madness



News

Creator : @IamHappyToast Creator : @IamHappyToast archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:01,

That is amazing...

I elect you god for the Day...



Super Haha ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:02, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:02,

Good Omens?

that' a good book ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03,

yes it is

it's fucking hilarious. especially the bit when the dogs ear pops inside out.



POP ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:10, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:10,

Oooh, point, and nicely!

( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03,

Hello you!

*fondles bottom* ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:10, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:10,

arf!

woo! ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03,

Haha

Yes. ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:03,

Perfect!

(Except your punchline ought to linger longer.)



Lenger. Lunger.



/pedant ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:04, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:04,

does now,

I initially thought a quick return would make an interesting change (but changed my mind) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06,

I'm an avid reader of

"Burning Non-Atheists Monthly" and...what?

Whaddya mean I can't? ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:05, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:05,

fair do's

world's gone bonkers. ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:05, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:05,

this post for president

mwah ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06,

And how're things going on the USB nibble front?

*waits for wagon wheel disk holder* ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:06,



B bb pp

(may be a little nsfw) pp www.texastits.com (may be a little nsfw) archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:08,

O_o

Just slightly. ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:15, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:15,

no feedback from any manufacturers yet

some minor rumblings from a couple of direct contacts.

I'm not holding my breath though ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:08, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:08,

You probably have.

But have you tried either contacting the Gadget Shop direct. Or talking to a Venture Capitalist? ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:13, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:13,

the latter, yes

but I shall try the former now ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:15, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:15,

Splendid stuff sir!









Are the BBC getting quotes from fantasy novel characters or something now? Also, I spotted this on the original story link:Are the BBC getting quotes from fantasy novel characters or something now? archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:07,

Superb!

I think you hit this nail on the satirical head! Wooage. ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:30, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:30,

Good stuff

*clicks* ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:41, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:41,

gah!

just read that article, what a load of toss! "letting gays adopt children is against our religion" surely its just against their religion to have sex with another man? are they saying that they don't let sinners adopt? i wonder if they screen everyone who comes into these adoption agencies.

grr. religious people annoy me.



Woo! by the way :) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:45, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 17:45,

yes yes yes

was going to post the lint to that on a motoring newsgroup but I don't have enough extinguishers to cope with the flaming. ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 18:04, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 18:04,

this is pretty much perfect

( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 21:11, archived) ( , Wed 24 Jan 2007, 21:11,

Bravo

Bravo ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 8:10, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 8:10,

absolutely spot on.

( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 8:50, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 8:50,

Bang on Skipper!

I've been wanting to say something like this for weeks! ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 9:37, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 9:37,

Why isn't all political comedy...

...as funny as this ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 9:51, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 9:51,

Your point

is about as well-made as can be. Woo indeed.



*clicks anyway, even though it's already FP* ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 13:01, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 13:01,

He he

I loved that edition of Top Gear where they said we should break the law.

And then there was that time when they introduced speed cameras to make we sure weren't breaking the law and nobody put up any fuss at all! Funny ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 13:38, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 13:38,

Don't wanna piss on your parade

but the principles of the church on this subject were in place thousands of years before the new law so it isn't a case of them flouting anything, as in your two examples. It's the other way round. The new laws are flouting long established principles on the basis of "anti prejudice" regardless of what is right or wrong. Still, if you find it funny.......

Edit: Apologies to P3te for replying to wrong post, this should have been reply to HappyToast. Can't move it now without deleting reply. ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 18:14, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 18:14,

er

Im pretty sure the horseless carrage appeared before any speeding laws.



In fact Im pretty sure people were doing everything which we now consider illegal before it was made so.



If the church can't handle the fact that prejudice is wrong then its high time it disappeared. ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 18:43, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 18:43,

Not sure that the speeding laws

are a good example to hold up.



I disagree with your view that laws prevent crime, There are still societies with very low crime and none of them have passed over 2000 pieces of new legislation in the last ten years. Some people have an innate sense of right and wrong and wouldn't do anything out of order just because there isn't a law against it.



I don't see that the church is pre-judging here. Rather they are going on experience that a child is most likely to prosper with two parents of opposite gender because they can each bring different natural aspects of parenting. For this reason they wouldn't place a child with a lone parent either. To me this is the opposite of prejudice, especially when you include the vetting procedure, which by definition doesn't assume that any couple, gay or straight, is capable of giving a child a good home. ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 19:27, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 19:27,

those poor, put-upon churches!

why, anyone would think that having bigoted values was wrong if they weren't so viciously defending their right to discriminate and preach hatred at the world.



fuck them all with a sharpened, rusty crucifix. ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 6:05, archived) ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 6:05,

'different natural aspects of parenting', my arse..

Hey, you might have a point except that a) the church will happily let single atheists adopt and b) research tends to show that same sex couples are actually more capable than many opposite sex couples at bringing up children.



Shall I mention the 50% divorce rate, too? ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 11:22, archived) ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 11:22,

Your point a) is totally erroneous

and your point b) is as well. The Catholic church adoption societies do not place children with single atheists any more than they place them with heterosexual same sex Catholic couples who want to live together, brothers, sisters, fathers and sons etc.

There isn't a single piece of research on the "parenting success of homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples" but I think you know that don't you?

There are parents of all persuasions who are totally unsuitable but it doesn't mean that a "good" pair of homosexual parents are as suitable as a balanced heterosexual pair, unless you are saying that nature has had it completely wrong through millions of years and countless thousands of species.

As you have mentioned the 50% divorce rate, yes, of course it's a problem but that is the country as a whole. If you count the divorce rate amongst couples accepted for adoption after thorough vetting by the church you will find it to be a much lower figure, naturally.

Trying to turn the argument into a comparison between "nice homosexuals" and "incapable,uncommited, divorce prone" heterosexuals is an irrelevance to this subject but so far I haven't seen a sensible, thought through, opinion so you're still in the lead. ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 14:46, archived) ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 14:46,

what a load of crap.

parenting models in the human species have only very recently been largely comprised of two opposite gender parents and their offspring. more traditionally we are clan or tribally pulled together for survival purposes, for all breeding, eating and defensive matters we'd have been extinct had we not, as a species, banded together. the very basis of our species, as we've evolved, has necessitated a banding together and we've evolved collectively. had we not, we'd not be here at all.



what that means, of course, is that dominant males have always had their genetic legacies and the 'weaker' or less wealthy males have had to either not breed or settle for less choice mates. since humans are tribal, though, these extraneous non-breeder members have had to serve some purpose, so they become the caretakers of children, teachers, food-procurers and -producers and the like. obviously they are an integral part of the survival of the species and now that our species is dominant, they are also integral to the social fabric. any attempt to reject or diminish the value of (or more horrifically, to punish and eradicate) the non-traditional breeding pairs is not only specious but counter to the natural way in which our species has evolved for thousands of years.



for this, and for the hateful claptrap in which the various churches try and defend their bullshit, they and their apologists can all go suck a tailpipe. it's infuriating to have people not only preach hatred and xenophobia, but to have their rationale for such 'compassionate disagreement' be based upon lies of which they are perfectly well aware and perpetuate so their idiot followers will continue to lend them money and power makes all sane people wish to cut their collective throats.



burn the churches and do humans, the planet and all decency a favour. ( , Sat 27 Jan 2007, 6:34, archived) ( , Sat 27 Jan 2007, 6:34,

Still not seen a

sensible thought through argument but have seen plenty of liberal fascism. Nobody is suggesting harming homosexual people but there's plenty of "Burn the churches" attitude around here. People who believe in a god can be harmless or harmful, good or bad, paedophiles or non-paedophiles. For you to advocate mass destruction of what they believe in places you alongside every other tyrant who walked the earth. The hateful claptrap is on the other foot I'm afraid, just read through these posts and you'll see it. I come from a time when I could decide what I believed and am now living in a time when people of vastly less experience of life are telling me what I am allowed to think. Progress? I think not.

