NationStates Jolt Archive

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

I really dont know :?: I am just a wondering...


http://aimforsaken.250free.com/seph.gif

I always thought that that particular slur was something that the more right-wing of libertarians - the ones who think that there's a subculture of underaged sluts who get pregnant solely for the Dole/Unemployment Benefit/Domestic Purposes Benefit - invented for people like THAT.

And it's kind of a##hole of them, in my opinion.

Heteros as breeders? Well, ultimately, we certainly have that
capacity, and I don't see Hetero or Homo as necessarily "superior"
(although my bias is naturally in favour of what I am, i.e. STRAIGHT,
if gay guys wanna do what they wanna do, then that's their business, as
long as they leave me outta it!)

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.


well yes, while they are leading their valuable but mundane lifes perpetuating the race, the homosexual is freed from such constaints, allowed to follow his will to power, his intellectual inclinations, or to become a dedicated public servant without the distractions of squalling brats to contend with. the breeder is the body of the race, the homosexual is the mind.

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

Usually - and I know that this will sound like a stereotype - they seem
to be known for acting roles or music.
Either that, or they're in prominent positions and haven't come out of the
closet, so to speak.

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

How many openly gay world leaders do you think would get elected by a population that considers him or her 'unnatural'?

There are plenty of gay people important for things other than being gay. It's just that they don't see themselves as 'a gay person'. They see themselves as 'a person who just happens to be gay'. They get past the pop-culture myopia of 'who do you like to have sex with', so they can focus on their trade.

Don't be an ass.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

A problem with this is that there are a lot of gay and lesbian couples that either have children themselves or adopt. So they're not exactly devoting themselves purely to intellecutal pursuits.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

And I'm not trying to flame gays...but I have made a very good counterpoint here. It is hard to say that they are superior when all of the most important influences on history are heterosexuals.

Ok, I promised someone I would defend heterosexuality, if it came up. Just because heteros CAN breed, it doesn't mean we want to. I don't even like being in the same ROOM with small children. And anyone who thinks homosexuals deserve to be elite by dint of sexuality has never visited the West Village on a Friday night. On the other hand, Alexander the Great, John Nash, and Shakespeare WERE all gay...

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.


well yes, while they are leading their valuable but mundane lifes perpetuating the race, the homosexual is freed from such constaints, allowed to follow his will to power, his intellectual inclinations, or to become a dedicated public servant without the distractions of squalling brats to contend with. the breeder is the body of the race, the homosexual is the mind.

So, the homosexual, "free" (a bit of a cop-out, if you ask me) of these
constraints (pleasures in my opinion), is able then to to WHAT that a straight person cannot?
You're trying to tell me that gay people have no distractions of their own?
Gay guys like guys, thus they, too, have distractions, surely?
And, as for straight people, who says that they only have sex for procreation? That's just insanity. That, and there's plenty of things we can put our minds to, too.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

And I'm not trying to flame gays...but I have made a very good counterpoint here. It is hard to say that they are superior when all of the most important influences on history are heterosexuals.

What. The. Hell. We have no evidence that any particular person who contributed greatly to history is actually, in fact, heterosexual. They're merely assumed to be heterosexual by default because someone, somewhere assumed that they had heterosexual sex. Even if they fathered/birthed a child, ever heard of a midlife crisis?

There are plenty of gay people important for things other than being gay. It's just that they don't see themselves as 'a gay person'. They see themselves as 'a person who just happens to be gay'. They get past the pop-culture myopia of 'who do you like to have sex with', so they can focus on their trade.

Don't be an ass.

Name one (don't count actors or musicians because they really don't have a huge influence on much). And excuse me, but making a point doesn't make me an ass any more than being gay makes you less successful.

My wife and I have no intention of ever breeding. We even object to prejudicial labels like "straight", so obviously we'd take major issue with "breeders". The only labels we will accept are "sexual" and "child-free".

See above post about Alexander the Great, John Nash, and Shakespeare (though of course Nash was bi, and Shakespeare is certainly up for debate). And I question the exclusion of actors and musicians. Their influence is less direct, but perhaps more pervasive.

There are plenty of gay people important for things other than being gay. It's just that they don't see themselves as 'a gay person'. They see themselves as 'a person who just happens to be gay'. They get past the pop-culture myopia of 'who do you like to have sex with', so they can focus on their trade.

