Heartland

Motz wrote:Warning heeded

Quiff Boy wrote:@ Dark: very well put. thank you

i dont want to have to start deleting stuff that will start a heated debate... thats ridiculous. but i will not put up with crap designed to start fights. be it posted from the standpoint of an aggressor or of a victim.

there is no xxxxxphobics on here. we have always managed thus far to have intelligent debates. and i like it because people generally leave their disagreements at the door, that is we may disagree on one thread about a given subject, but we are all mature enough to not take it personally and still be pleasant on the next thread.

any comments perceived as negative seem to have come about as a result of posts that are deliberately antagonistic.

and i'm f**king sick of this, so no more.

madam butterfly does not run this place, regardless of what delusional nonsense she may post. i do. and she does not have the power to "zap". i do.

from now on if i see something posted that looks designed to start "something" negative then i will trash it. without explanation, for this is my forum and i dont need to explain my actions to anyone.

if i find myself having to trash a lot of posts by any particular user, they will get a warning. if they continue, they will be banned.

you are warned. all of you.

Johnny M wrote:You're so sexy when you're angry ...

Motz wrote:Is that smiley scared of Quiffy, or just the fact that he's sitting next to ?

markfiend wrote:If I can make a serious attempt to talk about transsexualism here:

I can't remember the figures, but I have read that a large proportion of post-op transsexuals consider that the operation was the worst mistake they've ever made.

I've also read that it is at least possible that transsexualism is not in fact a gender/sexuality related issue, but a form of body dysmorphic disorder (like Anorexia and Bulimia) where the sufferer fixates on gender (rather than physical size) as what is "wrong" with them.

I do know that there is a large spectrum of people that consider themselves transgendered or transsexual, and it's probably impossible to generalise about them all.

I don't know what point I'm trying to make here actually... I have only ever met one transsexual (that I know of ) and she seemed like a perfectly normal person.

Motz wrote:You mean he's talking Socialist Rubbish?

andymackem wrote:I'm pretty sure there's a difference between not finding transsexuality attractive or desirable and murduring (or even implicitly condoning the murder of) transsexuals.

But suppose for example I have a deeply held belief that our bodies are given to us by God, and that to mutilate and change them is a crime against God, does that not give me good grounds to find a transsexual offensive? According to my own beliefs, if not according to yours.

It wouldn't give me the right to kill someone, but it would give me every right to disagree with a lifestyle choice they have made.

Don't confuse a different opinion with an attempt to destroy the ground on which you stand. You're in a for a long and lonely life if you really feel that way.

boudicca wrote:Wot, Quiff, Mark, or ?

Which I then proceeded to take horribly out of context

andymackem wrote:But suppose for example I have a deeply held belief that our bodies are given to us by God, and that to mutilate and change them is a crime against God, does that not give me good grounds to find a transsexual offensive? According to my own beliefs, if not according to yours.

Motz wrote:If you've ever partaken in the use of substances various (tobacco included), then you're fooked anyway on the grounds of "your body is a temple"

boudicca wrote:

Motz wrote:If you've ever partaken in the use of substances various (tobacco included), then you're fooked anyway on the grounds of "your body is a temple"

I'm guessing he's double fooked then...

Motz wrote:I'm sure the Bible has something against that too, unless you're a Mormon

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:

Motz wrote:I'm sure the Bible has something against that too, unless you're a Mormon

Oh, how I hoped to see a typo in THAT sentence

Leviticus wrote:11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Leviticus wrote:19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Leviticus wrote:19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Motz wrote:You'd be ritually unclean for life thanks to Acne, Sexual Confusion and Wet Dreams

markfiend wrote:Does anyone actually read this crap?

Motz wrote:In short, no.

Many modern translations put Levicitus in a small font and warn that it's not very relevant, one even goes as far as to omit it.

Leviticus for Skeptics

I wouldn't read Leviticus if I were you. No one else does.

Instead, I'll summarize it for you: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord."