Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

Agamemnon wrote:

How can you hold your head up in public. It is people like you that give
the British their reputation on the continent of liking it up the arse.
How does it feel when you make this country into an international
laughing stock when you go abroad by your love of anal sex?

I've heard anal sex is quite popular amongst European females, hence
the term Euro-trash? I see nothing wrong with a lady that wants it up
the ass. ****ing a woman's butthole feels good. If you don't agree,
perhaps you're a whiny little faggot with a tiny pecker?

L. Ross Raszewski wrote:

Science certainly could be used that way -- science fiction is full of
science-horror stories where the scientific elite use science as a
tool of oppression.

The difference is that scientists won't be able to tell you "we have a
right to drug you, abuse you and put you to work in the fields because
our Science says so", so any scientist suggesting such a thing gets
pretty short shrift from the general public.

So yes, while science is theoretically capable of being used evilly you
need to have a pretty good grasp on power to start with.

What's the quote? "Evil people will always do evil things to good
people, and good people will occasionally do evil things to evil people,
but for good people to do evil things to good people takes religion"?

On the other hand, if I came and said that (for example) I want only to
eat meat which has been killed by performing acts of intolerable and
unnecessary cruelty on the animal which (in all other situations) would
be banned outright and have me brought up in front of a judge, I can say
"my God wants me to" and no-one dares argue.

Bazza wrote:
On the subject of anal sex....I really don't see why anyone would actually
want to do it. I have on occasion - and on request - taken a few girls in
this manner but It's certainly not something I prefer....and after the last
time when I inspected my todger afterwards, and discovered a huge blob of
excrement on the end of my bell, it's not something I'll be doing in the
future very often.

Perhaps she needed an enema?

Many homosexuals I believe have to insert tampons inside their anus after
rigorous hammerings because their ass muscles no longer work correctly and
it's the only way to stop them ****ting themselves.

Perhaps they need an enema?

On Fri, 25 May 2007 15:17:03 +0100, Geoff Winkless
] wrote:

When I was a kid I used to be C-of-E. I was confirmed and everything. At
15 I believed, I really did.

Now, I don't: I've learned enough about how the bible came about and the
amount of vested interests that went into the religion to make me
question and, with religion, once you question, you generally realise
that the things you've been told are, bluntly, bull****.

I actually now feel much more psychologically stable. I'm no longer
worried that I don't know what to expect when I die, I don't have to
worry about the bizarre moral and philosophical questions that arise
when you try to believe in such complete rubbish.

When I was 13 I had a nightmare about nuclear armageddon: I remember
being utterly terrified. I had a similar one recently (I'd been watching
this season of 24) and I remember feeling quite serene about my
impending death. So as far as I'm concerned religion didn't even help
cope with the idea of death.

That's really unfortunate.

I used to be an agnostic, myself. And I was terribly miserable, and
the fact that life had no meaning really bothered me and, given that
there was no meaning, I didn't see any point to anything.

And then I started believing in God, and everything got better.

Eh? How can you possibly profess to a belief without being sure that
you're right? Especially one which relies entirely on faith, rather than
logical deduction and proof?

My belief in the absence of a God is reached through careful
consideration of evidence. If evidence suddenly arrived that showed God
really does exist then I would be delighted to change my belief.

Perhaps you would, but my impression of most vocal atheists is that,
presented with proof of God's existance, they would sooner spend the
rest of their lives trying to invalidate the proof and find a flaw in
it than accept it.

In fact, most of the time, if I asked an atheist what he'd do if
presented with proof of god, their answer is simply "Well, there's no
god, so that can't happen. Any proof with which I am presented would
be false."


However believers have been repeatedly presented with proof that God is
a figment of the imagination; a mish-mash of legends, myths and bogeymen
made up to scare children and the proletariat into accepting a way of
life that would otherwise have seemed utterly unfair, yet they still
fail to change their minds.



Except that no one has ever presented proof that God does not exist.
People have presented proof that the reasons we believe in god are
suspect, people have presented proof that religions are not correct,
people have presented proof that purported evidence of God is
invalid. But no one has ever proven the non-existance of God. Proving
a religion wrong doesn't prove there's no God.

Even if you prove that there is no good reason to believe in God, you
haven't proven that there is good reason *not* to believe.

I suspect, and this many not be true of you personally, that were you
presented with proof of God's existance, you'd say "But I know for a
fact that there's no god, so this proof must be wrong." A person of
real faith has had the sort of spiritual experience that makes
awareness of God such a real and firsthand observation that the same
applies to them. To me, the fact that God exists is so patently
obvious that your "proofs" could well disprove various religious
tenants, could very well demonstrate that the levitican laws are bunk,
could very welldemonstrate that there are evil motives bvehind those
who form religions, but it can no more prove that there's no God than
you can prove that water isn't wet.

