Just so I'm clear, in "the rest of the world" there appear to be the choices of go to trial or not. Here there appears to be an additional choice of "take a lesser plea, for the guarantee of a lesser sentence".
Explain to me why that is "loathsome" as it's an additional choice, that is in no way mandatory, and deviates from "the rest of the world" by giving more options for a satisfactory resolution, not less.
Explain to me what is "loathsome" about having the totally voluntary option of avoiding a serious sentence by cooperation, and then explain why not having that option is better.
The only thing "loathsome" is your jingoistic assumption of the superiority of the "rest of the world" and its opinion.
"The people who deny it are the ones like you who need to justify the fact that they're promiscuous."
Where exactly did I discuss being promiscuous? I never said I was promiscuous, so who the fuck are you to assume something that isn't discussed anywhere by me?
"Lots of people are sick of jumping from one sack to the next. Gets really old, really quick."
So, it's do as I say, not as I do then? You get to be promiscuous, but no one else? Or are you going to say that you were never promiscuous, at which point I'll ask how the fuck you know it gets old?
Sorry buddy, you're the typical got-no-ass-so-no-one-else-can-get-any-either loser, who wants other people to live the way he thinks is best, so he doesn't feel like he missed out because he's socially inept while lying to himself and claiming it's a choice.
Save your opinion about my sex life, I truly don't give a fuck what people like you who think they know best for me think, especially when it's clear you're either a hypocrite or a liar.
You go on telling yourself you chose your life. The rest of us will avoid bursting your bubble, but we all know the truth, so save the denials, you just sound that much more pathetic.
"But casual sex is ok - even though we know indisputably it leads to unwanted children and the spread of STDs"
I've had plenty of casual sex and I've had neither of those, so consider your "undisputed" fact to be disputed (i.e wrong)
"because it happens only 2% of the time (assuming the condom is used correctly by the usually inebriated youths involved), and anyone who argues with you is clearly unqualified to breed."
NO, the condom fails 2% of the time, and since pregnancy/STD transmission after a failure is nowhere near 100%, this point is wrong too.
And it's just you that shouldn't breed, as evidenced by your inability to get a joke, but also because your ability to reason is crap.
Stop telling people what is best for them, no one cares about your opinion.
"But the two sides are mutually opposed -- so every bit of sleeping around you do will make it harder for you to have a deeply committed relationship."
Sure, and that's not just what you tell yourself to justify your choice.
First, it's cervical cancer, not ovarian. That alone should be enough to show you're full of shit.
But just to emphasize the point, the virus is not 100% fatal, nor does it cause cancer in 100% of the cases.
That, combined with your apparently deliberate misrepresentation of the pregnancy risks after a broken condom makes me wonder what your agenda is, and why you're deliberately posting false information to support a point that others have repeatedly destroyed.
Why are you lying? What is your motivation to lie to people about sex, and why do you think you're justified in doing so?
Please don't respond that you didn't lie, I gave you one example and can think of two others in this thread. It's right there for the world to see, so denying it isn't going to get you anywhere.
"Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals."
There it is. If you were being completely honest with yourself, you'd admit that you think your ability to do without sex makes you more evolved, more developed. That sentence displays your thinking quite obviously.
Sadly for you, that's ridiculous. Sex is a wonderful, pleasant, somewhat messy, but ultimately fantastic part of the human experience. Missing out on it is not something to be celebrated.
Yours is the classic sour grapes position. If I can't have it, it wasn't that good anyway.
Why are you still replying, you said I was right, nothing else you have to say matters.
And that last point is stupid, obviously large trucks that weigh far more than normal cars and require specialized driving skills should be regulated differently. The same can be said of buses.
And the truth is, you know I'm right about that too.
As far as I'm aware, there's no patent police to come kick down my door and take my PS3, so what exactly do they expect to happen if they win?
Do you really think people are going to volunteer to have their PS3 destroyed because you patented the computer processing version of the assembly line?
"No. It's because I can see that arguing with you is pointless."
All you have to do is explain why heling a country at risk to yourself during wartime isn't help but is in fact just trade, even though it can be both.
Of course it's much easier to pretend it's my fault your argument got shredded to pieces and you have no rebuttal.
You got hammered. I did it. Your claims are easily belied by thie posts in this thread, which show how stupid your point was and how easily I crushed you.
Why no explanation of why it's "trade" even in war time when you're pissing off Germany by doing so and risking lives of both your people and the people of the countries you're "trading" with? Why no insistent post telling me that I'm being absurd and it's "trade" not "help"?
Could it be because you see I'm right and have no refutation?
And yet everything I said is both true and irrefutable. You and OP shoul pool your money and buy a dictionary, you need to look up losing, because it means the opposite of how you're using it. While you do that, OP could look up "help" and then you two could compare how far your definitions are off reality.
How bad does it piss you off that the most coherent argument you could muster was to post AC and say "are you seriously some thickheaded america-does-no-wrong fucktard"? I bet, now that I think about it, that that is the most well crafted argument you've ever put forward. How sad for you that I'm right and you can't do anything about it.
And when you risk the wrath of Nazi Germany, and war, as a result of your trade? When the people "trading" with you are doing so at risk to their lives?
Yes of course I'm the one being absurd, claiming that delivering supplies during war is not "help".
You were wrong. Stop thrashing about and making ti worse with your ridiculous proclamations of absurdity.
Slashdot Mirror
Just so I'm clear, in "the rest of the world" there appear to be the choices of go to trial or not. Here there appears to be an additional choice of "take a lesser plea, for the guarantee of a lesser sentence".
Explain to me why that is "loathsome" as it's an additional choice, that is in no way mandatory, and deviates from "the rest of the world" by giving more options for a satisfactory resolution, not less.
Explain to me what is "loathsome" about having the totally voluntary option of avoiding a serious sentence by cooperation, and then explain why not having that option is better.
The only thing "loathsome" is your jingoistic assumption of the superiority of the "rest of the world" and its opinion.
It is however your fault that you look at women and decide they look like men.
"Sounds like someone's a homophobe!"
Right, you look at women, decide they're like men, and that it disgusts you. That definitely makes you a homophobe, but why admit it to me?
"I'd say the great things in life are not dying from some STD you picked up from the chick at the bar."
You can be afraid of statistically tiny risks if you want, the rest of us aren't possessed by profound cowardice.
(Cue explanation that everyone sees through immediately of why your obvious cowardice isn't cowardice)
It's always amusing to watch people come up with excuses for why they're "choosing" not to get laid.
You keep telling yourself whatever you need to make yourself feel good about your "choice".
No one believes it but you, though, and I don't think you do either.
"Sex though is very different."
No.
Since I disagree with your central premise, I have no problem saying the rest of your post isn't worth reading.
"The people who deny it are the ones like you who need to justify the fact that they're promiscuous."
Where exactly did I discuss being promiscuous? I never said I was promiscuous, so who the fuck are you to assume something that isn't discussed anywhere by me?
"Lots of people are sick of jumping from one sack to the next. Gets really old, really quick."
So, it's do as I say, not as I do then? You get to be promiscuous, but no one else? Or are you going to say that you were never promiscuous, at which point I'll ask how the fuck you know it gets old?
Sorry buddy, you're the typical got-no-ass-so-no-one-else-can-get-any-either loser, who wants other people to live the way he thinks is best, so he doesn't feel like he missed out because he's socially inept while lying to himself and claiming it's a choice.
Save your opinion about my sex life, I truly don't give a fuck what people like you who think they know best for me think, especially when it's clear you're either a hypocrite or a liar.
You go on telling yourself you chose your life. The rest of us will avoid bursting your bubble, but we all know the truth, so save the denials, you just sound that much more pathetic.
"But casual sex is ok - even though we know indisputably it leads to unwanted children and the spread of STDs"
I've had plenty of casual sex and I've had neither of those, so consider your "undisputed" fact to be disputed (i.e wrong)
"because it happens only 2% of the time (assuming the condom is used correctly by the usually inebriated youths involved), and anyone who argues with you is clearly unqualified to breed."
NO, the condom fails 2% of the time, and since pregnancy/STD transmission after a failure is nowhere near 100%, this point is wrong too.
And it's just you that shouldn't breed, as evidenced by your inability to get a joke, but also because your ability to reason is crap.
Stop telling people what is best for them, no one cares about your opinion.
And seriously, you need to get laid.
"It's not black-and-white, that's true."
Then why try to present it that way?
"But the two sides are mutually opposed -- so every bit of sleeping around you do will make it harder for you to have a deeply committed relationship."
