explain, and extrapolate beyond basic parameters, and requires great expertise to properly identify all morality correctly. for example, there is a whole science behind what is and isn't healthy food to eat. all based on biological and chemical science. In that light, the fact that morality indicates that eating unhealthy food is immoral, that means in order to fully comprehend what is immoral would be to fully comprehend biology, chemistry, and many other sciences. But, because we don't have the ability to be experts at everything, it is beneficial and profitable to take shortcuts in determining moral conclusions. In particular, we have the guidance of religion, and the gods, which revealed to us in ancient times higher truths of morality that would have been very difficult to discover on our own. for example, the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the Bible. there is a very clear biological health implication being made in the distinction between clean and unclean animals for food. But as of yet, science has not independently proven the distinction between clean and unclean animals. At best, science has shown that some animals are less unhealthy than others. In particular, animals like chicken and cows have been shown to be less unhealthy than animals like pigs and other bottom dwellers. we have some basic understanding of why that might be, but a full grasp on the scope of the difference between unclean animals for long term health vs clean animals, is still unknown to us. So until or unless science can prove to the contrary, on faith, it is valid to believe that clean animals are permitted whereas unclean animals are not. But for those who reject the Bible, many other religions point to animals being unhealthy and should be avoided. so if one is to refuse to accept clean and unclean animal distinction, then the only available options are to either knowingly eat unhealthy food (which would be immoral) or to avoid all animals and become vegetarian. so really the only moral options available to people are to eat clean animals, or to be vegetarians. There are no other morally viable options based on the current science available to us.

someone might deduce a different moral conclusion, but you must base your life choices on your own conclusions. You can't rely on someone else's morality. But you also can't expect anyone else to follow your morality either. So you shouldn't be surprised if someone else refuses to abide by your moral code. But if you wish to enforce your morality on someone else, that is not inherently wrong, as there may be times where imposing your morality on others is justified. So while you can't expect someone to voluntarily follow your moral code, you can accomplish it by either legally mandating it, or else taking the law into your own hands and making things right. and whether you are right or not is ultimately up to the universe to decide. operating on the mentality of "i could be wrong therefore I shouldn't take the risk" is not a valid course of action because anyone could be wrong about anything if you want to be technical. You can't live life on the basis of a tiny risk. For example, its possible if you go outside tomorrow you could get into a car accident and die. But you shouldn't not go outside to avoid risks like that. Take reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary risk. But some risks are necessary to enjoy life as one ought to. similarly, one ought to take moral risks in order to pursue being a morally good person. Its better to try to be a moral person but fail, than to be afraid of doing anything immoral and avoiding morally good things, insodoing, you make yourself an immoral person by refusing to pursue moral risks for the sake of a morally good pursuit.

yes, marriage is more compelling than a mere girlfriend or boyfriend relationship. Truth be told, the Scriptures teach an absolute insistence on not breaking up a marriage with rare exceptions, whereas for boyfriend and girlfriend relationships, the Scriptures are more free with and allow for breaking up on lesser basis, such as extreme incompataibility and lack of approval from family. But in particular, if one hasn't had sex with the person, there is even less basis for insisting on not breaking up. Therefore, in the case of me and my ex girlfriend, we belong in that third category. While we had some sexual activity, it probably did not rise to the level of insisting on not breaking up. That is why I do not insist that she get back together with me. I would be open to it, but it is not something I believe I am entitled to. I believe she was justified in breaking up with me if she wanted to. The issue I have with her is the way she ended things with me. You can do something in a loving way and a very unloving way. i've heard and known of many who have ended relationships on good terms. My ex girlfriend unnecessarily ended it on bad terms in the mistaken and utterly false belief that its not a good idea to be friends with someone you have broken up with. that is one of the most idiotic and absurd things I've ever heard anyone believe. Its probably her dumbest belief she's ever had. there is literally no reason to not be friends with someone you had a good relationship with. and then to destroy your good memories by repainting the relationship as negative to justify how you ended the relationship, its just a very disgusting thing to do. I believe I am entitled to her friendship, not her romance. So I will fight for the friendship being restored. If she insists on not being friends ever again, she must do me right and give me the proper closure that she owes me. And I say she must because I refuse to accept anything less than that. if she refuses to give me that, then I'll keep trying indefinitely until I give up. And I believe i have the right to try until communication is given. you have to communicate and deal with things for closure before you are justified to cut yourself off from someone else. Therefore if my ex girlfriend wants me out of her life, she has to do the necessary parts first. Until then, I am justified in refusing to go away.

