shorkian

*Blue

You could argue none of the characters need to die, minus the dark lord, Sirius, Lily and James. The rest are there so we actually have a reason to see Tommy as an ongoing threat.

Bagala. I assume he is the God of bagels.

If they were close to me, I'd offer my input. If it were so extreme they harmed themselves or other, I may attempt to rehabilitate them. Otherwise, live and let live.

I disagree with how she arrived at that conclusion. For example, I support gay rights and personally think that turtles are the best animal ever. So no matter what I think about turtles, I wouldn't agree with a post saying "Turtles are the best animal ever because God hates fags, amirite" And that was a mismatched, exaggerated example, but I hope you at least see what I'm getting at.

Yes, but I'm talking about risk factor. The odds of getting in a car crash are still infinitely more than the odds being gay alone will get you an STD. That's my point. This isn't about all that other stuff. Again, I don't disagree with the conclusion. Just the premise.

Yes. I did. In almost all my messages. I guess you just ignored them. They're probably too silly. And I didn't say gay a celibate. But you didn't say otherwise. There are people who are gay, people who are gay and monogamous, and people who are gay and promiscuous. Comparing all of that just to people who are straight and promiscuous just doesn't work. Stop treating my like a fucking child. I can assure you I know more about you in about every category. Psychology and English definitely. As for sexuality, well, it's not that complicated. I'm really not concerned as to whether or not you consider oral sex to actually be sex or not. The problem is that you keep changing your story. And I wouldn't have dreamt of insulting you if you didn't condescend to me. It's one thing to be condescending if you're smarter than me, or at least smart enough to form a coherent argument, but everything you said is so... flawed. It's insulting to imply I'm at your level, let alone below it. But yeah, whatever. Go on boasting proudly your wrong opinion, and continue being everything that's wrong with the world.

Pretending like you don't care- a futile act of the unintelligent.

1. Saying everything I said is all crap, even though I've flawlessly backed it up countless times, unlike you. So I'll give you another chance. One of the key factors of my argument, as I mentioned many times, is that having promiscuous sex is more likely to lead to STDs or pregnancy than being gay. Go on. Disprove that. And I know there are other sex acts. Your post is about sex. The sentence before you made the reference was about sex. If you don't consider sex and sex acts to be the same thing, why did you mention it? It's exactly as pointless as I said. Still, there's never a 100% chance, like there is with being gay. As slim as the odds, they're still there. That's my point. No, they're not. Ethics and morals are the same thing. I could have vastly different ethics and morals from anyone in my society. I didn't say the American was stupid. I said he knew EVERYTHINg about his country. That's pretty damn smart. You're just making shit up to make me sound like an asshole (inb4 you do that yourself). 2. Undue sarcasm. Sarcasm only works when your obviously right. You can't just start using it because you don'y know what else to say. I feel like I'm picking on the mentally retarded

You need to learn to write what you mean to say, and not just use vague buzz words on the assumption no one will call you out on it. And even someone like you must've realized you were wrong by now, which I assume is why you're trying to quit while it's a "draw", in a fashion reminiscent of a bitch. But face it. In you're last message, you tried to argue that two synonyms were, in fact, not synonyms. You're wrong. You're horribly wrong. I have never met someone as wrong about anything as you are wrong in this argument. And ignoring that won't make you any less wrong. If you'd like to ignore this message with the knowledge that I'd take such an act as an admission of just how wrong you are, go right ahead.

Okay. Let's say you take an American who knows everything about America, and an Australian, who knows everything about Australia, and we give the the "Human Worth Exam", which is actually just a lot of questions about America. Is it fair to compare the two based on that? I mean, they're both human? No, because it's deeper than that, in both cases. Just like not everything applies to all humans, not everything applies equally to all thins sexual. And it could. You're yet to rebut the fact that I've brought up STDs and unwanted pregnancies countless times. You haven't said anything of the sorts. The fact that your post is worded horribly is the only real argument I've been making. If you admit I was right, trust me, I'd know. It's not about what you meant. What if you said "I hate the Jews" and meant "I hate anti-Semitics"? Just because everyone else got it doesn't mean wording matters. And don't even say you can't compare the two. It was exaggerated for emphasis. Okay, I checked thesaurus.com to make sure I'm accurate in saying this... Moral and ethical are fucking synonyms. Do you understand half the words I'm saying?

I didn’t misquote you. To do that, I’d have to have attempted to quote you. All I did was extrapolate data from what you said. To say not all sex is penis in vagina and then say something that you’re now denying was an example is as random as saying “I like turtles. The sky is blue.” If they’re not bloody related, why’d you say it at all? As I’ve said a million fucking times, promiscuous sex CAN be harmful. Being gay on it’s own can’t. On that note, there could be someone out there who’s just desperate to be raped, and would welcome it openly. In that case, it’s not necessarily harmful. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Really? Because too me it seems like they way you worded your post has nothing to do with what it's supposed to mean, and now you're blindly insulting my arguments in the hopes they're disappear and leave you victorious. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily being victimized. I'm saying that, because of the fact that even a small risk exists, you can't compare it to sexuality. Being gay has no risk. Promiscuity does. I'm not saying I'm against promiscuity, I'm against the very incorrect logic you used to come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter if they're archaic. All that matters is that laws in general stem from morality. Really. And you think I'm full of shit...Because not only did not mention rape being wrong for any reasons other than it being illegal, you capitalized LAW. You're the one who put fucking emphasis on the fact that laws should guide behaviors. I merely bridged that to the fact that we have laws mainly for moral reasons. If it wasn't considered wrong to rape, it wouldn't be illegal. You said that sex wasn't exclusively penis in vagina, then you said that. I made the natural assumption you passed 3rd grade. and that they were placed together for a reason.

Fair enough. There are a lot of posts being thrown about. Again, fair. But we're going for the average person, who meets in, say, a bar. How promiscuous is someone who has all of their partners tested going to be? I'm sure a few are, but I doubt that applies to the majority. And yes, you could, but you can't get a disease just from being gay. I'd also say you can't compare the miniscule risks of doorknob touching to the literally non-existent risks of just being gay. That's exactly what I meant. Say you take an American, and an Australian. Both know everything about their home lands. In that case, it would be unfair to judge them exclusively on their knowledge of America. I'm not saying one is better, I'm just saying there are differences that come into play between two equal parties.

(Part 2) but they are different, and should be judged on different criteria. You can’t hold one to the criteria of the other. Neither do I. But I do see where people come from when they do. And looking through that mindset, can you understand how someone who supports someones sexuality, which that person has no control over, could not support someone who chooses to have promiscuous sex, at the slight risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancies?