Rebdragon

It looks like you were trying to mimic his behavior of "acting like a douche" so you tried to "out-douche" him (hence the "How's that for being a douche?" [And it's appropriate since you used an analogy about trying to outdo someone.]) which still means you're calling him a douche. That's just how I read it though. Exactly. And for the record, I never once said I wasn't calling him a douche.

The fact that people breathe is one of the greatest causes of violence known to man; without breath there is no violence. Does that not make breathing the greatest evil then? Should we not all cut each other's trachea's to end violence in this world? Just because something bad can be produced from something else doesn't mean that that something else is inherently evil. No one's perfect, and bar mathematics neither is anything. You've got to weigh the rewards vs. the consequences- is what we gain from it worth having it, or is it too much of a burden on society to have it? So, the question is (to you, and anyone) does sex cause enough bad things that we should only use it to make babies? Or why not just skip the sex and transfer the semen indirectly, if it's really that evil?; if it is a burden on society, why have it? I'd like some reasons why anyone who answers this chose their answer, including both the good and the bad and why one outweighs the other. Let's get a little more specific than "it can cause evil/violence, etc.", if the point I made above makes any sense. Maybe cite something, like the average number of rape cases in cities, or how sex chemically brings a couple together. "Moral confusion"? You make it sound like it can't be possible he's making a point. I think his point is quite valid- sex is nowhere near as bad as violence. I mean, one is based on pleasure and unity, and the other is based on nothing but pain. Is there really a moral comparison...? Or is it simply a religious one? If it is a religious one you're citing, you do know that the Catholic Church sees sex as a beautiful thing that brings a couple together on the physical level and beyond, right? According to the Church, sex serves the two purposes of procreation and unity. The Church sees it as an important and valuable part of life, of human relationships. Are you honestly citing them when you're trying to say that sex is evil?

I don't see anyone denying it :-w . Not that 'we' has to mean it's a pure consensus, of course.

If you read my post you'll see I was calling myself a douche. I've read over your post. I can't see how you were possibly calling yourself a douche. Either you're bad with English, or you were flaming. I'll presume the former. How is my English bad there? If I were in a fight and I got punched in the stomach, and then I punched the person who hit me in the face and then said "how's that for a hard hit?", would you assume I was talking about their hit or mine? Just because "douche" is derogatory doesn't make it's impossible use it in that context. You've just never heard someone admit they're a douche; it's not bad English but awkward context. And while I'm overexplaining myself for no good reason, I'll just add that I didn't attack you for your point of view, but because of the way you acted. Fair enough 1_man? Oh please, it's nothing I don't get given to me. How about I lecture you on all my various ideals as if you were incapable of understanding them for yourself, or as if you didn't already know about them? Make an obvious comment to someone you know already knows better, and they will likely get patronised by it. Do you think his intention was to be a lecturing douche to you? Really? I mean if it was me, sure, it'd be a different story. I'm not going to say that assassin is perfect but I don't think you'd actually assume that was his intention.

I don't get along with these threads. It's interesting to post but there's way too much data to give a damn.

If you read my post you'll see I was calling myself a douche. Not that mister roll-eyes up there doesn't deserve it when assassin kindly explained things to him. But hey, thanks for the condescending attitude mate. Keep it up, we all really like it.

I love how socialists* consistently berate capitalism about not being perfect economically, and yet they prefer a system that historically does much worse than capitalism in that field. How's that for being a douche? *not pure socialists

If you knew me you'd know I like FMA more than the Bubonic Plague hated Europe. If you knew me you'd know I feel a certain level of disgust from reading each post on this thread (spare a meager few), and probably including my own from the perspective of another user.

Make it a 3k run? You'll save time and get much more out of it.

Not if you do them right. If you're flailing for momentum, ya, ya might hyperextend something. But if you're actually controlled, i.e. using the correct form, then there's really not much of a threat of damaging something. Even so, the most I could do when I didn't weigh a lot (5th grade) was 20. After that amount I could do really started dropping and I needed to get muscle mass.

Don't use momentum, full extend your arms (180), and stop for half a second between pull ups (not enough to rest but enough to guarentee you ain't swingin'), then come back with a number. If you're still breaking 25 I'm going to say something's wrong. What you should be doing, if you're not in high school join the football team and use their facilities if you aren't already allowed to. If you are in high school then you're school should have some level of equipment to use, and if you need adult supervision when doing it, again, just join a team. It's that or join a gym- you'll see better results once you get actual weights to use (although you must be some kind of God to reach over 40 pull ups with no equipment whatsoever, so who am I to preach?).

Can you give me a chapter/verse or something? Surely Paul would realize the needs to repopulate, or he was providing an illustration and you took it out of context. I'm fairly sure the Bible does not say "don't get married and don't have sex, ever" as there wouldn't be very many Christians at all today. I have no doubt he might have said it, but a piece of the puzzle is missing. Here's the site I used to refresh my memory: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christi ... x.aspx?p=1 There's a couple example verses in the first paragraph. I think I already said this, but Paul actually didn't realize there was a need to repopulate. He thought the Rapture, his master's promise, was going to come soon, in their lifetime's. That's a large part of the reason he preached that sex was not necessary; besides that devotion to God is the priority above all else, what's the need to procreate if the end of the world is coming in a decade or two?

Something about this seems off.

SMART goals.

I've always felt a certain level of disgust towards Israel but this feeling of mine has gone somewhat unexplained to me. That article definitely fixed that problem :-k .

No, he preached for celebacy outside of marriage and preached against marriage. Hence no sex.

Actually Barihawk, if you look at the New Testament you'll see that Paul (and a few others I can't recall) preaches about and for celibacy quite a frikkin' lot. I mean, he was preachin' it mainly because he thought the Rapture would come in his lifetime moreso than because he was against sex, but he was preachin' it nonetheless :x.

...That's gay. That depends on whether or not it was a chick :o.

Serious question: after you reread your post, do you honestly see the logic in it? Is it possible that the shear lack of logic combined with the derogatory nature of your post is the reason that people feel a need to insult you? If I told you "All black people should burn in hell", and you insulted me for saying that, how would you react if I told you what you just told everyone in your post- that the fact that I was insulted makes my points valid? See the logic, or lack there of? You're not making sense mate. Honestly, as has been said, you're either stupid or a troll. For your sake one can only hope it's the latter.

If I were to inquire as to whether or not you are a virgin, would you be offended? LOL I'm not offended. In fact I can see why you'd think that. As a matter of fact I am not a virgin. I am actually in a relationship now. And no, sex hasn't really messed it up, in fact if anything it's saved it. But thank's for the inquerie. :lol: Intriguing. You may very well be the first person on this forum to say that and not be a virgin. Now that I feel you have some validity to what you say, why exactly do you shun something that has become an important part in your relationship? Is it because it has taken to large a role in it? Or do you simply hold this belief because you always have in the past and you havn't really found any substantial reason to ever change it?

To not laugh at the 90% of people who don't make it past January with their resolutions. It's a tough one.

When are them Central African and Middle Eastern and other peeps going to learn to hug it out :( ?

Nudity is not "good" or "bad", it's "socially acceptable" and "not socially acceptable". That's it. Now let's never make this thread again. Please. If I were to inquire as to whether or not you are a virgin, would you be offended?

What the... when the hell did listen to Coldplay 'go out of style'? What the [bleep] is up with that [cabbage]? It's music for Christ's sake, if you like it you like it, if you don't you don't. There's no "oh, other people don't like it so I can't" bull [cabbage] about it, but for some reason people seem to think that way. Coldplay rocks, always has. Oi.

His words, not mine folks.