100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > willowdraga
|
|
|
Thanks Bulldog.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I don't direct question, I lead the conversation into areas that will be informative. Like their experience with dating so far. You get a lot from them on their attitudes and how they feel about people from that conversation. Exes, not really the whole sordid story but how do they get on with them now and why, is a good conversation. If you have a person who blames everyone else for their "bad luck" in life you will know by now. For me politics/social views have to come into play, others don't, but I have to know a bit at least because I have a hard time respecting some views, I am working on that, but that is a deal breaker for me. This also helps to gauge what level of intelligence you are dealing with, which is another important quality for me.
My conversations always end up being a lot about my MS and how I have such a good attitude about life and everything even though I have it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everything I wanna do by Nickleback
Trying not to love you by Nickleback Should've listened by Nickleback |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My friend and I were discussing this concept and I would like to get some men's views on this anomaly but all are welcome.
A man (and women can do it too but for sake of this conversation I would like the mens side) spends sometimes weeks working on a woman, meetings, dinner, phone conversations, etc.... finally gets to the sex and completely disappears after..... Now he spent all that time making a connection with someone. Isn't it counter productive to burn the bridge he made? In case the sex isn't good, he can still talk to someone and not have sex with them again. So what is your take on it? I would appreciate all takes on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Hypocrisy at it's best!
|
|
It still comes down to the fact that if guns were a deterrent to crime we would have the smallest crime rate in the world.
I have to go now so have a good day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not too hard to prove. Wow, who knew proving things was soo easy, and here I let science make me think it was hard work that required testable premises with conclusions that follow from them with no contradiction showing nearly perfect correlation and no inconsistencies. Man science is tough, they even want me to preemptively address any possible criticism that could arise against my theory. There is a gun for each person in this country even the children. And...our crime rate is not the lowest in the world Done. Too damn easy. Pew! When the facts are so obvious, there is no work to be done. There is a gun for each person in this country, check on it, if you don't believe me. And so obviously if guns were a deterrent to crime, see above, then we would be almost crimeless here in this country. Not too much science involved in common sense. First one needs common sense before they can use it. Second each person doesn't legally own a gun. Look at Sweden. If you want to learn about owning guns and low crime rates. Sweden, hell Europe has a whole different mind set than we do here anyway so it really isn't comparable, just to let you know so when I ignore it again it won't be felt as a slight against you. If guns were a deterrent to crime our country would have the lowest crime rate in the world. We have most of the guns in the world here. Check that out. So gun are not a deterrent to crime. So once we get that lie out of the conversation maybe we can have some constructive ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It still shows that double standard Puritan throw back we have in our society. Everyone knows sex happens but don't let it get out that you do it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not one person has asked if he was drunk dressed provocatively on the wrong side of town with his panties off yet??/
Where are they? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Hypocrisy at it's best!
|
|
The real hypocrisy is that if guns deterred crimes this country would be almost crimeless. That is the real hypocrisy 28th in a world of 400+ nations...... over a dozen nations smaller than Rhode Island..... I think we have that pretty well in hand! But then we all know well by now that facts don't matter to you! Not in comparison to the gun it is not.... The point is if guns were a deterrent to crime, with the amount of guns we have in this country, we would be living almost crime free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not too hard to prove. Wow, who knew proving things was soo easy, and here I let science make me think it was hard work that required testable premises with conclusions that follow from them with no contradiction showing nearly perfect correlation and no inconsistencies. Man science is tough, they even want me to preemptively address any possible criticism that could arise against my theory. There is a gun for each person in this country even the children. And...our crime rate is not the lowest in the world Done. Too damn easy. Pew! When the facts are so obvious, there is no work to be done. There is a gun for each person in this country, check on it, if you don't believe me. And so obviously if guns were a deterrent to crime, see above, then we would be almost crimeless here in this country. Not too much science involved in common sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Hypocrisy at it's best!
|
|
The real hypocrisy is that if guns deterred crimes this country would be almost crimeless.
That is the real hypocrisy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but because a gun toter cannot guarantee they will not be irresponsible with their weapon (allow the kids to get it, let it get stolen, etc...) or lose their mind and kill/let others kill/ with said weapon, the preemptive isn't really an argument per se. If you want to skip that part like most will fine. So you are saying that because men have the ability to rape, that all men should be locked up? There will be more laws to try to prevent the children from being mowed down the classroom. And if that doesn't work there will be more laws. Until anything that can do harm is locked away? Considering I am not anti gun, I don't think that applies to me. You can try that argument with a full out anti gun person though and see how it goes. I stand for the non crazy gun owners to have a weapon that they never brandish, the kids never see it, they do not believe it will save them in the middle of the night since they don't keep it loaded because of the kids, they have it just in case someday they need to hunt a rabbit for food, etc... None of which changes the fact that guns do not deter crime if it were true this country would be almost crimeless. My points are about banning or restricting property rights based on the potential for harm, not actual harm that has been done by an actual individual. That is preemptive violence, just as rape is preemptive violence. Unsolicited and not in response to aggression or violence, but a response to the potential for violence.  I am going to have to take something back I said if you are saying to me that being unable to get a multishot gun and/or being unqualified by the government to have a single shot weapon because of your record, mental health state, irresponsibility is in any way shape or form comparable to rape....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which still hasn't happened once in this thread.
He was brutalized just the same as all women who are raped. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is about how this person who was raped who was male happened to not have his state of mind, state of dress, actions, location, etc... blamed for the crime committed against him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry but because a gun toter cannot guarantee they will not be irresponsible with their weapon (allow the kids to get it, let it get stolen, etc...) or lose their mind and kill/let others kill/ with said weapon, the preemptive isn't really an argument per se. If you want to skip that part like most will fine. So you are saying that because men have the ability to rape, that all men should be locked up? There will be more laws to try to prevent the children from being mowed down the classroom. And if that doesn't work there will be more laws. Until anything that can do harm is locked away? Considering I am not anti gun, I don't think that applies to me. You can try that argument with a full out anti gun person though and see how it goes. I stand for the non crazy gun owners to have a weapon that they never brandish, the kids never see it, they do not believe it will save them in the middle of the night since they don't keep it loaded because of the kids, they have it just in case someday they need to hunt a rabbit for food, etc... None of which changes the fact that guns do not deter crime if it were true this country would be almost crimeless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh and thanks for side lining me on this thread
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rape is wrong for the same reason all preemptive violence/force is wrong. It violates the rights of the individual. Although the comparison is not there. The point of the thread was that when a man gets raped by a women, there is never NEVER anyone to say he asked for it by how he dressed, how he spoke, how he acted, etc... Mind you, it missed all of the respondents on the thread also that no one said this. It seems to me that the main narrative we hear is one that has stopped asking these questions. It assumes they are answered. Is it ok to get what you want through preemptive force? Either yes, or no. If it is not ok to rape, which is the act of forced sex, then it is not ok to disarm someone who has harmed no one with that weapon. That person may just be the women defending herself from the preemptive violence of rape and the possibility of death. Regarding guns, the rights of a gun toter should not outweigh the rights of those who do not want to have their children shot by said gun toter or his family or friends or whoever steals his gun. Comparison is not there. You assume much to get to this from just the fact that a gun is owned and being carried. You are failing to ask questions, you believe you have all the anwsers already. Its a shame. What would it take to disarm America? Preemptive force regardless of any crimes committed by the individuals involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination or the principle of self-ownership. Sorry but because a gun toter cannot guarantee they will not be irresponsible with their weapon (allow the kids to get it, let it get stolen, etc...) or lose their mind and kill/let others kill/ with said weapon, the preemptive isn't really an argument per se. If you want to skip that part like most will fine. That is just covering the non intentional like you said preemptive gun craziness that goes on all the time. Brandishing the weapon to bring fear, intimidate, just for the drunken fun of it, etc... There will be more laws to try to prevent the children from being mowed down the classroom. And if that doesn't work there will be more laws. More guns is not a valid answer because IF IT WERE THERE WERE BARELY BE ANY CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY, WE HAVE A GUN HERE FOR EACH MEMBER OF THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW. Guns are not a deterrent to crime or we would have the smallest crime rate in this country. This country would be utopia if guns were the answer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Andy
Your not going to get me banned, you are not worth it. I will take your offer and stop addressing your self impressing posts. Have a good life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, no one can dispute that if guns were real deterrents to crimes the US would have the lowest crime rate in the world. There is one gun here for each of us. No criminal knows for sure there is no gun where they commit their crime. Nor do they know if a passerby or whoever won't have one. So the idea of a gun being there doesn't stop them. They aren't afraid of guns.... Guns are not a deterrent to crime. Guns give those who believe it, imaginary protection from imagined fearful intruders. Who in truth are not afraid of the gun. I will accept your offers that 1) "if guns were real deterrents to crimes the US would have the lowest crime rate in the world.", 2) "the idea of a gun being there doesn't stop [criminals]", 3) [criminals] aren't afraid of guns", 4) "Guns are not a deterrent to crime." upon proof of your claims. Failure to prove the above, aforementioned, numbered claims shall be considered proof that your claims are nothing more than your unsubstantiated, erroneous opinion and a fantasy residing only in your own alleged mind. Not too hard to prove. There is a gun for each person in this country even the children. And...our crime rate is not the lowest in the world Done. Too damn easy. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