something can be objectively true (or absolutely true if you hate the word objective as I apply that word), and yet be emotionally held to. Just because you are emotional about it doesn't mean it isn't absolutely moral. But your emotional passion about it by itself has no bearing or weight to its validity. and i understand that. the emotional passion stems from the belief you are justified in your own moral position.

Based on my limited fallible understanding, I'm certain of certain conclusions I have about bodily functions. But if I were to discover compelling evidence that indicated i was wrong, I would change my mind on the issue. But like i said you can't operate on only things you are 100% certain on without a possibility of being wrong. because truth be told, we can always be wrong about pretty much everything. but with the totality of evidence available, you are compelled to side with the more compelling option. The more compelling option discernable from nature is the entirely abnormal and counterintuitive basis of the activity. it is not evolutionary advantageous. So there is no basis to believe that homosexuality is a desirable trait. If there is a biological component to sexual orientation (i would strongly disagree with that, but lets go with it), it still wouldn't change the fact that that orientation is entirely an abberration and an affront to the natural order of things. Rather than something to be encouraged, it would be an unhealthy mutation that is best rooted out of the gene pool. Just like no one wants a child with birth defects. if we insist that people are born homosexual, the reality is, no one wants a child that has genetic defects. no that you should kill the child, im just saying, ideally, one should not want a child with such a defect, and if one has such a child, one should strongly discourage them from reproducing so as to avoid spreading their defect to others. One could argue that if someone is born with an orientation, they should be allowed to pursue it. But thats like arguing that people who are attracted to children should be allowed to have sex with them. There are plenty of pedophiles who say they cannot control their orientation and they were born with it. So if that is true (its not true anyone is born with sexual orientations but if people are,) then clearly being born with an orientation doesn't justify you indulging in that orientation if it is perverse.

Psychopaths mentally have a desire to murder and rape people, but that doesn't make it ok. Like we said before, just like the animals rape and engage in homosexual sex, just because its done in nature doesn't make it a valid activity. It is abberant because the nature of it is not beneficial to society but it is inherently harmful and detrimental to the normal nuclear family that is clearly the way family's are supposed to be raised.

most of the time, in order for people to get more pleasure from "butt stuff" they have to also be pleasuring their primary genital organ at the same time. the only other times someone might get more pleasure from it is if someone has a bad partner that doesn't know how to please their partner properly. A large number of women never have orgasms because their husbands or boyfriends don't care to make sure they get one, or don't know how to give them one, and the women often themselves don't know how to give themselves one. so if a woman never has an orgasm, then yes other activities could be more pleasurable. but if a woman is receiving a proper vaginal orgasm, there is no way that merely anal sex is more pleasure. like i said, that would require her or the guy to also be stimulating her clit at the same time and giving her an orgasm still.

"if my choices are uncertain, even minutely uncertain, how can I elect to override others merely by what is then nothing but my own conviction (just personal subjective investment in one's own position"

thats the nature of life itself. life is all about those kind of risks. you can't be successful in life in really any capacity unless you are willing to take those kinds of risks and yes even ovveride others will when you believe it is proper to do so. And if you are in the wrong, you'll get what's coming to you, either in this life or in the next.

to be clear, it was the yoda kid that said he was obsessed with anal stuff. not me. i figured you knew that but just wanted to be sure, because the reply you gave makes it sound like you are replying to it as if i was the one who said it.
 
and then to destroy your good memories by repainting the relationship as negative to justify how you ended the relationship, its just a very disgusting thing to do. I believe I am entitled to her friendship, not her romance.
Its funny how you insist that she is repainting her memories and follow it up with your strange clinginess which proves that she didn't do that.
You are creepy, that is all she needs to never want to talk to you again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShinyStar
Morality is absolute. Whether you insist on me not calling it objective and instead calling it absolute, regardless, my point is the same. morality is in fact the same for everyone. but here's the key: morality is not determined based on what is common knowledge to everyone. rather, morality is based on what everyone is capable of doing properly. as an example of common knowledge not being the basis of actual true morality, until recently, most people believed slavery was not immoral. as we came into modern times, more and more people began to believe slavery is immoral. you cannot say that slavery wasn't immoral because it wasn't common knowledge and wasn't obvious to everyone but now its obvious to everyone so its immoral. many times, things that are plainly false are obvious to everyone. For example, geocentrism until the modern period was "obviously" true, even though it was proven to be scientifically false only in the last few hundred years. Morality is not some simple thing, but it is highly complex, comparable to biology and physics. There are core tenets of morality easily perceivable and undeniable, but the greater details of morality are very difficult to comprehend, explain, and extrapolate beyond basic parameters, and requires great expertise to properly identify all morality correctly. for example, there is a whole science behind what is and isn't healthy food to eat. all based on biological and chemical science. In that light, the fact that morality indicates that eating unhealthy food is immoral, that means in order to fully comprehend what is immoral would be to fully comprehend biology, chemistry, and many other sciences. But, because we don't have the ability to be experts at everything, it is beneficial and profitable to take shortcuts in determining moral conclusions. In particular, we have the guidance of religion, and the gods, which revealed to us in ancient times higher truths of morality that would have been very difficult to discover on our own. for example, the distinction between clean and unclean animals in the Bible. there is a very clear biological health implication being made in the distinction between clean and unclean animals for food. But as of yet, science has not independently proven the distinction between clean and unclean animals. At best, science has shown that some animals are less unhealthy than others. In particular, animals like chicken and cows have been shown to be less unhealthy than animals like pigs and other bottom dwellers. we have some basic understanding of why that might be, but a full grasp on the scope of the difference between unclean animals for long term health vs clean animals, is still unknown to us. So until or unless science can prove to the contrary, on faith, it is valid to believe that clean animals are permitted whereas unclean animals are not. But for those who reject the Bible, many other religions point to animals being unhealthy and should be avoided. so if one is to refuse to accept clean and unclean animal distinction, then the only available options are to either knowingly eat unhealthy food (which would be immoral) or to avoid all animals and become vegetarian. so really the only moral options available to people are to eat clean animals, or to be vegetarians. There are no other morally viable options based on the current science available to us.

someone might deduce a different moral conclusion, but you must base your life choices on your own conclusions. You can't rely on someone else's morality. But you also can't expect anyone else to follow your morality either. So you shouldn't be surprised if someone else refuses to abide by your moral code. But if you wish to enforce your morality on someone else, that is not inherently wrong, as there may be times where imposing your morality on others is justified. So while you can't expect someone to voluntarily follow your moral code, you can accomplish it by either legally mandating it, or else taking the law into your own hands and making things right. and whether you are right or not is ultimately up to the universe to decide. operating on the mentality of "i could be wrong therefore I shouldn't take the risk" is not a valid course of action because anyone could be wrong about anything if you want to be technical. You can't live life on the basis of a tiny risk. For example, its possible if you go outside tomorrow you could get into a car accident and die. But you shouldn't not go outside to avoid risks like that. Take reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary risk. But some risks are necessary to enjoy life as one ought to. similarly, one ought to take moral risks in order to pursue being a morally good person. Its better to try to be a moral person but fail, than to be afraid of doing anything immoral and avoiding morally good things, insodoing, you make yourself an immoral person by refusing to pursue moral risks for the sake of a morally good pursuit.

yes, marriage is more compelling than a mere girlfriend or boyfriend relationship. Truth be told, the Scriptures teach an absolute insistence on not breaking up a marriage with rare exceptions, whereas for boyfriend and girlfriend relationships, the Scriptures are more free with and allow for breaking up on lesser basis, such as extreme incompataibility and lack of approval from family. But in particular, if one hasn't had sex with the person, there is even less basis for insisting on not breaking up. Therefore, in the case of me and my ex girlfriend, we belong in that third category. While we had some sexual activity, it probably did not rise to the level of insisting on not breaking up. That is why I do not insist that she get back together with me. I would be open to it, but it is not something I believe I am entitled to. I believe she was justified in breaking up with me if she wanted to. The issue I have with her is the way she ended things with me. You can do something in a loving way and a very unloving way. i've heard and known of many who have ended relationships on good terms. My ex girlfriend unnecessarily ended it on bad terms in the mistaken and utterly false belief that its not a good idea to be friends with someone you have broken up with. that is one of the most idiotic and absurd things I've ever heard anyone believe. Its probably her dumbest belief she's ever had. there is literally no reason to not be friends with someone you had a good relationship with. and then to destroy your good memories by repainting the relationship as negative to justify how you ended the relationship, its just a very disgusting thing to do. I believe I am entitled to her friendship, not her romance. So I will fight for the friendship being restored. If she insists on not being friends ever again, she must do me right and give me the proper closure that she owes me. And I say she must because I refuse to accept anything less than that. if she refuses to give me that, then I'll keep trying indefinitely until I give up. And I believe i have the right to try until communication is given. you have to communicate and deal with things for closure before you are justified to cut yourself off from someone else. Therefore if my ex girlfriend wants me out of her life, she has to do the necessary parts first. Until then, I am justified in refusing to go away.

something can be objectively true (or absolutely true if you hate the word objective as I apply that word), and yet be emotionally held to. Just because you are emotional about it doesn't mean it isn't absolutely moral. But your emotional passion about it by itself has no bearing or weight to its validity. and i understand that. the emotional passion stems from the belief you are justified in your own moral position.

Based on my limited fallible understanding, I'm certain of certain conclusions I have about bodily functions. But if I were to discover compelling evidence that indicated i was wrong, I would change my mind on the issue. But like i said you can't operate on only things you are 100% certain on without a possibility of being wrong. because truth be told, we can always be wrong about pretty much everything. but with the totality of evidence available, you are compelled to side with the more compelling option. The more compelling option discernable from nature is the entirely abnormal and counterintuitive basis of the activity. it is not evolutionary advantageous. So there is no basis to believe that homosexuality is a desirable trait. If there is a biological component to sexual orientation (i would strongly disagree with that, but lets go with it), it still wouldn't change the fact that that orientation is entirely an abberration and an affront to the natural order of things. Rather than something to be encouraged, it would be an unhealthy mutation that is best rooted out of the gene pool. Just like no one wants a child with birth defects. if we insist that people are born homosexual, the reality is, no one wants a child that has genetic defects. no that you should kill the child, im just saying, ideally, one should not want a child with such a defect, and if one has such a child, one should strongly discourage them from reproducing so as to avoid spreading their defect to others. One could argue that if someone is born with an orientation, they should be allowed to pursue it. But thats like arguing that people who are attracted to children should be allowed to have sex with them. There are plenty of pedophiles who say they cannot control their orientation and they were born with it. So if that is true (its not true anyone is born with sexual orientations but if people are,) then clearly being born with an orientation doesn't justify you indulging in that orientation if it is perverse.

Psychopaths mentally have a desire to murder and rape people, but that doesn't make it ok. Like we said before, just like the animals rape and engage in homosexual sex, just because its done in nature doesn't make it a valid activity. It is abberant because the nature of it is not beneficial to society but it is inherently harmful and detrimental to the normal nuclear family that is clearly the way family's are supposed to be raised.

most of the time, in order for people to get more pleasure from "butt stuff" they have to also be pleasuring their primary genital organ at the same time. the only other times someone might get more pleasure from it is if someone has a bad partner that doesn't know how to please their partner properly. A large number of women never have orgasms because their husbands or boyfriends don't care to make sure they get one, or don't know how to give them one, and the women often themselves don't know how to give themselves one. so if a woman never has an orgasm, then yes other activities could be more pleasurable. but if a woman is receiving a proper vaginal orgasm, there is no way that merely anal sex is more pleasure. like i said, that would require her or the guy to also be stimulating her clit at the same time and giving her an orgasm still.

"if my choices are uncertain, even minutely uncertain, how can I elect to override others merely by what is then nothing but my own conviction (just personal subjective investment in one's own position"

thats the nature of life itself. life is all about those kind of risks. you can't be successful in life in really any capacity unless you are willing to take those kinds of risks and yes even ovveride others will when you believe it is proper to do so. And if you are in the wrong, you'll get what's coming to you, either in this life or in the next.

to be clear, it was the yoda kid that said he was obsessed with anal stuff. not me. i figured you knew that but just wanted to be sure, because the reply you gave makes it sound like you are replying to it as if i was the one who said it.
Too mant text walls, needs more paragraph breaks

This legit made me fall asleep. Yeah yeah you want to answer questions. And there are many folks even here that have a habit of rambling on (joe bangles esq. Comes to mind) you seem to do that often

.... I think the problem isn't that you don't think about what you're doing, you think about it too much. You're digging yourself deeper thinking hard and hard to come up with your reasoning for things like stalking.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rod Dangerous
Its funny how you insist that she is repainting her memories and follow it up with your strange clinginess which proves that she didn't do that.
You are creepy, that is all she needs to never want to talk to you again.
You are wrong. I was never like this with her until she broke up with me.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Baby Yoda
Was this the one who broke up with you after you started saying you feverently hated homosexuals and think they should be killed?
I never told her any of that stuff. i simply said to her i dont agree with homosexuality and left it at that. I would never have told her how much i truly am against lgbt. I tried as much as possible to make it seem like im very tolerant and loving towards homos and that i believe in most lgbt values. I played down my opposition to it in the interest of trying to show her I was loving towards lgbt people. Unless she has read this thread, she still doesn't know i believe they are so evil they deserve to die. Remember im all about deception. i always sought to portray myself to her in as favorable a light as possible. I bent over backwards to try and make her happy and not say anything bad or against her desires.
 
I never told her any of that stuff. i simply said to her i dont agree with homosexuality and left it at that. I would never have told her how much i truly am against lgbt. I tried as much as possible to make it seem like im very tolerant and loving towards homos and that i believe in most lgbt values. I played down my opposition to it in the interest of trying to show her I was loving towards lgbt people. Unless she has read this thread, she still doesn't know i believe they are so evil they deserve to die. Remember im all about deception. i always sought to portray myself to her in as favorable a light as possible. I bent over backwards to try and make her happy and not say anything bad or against her desires.
So you're a huge lying sack of shit and wonder why she wants nothing to do with you.
 
I never told her any of that stuff. i simply said to her i dont agree with homosexuality and left it at that. I would never have told her how much i truly am against lgbt. I tried as much as possible to make it seem like im very tolerant and loving towards homos and that i believe in most lgbt values. I played down my opposition to it in the interest of trying to show her I was loving towards lgbt people. Unless she has read this thread, she still doesn't know i believe they are so evil they deserve to die. Remember im all about deception. i always sought to portray myself to her in as favorable a light as possible. I bent over backwards to try and make her happy and not say anything bad or against her desires.
Ever wonder if you're not the master of deception you think you are, and something, perhaps in your eyes or expression tipped her off?
 
Back