[ubermik]

Idont really think murder is a good comparative actually

Its a law, not a personal view

Although some do think ALL taking of life is wrong (jehovahs witnesses as an example) even during war, its not a legal personal option or choice whether to choose to be a murderer or to not choose that

The law says its wrong and it doesnt matter what people think the law is in place till someone changes it

As for not expecting that view, you should have really

I never expect anyone to agree with anything I post nor to change their view because I have, I certainly dont think any view on most topics can be universal as each society is a unique construct

If you pay more attention to what I am usually saying rather than the way I say it you will see my main bone of contention is integrity and consistency on a personal level

IE, someone not doing something they criticise whilst being unaware they are being a total hypocrite

I personally think anyone is and should be entitled to hold any view at all whether its racist, sexist, hieghtest or whatever-ist, and that IF by some chance most people come to share that view its not “wrong” its simply the majority speaking

But on an individual level each view is perfectly entitled EVEN if someones view is that they SHOULD be able to murder anyone they like

As long as they dont then go out and practise that view seeing as it IS illegal, then thats fine, they can think it and talk about it as much as they like and I couldnt care less

Re gay weddings on TV tho, gays walk around in public so them getting married on TV is hardly an opinion that should be listened to or acted upon as I dont think the majority of people would be that bothered really, but if the majority WERE bothered then it should be banned or moved to the post watershed period

As a personal opinion someone is just as entitled to find it disgusting and society destroying as someone is to think its cute and should be shown more

Niether is universally more right or wrong than the other IMO

It would however be reasonable to at least try and get some professional child psychologists views on how exposure to gay visuals might affect kids both positively and negatively

But realistically that would be impossiible as they WILL be either staunchly pro gay or anti gay themselves so a lack of bias would be almost impossible to find

I dont buy into the “people are ALL born gay” nonsense, but I also dont think that merely seeing a gay wedding on tv will make kids decide to be gay when they grow up, but having a narrow minded and dysfunctional pair of hetro parents IS quite likely to I reckon

What consenting adults get up to behind closed doors is nobody elses business nor their problem EVEN where you have some very VERY lose moralled folks who practise the disgusting and slutty act of kissing someone on the first shag lol

But just because its none of their business DOESNT IMO mean they arent entitled to find it repulsive, abhorent or unnatural until it directly affects them and their rights or makes their opinion less valid as a result of pursuing the minority agenda

So anywhere a council thinks its fine to have gay literature it SHOULD be just as fine to have gay literature

Although the current social tide means that its fine to have gay literature where peoplle who might be offended by that might be, but its not acceptable to have christian literature in a public building where gays might go and be offended which is where I think the line of validity has been crossed

[ubermik]

Religion simply placates the masses inate arrogant need to feel “special” and the privelidged fews need to be able to control and manipulate the masses

[ubermik]

@bat wrote:

No Mick my comments arn,t media driven atall. They are my OWN opinion.

Ok then

Would you HONESTLY see a drunken woman having sex with an even more drunken man as her “taking advantage”? Would you be JUST as likely to word it in that exact same way?

It wasnt the total sentence I was actually referring to, but as I did expand on, just the bit where “taking advantage of” was used

Its VERY widely used where the woman is the more drunk of the two, but is rarely commonly used when its the man thats the more drunk of them

And thats massively influenced by the media both directly and indirectly

[ubermik]

@bat wrote:

. because there will always be some guy who won,t think twice about taking advantage of a women in that state, and then when that happens, whose fault is it?

I thought that bit was not only interesting but also suspiciously media driven

Think about it for a moment

“won,t think twice about taking advantage of a women in that state”???

It sort of suggests that ANY man who has sex with a woman in that state is “taking advantage” which is sort of the problem to begin with really

Its known that alcohol lowers inhibitions in men AND women, its not unheard of by a lot, maybe even most men to have been practically ravaged by a drunken woman who otherwise wouldnt have been so voracious or predatory

And it ALSO assumes the “man” in question is more sober than the woman when its often the case that he will actually be JUST as bladdered as she is

Also, when was the last time you heard of a woman having sex with a man who was more drunk than she was being described as her “taking advantage” of him?

The media dictates how people “should” stereotypically view a situation, that rarely relates to fact or actuality, but simply to political or social aims that are wanted to be projected slowly onto society

The predominant one with sex is that “men have sex with women” rather than men and woman have sex with each other. and that rather subtle social pavlovian indoctrination crops up all over the place as tho its a truth

IE, men have sex/women give or allow it sort of mentality

Men fuck, women GET fucked

Admittedly not everyone applies this tainting of perspective without question, but the majority still do until its questioned and many cant even step back and look at it objectively even then

[ubermik]

Morality is subjective tho

Each person has their own set of morals so to THEM anything at all they find morally abhorent IS immoral, but that is no more a universally true view than that of someone who thinks the same thing ISNT immoral based on a different personal morality

So no, I really cant see why these things trouble you really, I cant see why other peoples preferences, likes or dislikes should be of the slightest concern to you whatsoever to be perfectly honest

As I wouldnt expect you to feel a need to change YOUR views just because someone else doesnt agree with them its EQUALLY reasonable for you to not expect someone else to change their views simply because you dont agree with them

So “if” (as I’m not convinced) you ARE infact gay then thats “it”, youre JUST gay, youre nothing special, you being gay doesnt make you any better or worse than anyone else and it most certainly doesnt make your views or opinions any more important or valid than anyone elses

If you cant accept other peoples views when they are different then you really give up the right to expect anyone to accept your views too

The word “hypocrite” springs to mind

[ubermik]

Well to be honest I cant see this ever happening even if they are right, infact the chances are they will most probably be sidelined by the institutions they are attached to, struggle to find funding and/ or get their work published as has been the case for many other scientists who have tried to tell the world that taxation and social stiffling isnt the ONLY answer

Getting people to believe the eroneous nonsense about man causing global warming is set to be a multi trillion dollar business model as well as an effective way to control and curtail the populations of countries and is also a cute way to get out of spending taxes collected for services ON the services they were collected for to begin with,

no government is going to give up such a golden goose without a fight

[ubermik]

Nah lol

We exchanged a few jokey texts and she wants some more work doing and said she will give me a ring next week

Whether thats a polite brush off or not remains to be seen :)

[ubermik]

@rubyred wrote:

WHAT !!!! oh NO ! NOT the GREAT sparky strangler AGAIN !!

He probably bored her to tears and is presently to be found,sitting at her Kitchen Table,with a manical ,glazed expression of sheer disbeleif !

Hey, now theres a thought

Necrophillia is supposed to be dead good, and I HAVE always wondered what its like having sex with a woman youre married to, and thats the next best comparative apparently :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ubermik]

@*Sian wrote:

She might of killed him :shock:

Dont be silly, I didnt meet her off the internet duh!
:lol: :lol: :wink:

[ubermik]

@fastcars wrote:

Would this be your first ever shag Uber..? Hence the hesitation.

Dont be silly :P

It will be my second

(next doors labrador DOES count doesnt she?)

[Author]

Posts