So, speaking the word of God is now an offense to many (Page 35): Good Lord, if there is a better example of an emotionally irrational rant, I've yet to see one. Without the intellect...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Singularity wrote:

Definition of "irrational." Definition o... (show quote)

Good Lord, if there is a better example of an emotionally irrational rant, I've yet to see one.

Without the intellect (intelligence) to control them, emotions are like a race horse without the jockey.

Singularity

Blade_Runner wrote:

Good Lord, if there is a better example of an emotionally irrational rant, I've yet to see one.

Without the intellect (intelligence) to control them, emotions are like a race horse without the jockey.

And I have watched you beat your horse to death enough times over the years.

Have a nice day, Blade.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Singularity wrote:

Definition of "irrational." Definition o... (show quote)

Might as well give it up, Blade. She can be quite nice, but often gets her dander up when knownothings like us fail to acknowledge her oh-so-evident intellectual superiority. Clearly we are unable to view issues objectively, or we would never disagree with her impeccably evolved logic streams and analytical methodology.

Singularity

RandyBrian wrote:

Might as well give it up, Blade. She can be quite nice, but often gets her dander up when knownothings like us fail to acknowledge her oh-so-evident intellectual superiority. Clearly we are unable to view issues objectively, or we would never disagree with her impeccably evolved logic streams and analytical methodology.

I could reply that no, a small personal failing of my own limits my lovingkindness as to that kind of bulls**t and it makes me cranky, especially from folks like Blade and yourself, who demonstrate with remarkable clarity, their compete blind obtuseness with respect to social cues, and bullishly persist at social intercourse once their interlocutor has demurred!

And we are right back on topic.

But I don't want to hurt your feelings nor harsh my vibe with too much honesty just now.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Singularity wrote:

I could reply that no, a small personal failing of my own limits my lovingkindness as to that kind of bulls**t and it makes me cranky, especially from folks like Blade and yourself, who demonstrate with remarkable clarity, their compete blind obtuseness with respect to social cues, and bullishly persist at social intercourse once their interlocutor has demurred!

And we are right back on topic.

But I don't want to hurt your feelings nor harsh my vibe with too much honesty just now.

Now, there's a mouthful for ya. Rather than having a reactionary word fit, you could have simply refrained from responding at all.

Singularity

Blade_Runner wrote:

Now, there's a mouthful for ya. Rather than having a reactionary word fit, you could have simply refrained from responding at all.

Tee hee

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

RandyBrian wrote:

Might as well give it up, Blade. She can be quite nice, but often gets her dander up when knownothings like us fail to acknowledge her oh-so-evident intellectual superiority. Clearly we are unable to view issues objectively, or we would never disagree with her impeccably evolved logic streams and analytical methodology.

WoW.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Singularity wrote:

I could reply that no, a small personal failing of my own limits my lovingkindness as to that kind of bulls**t and it makes me cranky, especially from folks like Blade and yourself, who demonstrate with remarkable clarity, their compete blind obtuseness with respect to social cues, and bullishly persist at social intercourse once their interlocutor has demurred!

And we are right back on topic.

But I don't want to hurt your feelings nor harsh my vibe with too much honesty just now.

You've got me pegged, sure enuff. However, I do confess to getting a little peeved at unnecessary pretentious pseudointellectual dissertations. They are a hindrance to meaningful discourse. I'd rather just jaw with friends, even when we disagree.

Cuda2020

RandyBrian wrote:

Not hardly. br As I said, there is information f... (show quote)

You're kidding me right, I PROVED how outlandish and exaggerated your post was, do you not know how to differentiate from teaching topics within appropriate age and not. You and your post purposely mislead the readers to make it sound like they are encouraging and influencing little kindergartener's to have s*x c****es and practice d*****t behavior, you people are too much with your dishonesty.

Did you miss all my highlights in bold on the list of specialists that would oversee the entire sex ed program.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Cuda2020 wrote:

You're kidding me right, I PROVED how outlandish a... (show quote)

You are mistaken. I never said anything about encouraging or influencing. I lead the readers to believe the t***h, that elementary age children ARE being exposed to discussions up to and including the topics I mentioned. And you proved nothing at all, especially that it is not happening. I, on the other hand, proved that some states are allowing it by law, and some schools are actively doing it.
But by all means, please continue with your denial of facts.

Singularity

RandyBrian wrote:

You've got me pegged, sure enuff. However, I do confess to getting a little peeved at unnecessary pretentious pseudointellectual dissertations. They are a hindrance to meaningful discourse. I'd rather just jaw with friends, even when we disagree.

You also enjoy the bloodsport, scoring points and tallying wins and you chomp at the bit more than I feel comfortable parrying. I have contended more voraciously in the past, right now I don't feel like it.

Clear boundaries make social intercourse safe and meaningful. Thought you folks understood the utility of a wall. Same deal.

No hard feelings.

Cuda2020

RandyBrian wrote:

You are mistaken. I never said anything about encouraging or influencing. I lead the readers to believe the t***h, that elementary age children ARE being exposed to discussions up to and including the topics I mentioned. And you proved nothing at all, especially that it is not happening. I, on the other hand, proved that some states are allowing it by law, and some schools are actively doing it.
But by all means, please continue with your denial of facts.

You're entirely wrong about that. You want readers to believe your t***h. You haven't proved a thing on what they are actually being exposed to, and as I said before you people sensationalize one bizarre occurrence and run the ball for a touch down on your narrative.

The thing is, I'd agree with you if that were actually happening, but it's not, it's completely warped to what is. I hope you discontinue spreading this fabrication. A bill that has not been passed is not the law, therefore... they, as yet, have allowed nothing.

bylm1-Bernie

Cuda2020 wrote:

No, only from the twist created in your head.

Oh, I see. Glad you explained it to me.

SWMBO

RandyBrian wrote:

Not hardly. br As I said, there is information f... (show quote)

So, how do they decide what is age appropriate? If the person defining that is a pederast, as many males are, then the earlier the better to teach children how to satisfy their adult "partners" If the person determining what is appropriate is from a culture where marriages of 12 year old girls to adult men is appropriate, as in many Muslim cultures, teaching 10 year old girls how to satisfy men is considered fine, do you want that taught to sixth grade American girls? Would it be acceptable to you if men doing time for child molestation were to teach the classes or would be be acceptable for "gay" men to teach the gradeschool classes at your school?

Rose42

Michael Rich wrote:

A dog can't get better than venison meat. Its too bad they reject it.

They know very little about animal husbandry. That’s why.