What's new
By:

Mark Cuban's afraid of the witchhunt. he might think he is next target of the witchunt

fishonjazz said:
Who the hell is this? ^^^^^^^^^

i know that aint dutch.... where are all the mis-spelled words? Where is all the ****ed up punctuation? How is it that i can understand everything in this post?

Is this proof that the "real" dutch is in fact a schtick?
Click to expand...
i wanted to set the record striaght so i typed that ****.
and re-read it about 5 times.
so yeah thats serious dutch :P.

normally i just type and press sent.

but this time i wanted to be as understandable a posible. not gonna do that often ebcause i have a live and that post took half hour
 
gandalfe said:
Would you be in favor of a law that penalized married heterosexual couples who do not procreate?

Also, are you so sure, in a world which is quickly reaching the maximum population, that actively encouraging procreation is a good thing?

And, I'm not aware of your personal marital status. If you are married, did you make a solemn vow to procreate? If not, are you planning to?
Click to expand...
1. **** the government.
2. not an issue as marriage does not encourages procreation. in my book it adds a ****ing hurdle. and with marriage as a (unoffical) hurdle procreatrion is a bit more out of reach
3. not married yet because i live in a foreign contry might move back home in the next 12-18 months and then work on starting a family
 
DutchJazzer said:
agaiun i would NOT.
Click to expand...

that's the first time you answered that question in this thread, so "again" is false.

DutchJazzer said:
omg how the **** is it hard to understand.

mariage is for proctreation.
Click to expand...

80-year-old women don't procreate, yet you would allow them to marry. You don't believe your own rationalization.

DutchJazzer said:
but we dont go forcing millions and millions of ss mariage through the cracks.
Click to expand...

Do you have a good reason for preventing them from getting through?

DutchJazzer said:
GET IT?
Click to expand...

Yes. You don't think gay relationships are worthy of the term marriage, and have created a rationalization to justify this hate to yourself. I get it.
 
One Brow said:
80-year-old women don't procreate, yet you would allow them to marry. You don't believe your own rationalization.
Click to expand...


ARE YOU DENSE!

answered that a million times.
been asked a million times
dont know how to say it for the millionth and 1 time so it will finally get to your dense skull
 
Last edited:
@one brow and dutch.....
I dont know who is trolling who, but it has been fun

Thanks guys
 
One Brow said:
It's always so cute when the religious tell us what we think.
Click to expand...

As cute as when you sit on your own high horse and dictate whose racist and who isn't. Who is logical and reasonable and who isn't. Hypocrite.

But once again you missed the entire topic. You are free to think as you want. As am I and I see belief in anything God related. That's how I see it. To me it is all belief.
 
Stoked said:
That's how I see it. To me it is all belief.
Click to expand...

Which is the key problem. Religious people want to debate things on rational, scientific terms, when religion itself is neither of those. It's like trying to play basketball, but you refuse to acknowledge the existing rules of basketball. There is science and reason and there is religion. No overlap whatsoever.
 
JimLes said:
Which is the key problem. Religious people want to debate things on rational, scientific terms, when religion itself is neither of those. It's like trying to play basketball, but you refuse to acknowledge the existing rules of basketball. There is science and reason and there is religion. No overlap whatsoever.
Click to expand...

thats why out of my view i leave out religion
 
JimLes said:
Which is the key problem. Religious people want to debate things on rational, scientific terms, when religion itself is neither of those. It's like trying to play basketball, but you refuse to acknowledge the existing rules of basketball. There is science and reason and there is religion. No overlap whatsoever.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't the topic I got into. Mine was simply the existence of God. To me you either believe He is real or you believe He is fake.

But for the record I think they overlap everywhere.

Also for the record I am spiritual. Not religious.
 
Stoked said:
No damnit! They have a cookie cutter mold that they want to shove us into and dammit you better listen.
Click to expand...

wonder what will happne if an nba owner says: Imho, same sex marriage should not be allowed, it is a mockery of the institution.(or something like that?)

will the player, the media and the public be just as mad? would he recieve a fine and ban forced to sell team?
 
Stoked said:
As cute as when you sit on your own high horse and dictate whose racist and who isn't.
Click to expand...

You mean, everyone and no one, respectively?

Stoked said:
Who is logical and reasonable and who isn't.
Click to expand...

You mean, everyone and everyone (at different times), respectively?

Stoked said:
Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be able to state my views before you decide to label them?

Stoked said:
But once again you missed the entire topic.
Click to expand...

When did you start worrying about not going on tangents?

Stoked said:
You are free to think as you want. As am I and I see belief in anything God related. That's how I see it. To me it is all belief.
Click to expand...

Well, goody-goody-gumdrops for you. You feel free to keep on believing that I have to have some belief, I'll keep on not having a belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top