Don't be an ass.

Name one (don't count actors or musicians because they really don't have a huge influence on much). And excuse me, but making a point doesn't make me an ass any more than being gay makes you less successful.

WTF. Actors and musicians have a huge influence on everything. You know nothing of the real world.

Ok, I promised someone I would defend heterosexuality, if it came up. Just because heteros CAN breed, it doesn't mean we want to. I don't even like being in the same ROOM with small children. And anyone who thinks homosexuals deserve to be elite by dint of sexuality has never visited the West Village on a Friday night. On the other hand, Alexander the Great, John Nash, and Shakespeare WERE all gay...


don't forget julius and augustus ceasar. richard the lionhearted, john edgar hoover, and of course me ernst rohm.

What. The. Hell. We have no evidence that any particular person who contributed greatly to history is actually, in fact, heterosexual. They're merely assumed to be heterosexual by default because someone, somewhere assumed that they had heterosexual sex. Even if they fathered/birthed a child, ever heard of a midlife crisis?

Hmm...this seems to be degenerating into a flamer-initiated flame war.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

And I'm not trying to flame gays...but I have made a very good counterpoint here. It is hard to say that they are superior when all of the most important influences on history are heterosexuals.

Well, what you say is true enough. BUT (he says, playing "Devil's Advocate"): I won't say ALL of the important influences: rather, MOST of the KNOWN influences.
Look at the Emperors in Rome, and the leading philosophers/governors etc in Ancient Greece. Homosexuality was a major part of those times.
The old saying was "Women for procreation, men for pleasure".

And who's to say that some of the influences in times closer to our own weren't gay too? I'm not saying that they were, but they could just have kept quiet about it, for all I know.

I'd like to point out, before anyone assumes that I'm on /any/ side, that I hate the word 'breeder' just as much as I hate the word 'faggot'. They're both degrading, retarded, and just overall offensive.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

I think it's rude. In fact, I put "breeder" on the same level as "honkey" or "cracker."

My wife and I have no intention of ever breeding. We even object to prejudicial labels like "straight", so obviously we'd take major issue with "breeders". The only labels we will accept are "sexual" and "child-free".

I'm your new biggest fan. Even if the "Garaj" is where I park my car.

And at the risk of flaming, Rohm, J. Edgar was a complete dickhead.

My wife and I have no intention of ever breeding. We even object to prejudicial labels like "straight", so obviously we'd take major issue with "breeders". The only labels we will accept are "sexual" and "child-free".

I'm your new biggest fan. Even if the "Garaj" is where I park my car.

And at the risk of flaming, Rohm, J. Edgar was a complete dickhead.


he was a great man, he should have be a national socialist :twisted:

Scream for equality, then subjigate those who gave it to you.
I love it when people do this.

WTF. Actors and musicians have a huge influence on everything. You know nothing of the real world.

Name one actor/musician that invented something, made life easier for society, or created peace between warring states? While I am sure my music would be much different without music (I am after all, a casual musician [I write electronica, used to play French horn]), I don't think that we'd struggle that it has impacted the world as much as you think.

Rohm, I gotta side with the crowd on this one. You wanna argue homosexual equality, I'm all with you. I think the sexuality of many great minds has been swept under the rug, and the sexuality of many more has been consciously suppressed. That said, I don't think sexuality is a factor in a person's greatness, and I'm kind of offended by the idea that any homosexual would see themselves as more intelligent, qualified, or concentrated because they are gay.
And J. Edgar Hoover was a paranoid communist-baiter who succeeded in having Charlie Chaplin deported. And his hypocrisy on sexual issues should not go unnoted.
And Opal, I am quite certain that with a little research, you would discover that actors and musicians have influences on a great many things. But because of priorities, you might call them inventors or activists or politicians, rather than actors. I would argue that Ron Reagan (former head of the Screen Actors Guild), Martin Sheen, and John Lennon have all had their share of influence.

Scream for equality, then subjigate those who gave it to you.
I love it when people do this.

actually i was for subjugation from the beginning :wink:

Scream for equality, then subjigate those who gave it to you.
I love it when people do this.

actually i was for subjugation from the beginning :wink:

And that will work because the now subhuman heteros most definitely don't outnumber you. They are all definitely less intelligent than the homosexuals, not to mention weaker. In fact, they probably wouldn't even threaten to stop breeding...

And J. Edgar Hoover was a paranoid communist-baiter who succeeded in having Charlie Chaplin deported. And his hypocrisy on sexual issues should not go unnoted.
.


i know those were his strengths, he was a strong and effective leader who stood up to the reds, and sent that filthy child molesting commie chaplin packing.

See above post about Alexander the Great, John Nash, and Shakespeare (though of course Nash was bi, and Shakespeare is certainly up for debate). And I question the exclusion of actors and musicians. Their influence is less direct, but perhaps more pervasive.

Shakespeare was probably bi, as he was married, had kids, and when he lived in London regularly saw his wife on the weekends. Alexander the Great was homosexual, though.

However, calling heterosexuals breeders relegates us to the status of farm animals, and the label is simply untrue, as many heterosexuals have no intention of having children. Most heterosexual sex, like homosexual sex, is for the sole purpose of pleasure. In my opinion, it is as offensive as calling a homosexual person a "faggot," "fudge-packer," "c***-muncher" or any other of the various slurs there are for homosexuals. It is also an ungrateful betrayal of heterosexuals who have supported the gay rights movement.

So the answer to the original quesiton is: yes, it is rude to call heterosexuals breeders.

can't say i care too much about it. whatever.

Scream for equality, then subjigate those who gave it to you.
I love it when people do this.

actually i was for subjugation from the beginning :wink:

And that will work because the now subhuman heteros most definitely don't outnumber you. They are all definitely less intelligent than the homosexuals, not to mention weaker. In fact, they probably wouldn't even threaten to stop breeding...


if we could just get them to be a little more careful about breeding within the race.

if we could just get them to be a little more careful about breeding within the race.

Cute. I'm going to assume you're kidding. Please don't disillusion me. That goes for Chaplin too. Homosexual conservatives are scary.

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.

How many gay world leaders, scientists, inventors, diplomats, etc, etc, etc, do you know? How many gay people are important for being something besides gay?

Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Leonardo Da Vinci
Rob Halford
Elton John

That's just off the top of my head. Any we don't know the orientation of most scientists because it doesn't really matter.

there arent many homosexuals in high positions because of societies bias against them..noone wants a gay leader.

if you dont count any of the gay church leaders and such

cough FLAMEBAIT cough

cough FLAMEBAIT cough

Kinda funny though...

if we could just get them to be a little more careful about breeding within the race.

Cute. I'm going to assume you're kidding. Please don't disillusion me. That goes for Chaplin too. Homosexual conservatives are scary.

if you don't recognize my nick, do a websearch.... I AM Ernst Rohm :twisted: :P :twisted:

Now you aren't scary, you're just silly. J Ed doesn't hold a candle to Adolph H, when it comes to gay rights. If you're doing the IC thing, take it somewhere else. We're trying to have an actual conversation. If this is OOC, I'm just plane done with you. How ludicrous.

Indeed, the people who have the sole responsibility of the continuation of our race should in fact be considered subordinate to the fagots of the world.


well yes, while they are leading their valuable but mundane lifes perpetuating the race, the homosexual is freed from such constaints, allowed to follow his will to power, his intellectual inclinations, or to become a dedicated public servant without the distractions of squalling brats to contend with. the breeder is the body of the race, the homosexual is the mind.

Bah! Nietzche.

This whole idea is crazy. Homosexuals can be breeders, too, so, don't isolate the hetero population by calling them the "sole breeders;" they aren't.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

I dunno. Is it rude to call homosexuals any one of the slurs that would get me warned, oh troll?

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

woo, here comes the reality train *zoom* oh i guess it doesnt stop here

another person who was in the wrong line when they were handing out common sense


guess what gay hitler, go fly a kite...in 20 ft of water...with concrete shoes...

I hate nazis, especially homosexual supremacist ones. To answer the question, yes, very rude.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

woo, here comes the reality train *zoom* oh i guess it doesnt stop here

another person who was in the wrong line when they were handing out common sense


guess what gay hitler, go fly a kite...in 20 ft of water...with concrete shoes...


hey don't call me hitler, he had me murdered, its like i'm a victum of the preholocaust :roll:

I hate nazis, especially homosexual supremacist ones. To answer the question, yes, very rude.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

stop your excessive sassiness

Ok, I promised someone I would defend heterosexuality, if it came up. Just because heteros CAN breed, it doesn't mean we want to. I don't even like being in the same ROOM with small children. And anyone who thinks homosexuals deserve to be elite by dint of sexuality has never visited the West Village on a Friday night. On the other hand, Alexander the Great, John Nash, and Shakespeare WERE all gay...

