Jesus Is Lord wrote:I'll stick with love is love. It has a nice ring to it.

It also runs fairly diametrically to what you started with.

Still, at least there's a degree of refreshment to it, in that people who wear their Christianity the way you do are often found to be opposed to such notions, at least where some demographics are concerned.

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:I'll stick with love is love. It has a nice ring to it.

It also runs fairly diametrically to what you started with.

Still, at least there's a degree of refreshment to it, in that people who wear their Christianity the way you do are often found to be opposed to such notions, at least where some demographics are concerned.

Not sure what you're getting at. You'll have to spell it out. Your prejudgment, that is.

Not a prejudice, a post-judice, with voluminous supporting evidence.

The phrase 'love is love' is deeply associated with opposing homophobic rhetoric, the latter being very much a feature of many of those strains of Christianity whose adherents feel it necessary to declare their toxic idiocy up front, not least because their toxic idiocy often extends far beyond their advertising their silly masturbation fantasy.

You seem to be cycling through common phrases expressing solidarity with oppressed demographics, all phrases routinely employed by the sort of people you'd describe as lefties which, after having voiced your disagreement with almost everything they say in your original signature, a crystal-clear expression of bigotry, is fairly obvious and quite obnoxious trolling by parroting those you describe as loonies. It's a form of concern-trolling, and it's absolutely nothing either new or clever. Trust me, we've seen it all here, as well as your other transparent tactics, like JAQing off, tone-policing and generally just measuring up predictably with every other one of your ilk who bowled up here.

Obvious troll is obvious.

You're assuming you know my stance on various topics. Topics that we haven't even discussed. Nice try.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:You're assuming you know my stance on various topics. Topics that we haven't even discussed.

I'm assuming nothing, because you fucking stated your stance in your signature, nasty troll.

Nice try.

I love how you think you're doing well here.

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:You're assuming you know my stance on various topics. Topics that we haven't even discussed.

I'm assuming nothing, because you fucking stated your stance in your signature, nasty troll.

Nice try.

I love how you think you're doing well here.

If you could pause with the anger and lashing out for just a moment, is there any particular topic that you think you know my stance on?

There's no anger here, which once again goes to your ability to psychoanalyse people via text alone, so shut the fuck up about my tone.

I know your stance on quite a few topics, not least that you aren't aligned with any but two of the items that have appeared in your signature. Unless you're simply pretending to be a fuckwitted, bigoted, nasty little cunt to troll us, which is little different.

I know nothing about you, but your behaviour is disgusting, and worthy of excoriation.

hackenslash wrote:I know nothing about you

And yet apparently you know my stance on quite a few topics. I don't suppose you'll actually be bothering to mention any of them any time soon.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:

hackenslash wrote:I know nothing about you

And yet apparently you know my stance on quite a few topics.

Yes, because you've openly expressed your stance on an entire range of topics in your original signature. It's not like I haven't already beaten you about the fucking head with this until the rest of us are getting a bit punch-drunk.

I don't suppose you'll actually be bothering to mention any of them any time soon.

I already did.

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
you've openly expressed your stance on an entire range of topics in your original signature.

I put phrases in my signature. Oh dear, let me try another way. For example what's my stance on LGBT? Please quote what I have said about that topic for reference.

Or of course you could write more pseudo intellectual drivel without actually addressing anything. Up to you.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:For example what's my stance on LGBT? Please quote what I have said about that topic for reference.

That you disagree with loonie lefties.

Or of course you could write more pseudo intellectual drivel without actually addressing anything. Up to you.

I don't think you're in a position to determine whether intellect is faux or real, frankly. You haven't the skillset.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:Is it true that you can tell a lot about a person's character by their face, or it that just an old ex wive's tale? Has anybody here ever made a correct judgment about someone based on their looks?

Tell you what: I haven‘t seen most people‘s faces on here. But surprisingly, it has turned out not to be necessary at all in order to decide whether they‘re bullshitters or not.

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:For example what's my stance on LGBT? Please quote what I have said about that topic for reference.

That you disagree with loonie lefties.

That's hardly specific, Einstein. So you're assuming that I think gays are degenerate or something? Charming.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:For example what's my stance on LGBT? Please quote what I have said about that topic for reference.

That you disagree with loonie lefties.

That's hardly specific, Einstein. So you're assuming that I think gays are degenerate or something? Charming.

Well, do you think that? Here’s yours chance to set us straight.

Commit to it.

The_Metatron wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:For example what's my stance on LGBT? Please quote what I have said about that topic for reference.

That you disagree with loonie lefties.

That's hardly specific, Einstein. So you're assuming that I think gays are degenerate or something? Charming.

Well, do you think that? Here’s yours chance to set us straight.

Commit to it.

No, I do not think that. I hope that has straightened out the matter, so to speak. Incidentally, why does the LGBT keep elongating their acronym? If they keep expanding it the term will become meaningless.

Jesus Is Lord wrote:No, I do not think that. I hope that has straightened out the matter, so to speak.

Spidey-sense tingling, but OK.

Incidentally, why does the LGBT keep elongating their acronym? If they keep expanding it the term will become meaningless.

And the spidey-sense has ramped again. This is such a dumb question it supports my scepticism of your earlier claim. The simple route to answering that question would be to google it, rather than ask such a bigoted question on a public forum. For example, you could find out what the letters stand for, and see if you can work out why additions might be necessary, especially in a climate of such bigotry.

As we uncover the oppression inherent in society, largely a result of religious fuckwittery, we learn more about it, and about ourselves. Each letter of that acronym means something, and has import.

And just so you understand why I'm calling your question bigoted, let me lay it out for you, so you can't go JAQing off with your pathetic bollocks again:

ANY question concerning the manner in which an oppressed group expresses itself is challenging that expression, and asserting your perceived entitlement to control a discussion you have no entitlement to even engage in. It's exactly the same as asking why sportsmen take a knee at every game. If only they'd protest within the little comfortable box YOU want to put them in. Well, fuck that hard, and then fuck it some more.

hackenslash wrote:

Jesus Is Lord wrote:No, I do not think that. I hope that has straightened out the matter, so to speak.

Spidey-sense tingling, but OK.

Incidentally, why does the LGBT keep elongating their acronym? If they keep expanding it the term will become meaningless.

And the spidey-sense has ramped again. This is such a dumb question it supports my scepticism of your earlier claim. The simple route to answering that question would be to google it, rather than ask such a bigoted question on a public forum. For example, you could find out what the letters stand for, and see if you can work out why additions might be necessary, especially in a climate of such bigotry.

As we uncover the oppression inherent in society, largely a result of religious fuckwittery, we learn more about it, and about ourselves. Each letter of that acronym means something, and has import.

And just so you understand why I'm calling your question bigoted, let me lay it out for you, so you can't go JAQing off with your pathetic bollocks again:

ANY question concerning the manner in which an oppressed group expresses itself is challenging that expression, and asserting your perceived entitlement to control a discussion you have no entitlement to even engage in. It's exactly the same as asking why sportsmen take a knee at every game. If only they'd protest within the little comfortable box YOU want to put them in. Well, fuck that hard, and then fuck it some more.

Get a life dude, seriously. Who talks like that. By the way the knee thing, that's pretty stupid.

There you go. That's the complete set. There's no bigotry you don't just embrace with open arms, is there?

hackenslash wrote:There you go. That's the complete set. There's no bigotry you don't just embrace with open arms, is there?

Hey man, if you want to get down on one knee for black people you go ahead. I know plenty of black people who would laugh in your face for such a stupid condescending move. But then again, I suppose the fear of being called a waaaaythist is just too much for some.