Sure, and that's not just what you tell yourself to justify your choice.
No one's buying, so stop selling.
You could have both.
I guess some of us are smarter than you and have figured out it's not an either or proposition.
First, it's cervical cancer, not ovarian. That alone should be enough to show you're full of shit.
But just to emphasize the point, the virus is not 100% fatal, nor does it cause cancer in 100% of the cases.
That, combined with your apparently deliberate misrepresentation of the pregnancy risks after a broken condom makes me wonder what your agenda is, and why you're deliberately posting false information to support a point that others have repeatedly destroyed.
Why are you lying? What is your motivation to lie to people about sex, and why do you think you're justified in doing so?
Please don't respond that you didn't lie, I gave you one example and can think of two others in this thread. It's right there for the world to see, so denying it isn't going to get you anywhere.
I wholeheartedly agree, it would be irresponsible for you to breed. :)
"The 2/3 of the population who believe sex is the most important part of the human experience"
Since I never said that it was the most important part of the human experience, what does your post have to do with my point?
Nothing like avoiding the good things in life because you're afraid of the minuscule possibility that something might happen.
"Some of us honestly view reproduction as being the domain of animals."
There it is. If you were being completely honest with yourself, you'd admit that you think your ability to do without sex makes you more evolved, more developed. That sentence displays your thinking quite obviously.
Sadly for you, that's ridiculous. Sex is a wonderful, pleasant, somewhat messy, but ultimately fantastic part of the human experience. Missing out on it is not something to be celebrated.
Yours is the classic sour grapes position. If I can't have it, it wasn't that good anyway.
"I mean God what idiot doesn't want to risk having a baby instead of just masturbating?"
That would be everybody but you, and you do too, you just can't admit it because you're hard up and want to pretend it's a choice.
Why are you still replying, you said I was right, nothing else you have to say matters.
And that last point is stupid, obviously large trucks that weigh far more than normal cars and require specialized driving skills should be regulated differently. The same can be said of buses.
And the truth is, you know I'm right about that too.
As far as I'm aware, there's no patent police to come kick down my door and take my PS3, so what exactly do they expect to happen if they win?
Do you really think people are going to volunteer to have their PS3 destroyed because you patented the computer processing version of the assembly line?
"Insane troll stalks me on Slashdot because I refuse to have sex with him."
Your father's actions are none of my business.
Why tell me about your family problems?
In other words "you're right and I'm an AC with no refutation".
I agree, thanks for admitting it.
"You're an idiot."
No, we are not related.
I suspect you'd have to do it far less often if you did a better job with reading comprehension.
You can tell someone's a loser when they foist their failures off on someone else. Like you did there.
"No. It's because I can see that arguing with you is pointless."
All you have to do is explain why heling a country at risk to yourself during wartime isn't help but is in fact just trade, even though it can be both.
Of course it's much easier to pretend it's my fault your argument got shredded to pieces and you have no rebuttal.
You got hammered. I did it. Your claims are easily belied by thie posts in this thread, which show how stupid your point was and how easily I crushed you.
Bigot. Trolls Slahshdot continuously.
Why no explanation of why it's "trade" even in war time when you're pissing off Germany by doing so and risking lives of both your people and the people of the countries you're "trading" with? Why no insistent post telling me that I'm being absurd and it's "trade" not "help"?
Could it be because you see I'm right and have no refutation?
Of course it is.
"you're losing this argument to reason"
And yet everything I said is both true and irrefutable. You and OP shoul pool your money and buy a dictionary, you need to look up losing, because it means the opposite of how you're using it. While you do that, OP could look up "help" and then you two could compare how far your definitions are off reality.
How bad does it piss you off that the most coherent argument you could muster was to post AC and say "are you seriously some thickheaded america-does-no-wrong fucktard"? I bet, now that I think about it, that that is the most well crafted argument you've ever put forward. How sad for you that I'm right and you can't do anything about it.
You're an AC. I won before you even posted.
"Selling goods to someone is trade, not help. "
And when you risk the wrath of Nazi Germany, and war, as a result of your trade? When the people "trading" with you are doing so at risk to their lives?
Yes of course I'm the one being absurd, claiming that delivering supplies during war is not "help".
You were wrong. Stop thrashing about and making ti worse with your ridiculous proclamations of absurdity.