Alexander the Great had over 400 kids by 100+ women, if I am not mistaken...hardly the track record of a gay person. Maybe bi, but certainly not gay. Shakespeare I might give you, and John Nash I don't know about, but no one who was with over 100 women is gay.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

woo, here comes the reality train *zoom* oh i guess it doesnt stop here

another person who was in the wrong line when they were handing out common sense


guess what gay hitler, go fly a kite...in 20 ft of water...with concrete shoes...


hey don't call me hitler, he had me murdered, its like i'm a victum of the preholocaust :roll:
its people like you that caused the holocaust: spremacist fools

as a heterosexual breeder, i find the term funny
i dont see any insult in it outside of the effort to upset the delicate.

you really dont know any gay people who have contributed to society??

i dont keep info in my head in gay/straight categories but a few people popped right into my head

roy cohn--legal council to joe mccarthy
greg louganis-- olympic swimmer
barney frank-- longtime massachusetts congressman
the new anglican bishop of new hampshire
the father from the brady bunch!!
raymond burr -- perry mason
rock hudson -- every woman's fantasy man in the '60s

given that gay people are only 10% of the population, the numbers of openly gay leaders, especially those from more than 20 years ago, are going to be small. its hard to quantify since for most it had to be a well kept secret.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

woo, here comes the reality train *zoom* oh i guess it doesnt stop here

another person who was in the wrong line when they were handing out common sense


guess what gay hitler, go fly a kite...in 20 ft of water...with concrete shoes...


hey don't call me hitler, he had me murdered, its like i'm a victum of the preholocaust :roll:
its people like you that caused the holocaust: spremacist fools

well yeah sure, but AFTER they murdered me!!!!
you can't blame that one on my i had already been purged and murdered so there :P

*my point*

























































*ernst's head*

*my point*

*ernst's head*

ah yes your depth and wit astound me. i just can't get a handle on these deep points you are making.

rock hudson -- every woman's fantasy man in the '60s

My mom always argued about that. She'd always deny that he was gay and claim it was a lie.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Hmm so are lesbians up there on your hate list too or is it just gay men?


[[ROCK THE MULLET]]

let me break it down for the simpletons in the audience

in your original post you claimed homosexuals were the elite, and the heterosexuals were some ptelorate class of fools who may eventually join the elite if they are lucky


let me give you a refresher course on how the holocaust happened, in short: hitler got into power, he got the master of spin (no not limbaugh, i mean goebbels) to start explaining how germans are the master race and anyone not aryan (spelling there) is not a member of this supreme race, so they started killing off the gypsies because they screwed up the gene pool, then the homosexuals and cripples (although cripple/mentrally ill killing to keep the ilness from spreading at that time was not unkonw, the US even did it, it was never on such the larg scale), and finally the Jews all because they were not a member of the "elite" race of people

Um...yes I don't see why that would be less rude then using a slur against homosexuals.....

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

I think it's rude. In fact, I put "breeder" on the same level as "honkey" or "cracker."

And, for the record, I'm gay.

let me break it down for the simpletons in the audience

in your original post you claimed homosexuals were the elite, and the heterosexuals were some ptelorate class of fools who may eventually join the elite if they are lucky


let me give you a refresher course on how the holocaust happened, in short: hitler got into power, he got the master of spin (no not limbaugh, i mean goebbels) to start explaining how germans are the master race and anyone not aryan (spelling there) is not a member of this supreme race, so they started killing off the gypsies because they screwed up the gene pool, then the homosexuals and cripples (although cripple/mentrally ill killing to keep the ilness from spreading at that time was not unkonw, the US even did it, it was never on such the larg scale), and finally the Jews all because they were not a member of the "elite" race of people


but who in fact was ernst rohm, oh wise and enlightened one. :roll: :wink: :P

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

I think it's rude. In fact, I put "breeder" on the same level as "honkey" or "cracker."