Oh, and thanks for the zoology lesson. You really do know specious don't you? ( , Sun 28 Jan 2007, 17:29, archived) ( , Sun 28 Jan 2007, 17:29,

go eat a bus.

you're defending bigotry because you think that the traditions of insipid death cults should be honoured and valued over real people. your accusation of 'liberal fascism' is laughable -- there is no need for anyone with a liberal (or any) outlook to make a case for the extending of rights and privileges to people of all sexual orientations. the case must be made by those seeking to exclude any one person or group that their reasoning is valid and based on reality, not the assumptions of what amounts to the oral traditions of a cargo cult. a failed game of broken telephone championed by corrupt thieves and hallucinating gullibles eager to listen to the commands of imaginary beings should render one fit for an asylum, not policy- or lawmaking.



churches should be burned because they are almost universally corrupt black holes sucking the lives out of the communities that tolerate them and allow their untaxed extortion to continue. when they begin open, honest review of their fiscal practises, stop operating as brainwash camps, cease functioning as zealously political champions of oppressive regimes and edicts and end all their physically and psychologically oppressive and harmful predation, then they may be allowed to stand.



go back to your time of tolerance of the intolerant and spoken and tacit agreement for the vile tactics of the god-botherers. we here in the present don't need the snake charmers of the past to have any effect on our sane, sensible lives. and, if you think that knowing and communicating basic zoology is specious, you're a fool. the sort of fool who is likely opposed to the teachings of evolutionary theory, likely, and therefore not worth the life coursing through your body. ( , Mon 29 Jan 2007, 3:30, archived) ( , Mon 29 Jan 2007, 3:30,

Well there I was, a gay athiest ,

thinking that an adoption agency would know enough about choosing suitable parents for vulnerable children. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that a good and kind heterosexual father figure would benefit a straight boy more than I could. When other children find out or even suspect you are gay they can make your life intolerable. I don't even want to think about what it would be like for a straight lad when his peers find out about his two dads. And if you think your "rights" laws make any difference they don't, and they never will. You cannot change attitudes by legislation, in fact you invariably make things worse for reasonable people and harden the attitudes of the bigots.

Since this discussion started other major religions have now sided with the RCs on this issue. I know this is another opportunity to vent your bile on anyone who ever believed in god, whether they were good or bad people, but I can tell you from personal contact that a great many lay people also agree. Unfortunately there is no room for a proper discussion to take place because of the sort of tirade I have seen here if anyone dares to disagree that EVERYBODY has a RIGHT to adopt children.

I believe everybody should have equal rights but that doesn't meaan all people are suited to all situations.

I can remember the dark days when gangs would regularly bus into town for a spot of "queer bashing" (also "nigger bashing"). This mostly died out, not because of legislation, which was already in place, but because others gradually accepted homosexuality until eventually the law was changed to allow it. Over a period of a couple of decades people became more accepting of differences, through integration and discussion. Now the pendulum has swung right out through the side of the clock and we have to be multicultural, multi- genderal and never say how we actually feel about important issues. Positive vetting is the buzz-policy everywhere you go. What the policymakers and their followers don't seem to realise is that positive vetting automatically produces negative vetting of someone else, in otherwords prejudice. This in turn produces resentment, but this time from the majority, which makes life harder and harder for people like me.

So by all means keep up your crusade and continue to present your extremely constructive and rational arguments, I loved the one you made about all the gay male cavemen sitting around babysitting while the straights went out hunting!

All I ask is that if you ever see me in any kind of predicament, for goodness sake don't speak on my behalf, I can manage very well without a stoning thank you.

Tolerence, if anything, is what will save this troubled world and you my friend are so consumed by your own anger and hatred for your fellow men that you have no room for any. ( , Mon 29 Jan 2007, 17:42, archived) ( , Mon 29 Jan 2007, 17:42,

Drat, thought i had started a meaty argument there :¬(

More disagreement I say! Rarr ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 22:37, archived) ( , Thu 25 Jan 2007, 22:37,

I don't think you get anywhere near the point...

but I gave you a *click* anyway. What does it mean?



Who knows. ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 0:11, archived) ( , Fri 26 Jan 2007, 0:11,