And religious people have crises of faith all the time. When bad
things happen to good people, a lot of them question their faith, and
some lose it. You should know: you said it happened to you. Sometimes
people of faith lose their faith. Sometimes atheists find a faith. So
it's not hte case that "If an atheist saw proof, he'd start believing;
if a religious person saw disproof, he wouldn't stop believing."

It rather bothers me that such a large percentage of atheists manifest
the specific trait I like least about many of my fellow persons of
faith.

You mean, we only believe rational and logical arguments? Or that we
don't accept anything that smacks of fairy stories and inexplicable magic?


More or less, the smugness. That sense that "people of faith are wrong
and stupid and I am smart and right." Becauseif you s/fath/no faith/,
you get exactly the same thing a religious nutjob believes.

And if you ask both of them what the difference is between the two of
you, the best answer you're liable ot get is "I really *am* right, and
he really *is* wrong."

In article [email protected],
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
Funnily, Christ had much to say on avarice. But nothing whatsover to say
on the subject of homosexuality. That was left to one of his homophobic
acolytes. Who not surprisingly was no stranger to avarice.
.

Now now, I think you'[ll find he wasn't so much homophobic as
sex-of-all-kinds-ophobic. In addition to opposing homosexuality, he
also made a big (much bigger, in fact) point that we really should all
be celibate, and that sex within marriage to a person of the opposite
gender was just the least-objectionable way to help you keep your mind
on God if you didn't have the moral fiber to ignore constant
blue-balls.

Indeed. Basically just a kill-joy.

In fact, you tend to find that any time anyone n the ancient sources
objects to homosexuality, it's mostly connected to objecting to all
sex in general with the caveat that "But if you absolutely *must* do
it, you should at least get a little reproduction out of the deal."

And most of those 'ancient sources' are themselves ancient by the time
they pronounce on such things and appear to have conveniently forgotten
the joys of sex in their earlier years. A bit like former teddy boys
complaining about the behaviour of youth today.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 16:39:08 +0100, Geoff Winkless
] wrote:
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:

Science certainly could be used that way -- science fiction is full of
science-horror stories where the scientific elite use science as a
tool of oppression.

The difference is that scientists won't be able to tell you "we have a
right to drug you, abuse you and put you to work in the fields because
our Science says so", so any scientist suggesting such a thing gets
pretty short shrift from the general public.


Do you feel unhappy? Try happypills! They'll make you happy. Even if
you have a menial dead-end job!. And don't bother about trying to
improve your lifestyle, the happypills will make you content with what
you've got!


Oh, and you, the creative one who doesn't do well on standardized
tests? No diploma for you. Life of low-paying service-industry jobs.

And you, the one with the tendency to rebel against the establishment?
Sorry, you've got bad DNA. But don't worry, we'll have some gene
therapy worked out soon that will remove your chance for heart attack,
and that annoying streak of questioning the government.



So yes, while science is theoretically capable of being used evilly you
need to have a pretty good grasp on power to start with.

Um. Also the case with religion. That's why I canm't just declare
myself a prophet of the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster and take over
the world in his noodly name.


What's the quote? "Evil people will always do evil things to good
people, and good people will occasionally do evil things to evil people,
but for good people to do evil things to good people takes religion"?

Yes, but that';s lunacy.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...



As I said you celarly have not kept cats as pets or even met any.

I pointed its arse at my face and lifted its tail up, and kept doing this
even when I move to a location.


brighton?



--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

Agamemnon wrote:

You are talking about anal sex being illegal

Do you have a problem with male-female anal sex, or just male-male?


--
Abo
BATracer: Browser Based Racing Simulation:
http://batracer.com/-1FrontPage.htm?6q0

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:31:30 GMT, "Southpaw"
wrote:

Seriously, I have not ****ed myself this much in years!

Be careful. That might be an abomination of some sort too.


he'll have a long career in german porn ahead of him.



--
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

In article %[email protected],
L. Ross Raszewski wrote:
I used to be an agnostic, myself. And I was terribly miserable, and
the fact that life had no meaning really bothered me and, given that
there was no meaning, I didn't see any point to anything.

And then I started believing in God, and everything got better.

That's terribly sad. What you seem to be relying on is a better afterlife
than the one here. The carrot used by authority for centuries to keep the
peasants in their place. Or to justify suicide bombing, etc.

Not that your experience is unique - it can apply to any religion. The
snag is they can't all be right.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.