And, for the record, I'm gay.


damn assimilationists

let me break it down for the simpletons in the audience

in your original post you claimed homosexuals were the elite, and the heterosexuals were some ptelorate class of fools who may eventually join the elite if they are lucky


let me give you a refresher course on how the holocaust happened, in short: hitler got into power, he got the master of spin (no not limbaugh, i mean goebbels) to start explaining how germans are the master race and anyone not aryan (spelling there) is not a member of this supreme race, so they started killing off the gypsies because they screwed up the gene pool, then the homosexuals and cripples (although cripple/mentrally ill killing to keep the ilness from spreading at that time was not unkonw, the US even did it, it was never on such the larg scale), and finally the Jews all because they were not a member of the "elite" race of people


but who in fact was ernst rohm, oh wise and enlightened one. :roll: :wink: :P

some twit doesnt get my point

let me break it down for the simpletons in the audience

in your original post you claimed homosexuals were the elite, and the heterosexuals were some ptelorate class of fools who may eventually join the elite if they are lucky


let me give you a refresher course on how the holocaust happened, in short: hitler got into power, he got the master of spin (no not limbaugh, i mean goebbels) to start explaining how germans are the master race and anyone not aryan (spelling there) is not a member of this supreme race, so they started killing off the gypsies because they screwed up the gene pool, then the homosexuals and cripples (although cripple/mentrally ill killing to keep the ilness from spreading at that time was not unkonw, the US even did it, it was never on such the larg scale), and finally the Jews all because they were not a member of the "elite" race of people


but who in fact was ernst rohm, oh wise and enlightened one. :roll: :wink: :P

some twit doesnt get my point

do a web search on ernst rohm, and then maybe you'll get the joke.

gotta go kill my cat

Yes it is very rude.

Calling someone a "breeder" is just as offensive as calling some a "faggot" or "dyke". If the term breeder offends and hurts someone it might give them some insight into how hateful language works, and make them think twice about using words like "faggot" and "******" in the future. If the word is used simply for the sake of offending someone then that's not just pointless and offensive, it's destructive. (How can there ever be constructive discussions of human rights for homosexuals/bisexuals etc if every time the issues are brought up there's an undercurrent of hetero/homophobic slurs?)

Calling someone a "breeder" is just as offensive as calling some a "faggot" or "dyke". If the term breeder offends and hurts someone it might give them some insight into how hateful language works, and make them think twice about using words like "faggot" and "******" in the future. If the word is used simply for the sake of offending someone then that's not just pointless and offensive, it's destructive. (How can there ever be constructive discussions of human rights for homosexuals/bisexuals etc if every time the issues are brought up there's an undercurrent of hetero/homophobic slurs?)

*Pushing the 'What He (or She) Said' Button.*

Calling someone a "breeder" is just as offensive as calling some a "faggot" or "dyke". If the term breeder offends and hurts someone it might give them some insight into how hateful language works, and make them think twice about using words like "faggot" and "******" in the future. If the word is used simply for the sake of offending someone then that's not just pointless and offensive, it's destructive. (How can there ever be constructive discussions of human rights for homosexuals/bisexuals etc if every time the issues are brought up there's an undercurrent of hetero/homophobic slurs?)

*Pushing the 'What He (or She) Said' Button.*

so what you're saying is that its rude to call an honest upstanding tolerant hetrosexual a breeder, but a nasty ignorant breeders is well just a breeder. heck, there might even be gay breeders right?

Calling someone a "breeder" is just as offensive as calling some a "faggot" or "dyke". If the term breeder offends and hurts someone it might give them some insight into how hateful language works, and make them think twice about using words like "faggot" and "******" in the future. If the word is used simply for the sake of offending someone then that's not just pointless and offensive, it's destructive. (How can there ever be constructive discussions of human rights for homosexuals/bisexuals etc if every time the issues are brought up there's an undercurrent of hetero/homophobic slurs?)

*Pushing the 'What He (or She) Said' Button.*

so what you're saying is that its rude to call an honest upstanding tolerant hetrosexual a breeder, but a nasty ignorant breeders is well just a breeder. heck, there might even be gay breeders right?

That's not what I said at all. I'm saying that this is one of the times when we should claim the moral high ground and not call anyone "breeder", "faggot", "nogger" etc. However, there are always going to people out there who use the terms, and we should try to understand why they do that. It may be just intolerance, but it may be their way of making a point about hateful language.

The point is that as soon as I turn around and call someone "X" then I can no longer expect to have a constructive conversation with that person, and I think the conversation is more important than any insult.

well yes, while they are leading their valuable but mundane lifes perpetuating the race, the homosexual is freed from such constaints, allowed to follow his will to power, his intellectual inclinations, or to become a dedicated public servant without the distractions of squalling brats to contend with. the breeder is the body of the race, the homosexual is the mind.

???
just because you can have children, doesnt mean you have to, if you'd rather, say, follow your will to power, your intellectual inclinations, or become a dedicated public servant without the distractions of squalling brats to contend with.

how can calling me what i AM be an insult?

i should be insulted because YOU decided it should be insulting? that makes no sense

next youll be getting worried about 6 year olds calling you a poopyhead.

how can calling me what i AM be an insult?

i should be insulted because YOU decided it should be insulting? that makes no sense

next youll be getting worried about 6 year olds calling you a poopyhead.

Well it depends on how someone is addressed as to whether or not it is an insult. Obviously calling someone by their name isn't an insult, but labelling a person into a group they don't feel comfortable with is an insult.

As for a 6 year old calling me "poopyhead", I wouldn't be that bothered, but then I wouldn't sit down and have a proper conversation with that 6 year old.

Insults are counterproductive and (with some exceptions) pointless. It doesn't take a great deal of self control to not say certain words to people's faces, and people who can't control what they say forfeit the right to some respect.

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.Homophobes are useless for any thing and everything. And being homophobic should be outlawed and they should be deported

*ignoring the flamer above me*

yes insulting people is bad

but an insult that is not really insulting is just funny.

*ignoring the flamer above me*

yes insulting people is bad

but an insult that is not really insulting is just funny.Beg pardon, me or Enodscopia?

*ignoring the flamer above me*

yes insulting people is bad

but an insult that is not really insulting is just funny.Beg pardon, me or Enodscopia?

*gasp*

when i was posting endo was the last poster. i have a slow connection!

please accept my apology for the implied insult

*ignoring the flamer above me*

yes insulting people is bad

but an insult that is not really insulting is just funny.Beg pardon, me or Enodscopia?

*gasp*

when i was posting endo was the last poster. i have a slow connection!

please accept my apology for the implied insultNo need to worry, no offence was taken

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.Homophobes are useless for any thing and everything. And being homophobic should be outlawed and they should be deported

Thats original.

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.Homophobes are useless for any thing and everything. And being homophobic should be outlawed and they should be deported

Thats original.*watches as the point sails completely over Enodscopia's head*


*departs before flamewar starts*

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.Homophobes are useless for any thing and everything. And being homophobic should be outlawed and they should be deported

Thats original.*watches as the point sails completely over Enodscopia's head*


*departs before flamewar starts*

I saw the point its just the way it was made. You just copied and pasted what I wrote and changed two words. I thought you might be a little more creative.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

this is all a joke right?

Faggots are useless for any thing and everything. And being homosexual should be outlawed and they should be deported.Homophobes are useless for any thing and everything. And being homophobic should be outlawed and they should be deported

Thats original.*watches as the point sails completely over Enodscopia's head*


*departs before flamewar starts*

I saw the point its just the way it was made. You just copied and pasted what I wrote and changed two words. I thought you might be a little more creative.Yeah, but then you said it wasn't original, the whole point being that it wasn't supposed to be original. Your sweeping statement was a post that could be applied to absolutely any viewpoint or movement with no more than two words adjusted, in itself wholly unoriginal and unimaginative.

*duplicate post deleted*

That's like saying that all homosexuals practice anal sex. It's no more true than saying that all heterosexual people reproduce. Of course, heterosexual sex results in babies pretty often, but that doesn't make people who have children "breeders".

I'm heterosexual, and I'm not sure I want to have kids anytime soon, or even ever, though I'm in a committed relationship. The both of us like the idea of saving our money and devoting our relationship to each other, doing things that you just can't do if you have kids.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that calling people names is stereotyping them, generalizing. It's not fair no matter what direction it swings in.

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

this is all a joke right?He's a satirical nazi

cus that's what they are good for in the grand scheme of things. don't get me wrong, every society needs a majority of breeders to sustain itself. its only natural however that they should be subordinate to the homosexual elite.

this is all a joke right?

*sprays everyone with the sense of humor spritz just invented by scientist*

yes yes it is