Oh, I think it's clear what benefits gay folks get from being able to marry someone of the same gender: it's a two-fer: not only do they get to marry the person they love, just like their straight friends, family and neighbours, they also get to drive narrow minded bigots like your good self to apoplexy. Hopefully a few of you will get sufficiently outraged to keel over, which will be great for the gene pool as well!
*Arthur Dent's* greatest role.
You seem fairly inexperienced. The Plain English Campaign has been, erm, campaigning against overuse of the passive voice for really quite a long time.
But the production of CO2 is pretty much coterminous with the production of [other] pollutants. Reduce those, and you reduce CO2 as well. What the British supermarkets refer to as a BOGOF.
Oh do me a lemon. It's all so terribly threatening to your career that you can't even name the "small ecosystem" you purport to study as an AC on Slashdot? You've got to be shitting me.
And a set of best china too. And gloves for the laydeez.
Isn't the very essence of life-without-parole saying: "we give up on you as a human being"? The whole point of no parole is to say "you are not redeemable", surely? In that sense, I can't see it really being materially different from the death penalty, tbh. It is certainly spectacularly effective as a method of damaging mental health compared with even the remotest possibility of parole.
Michael Portillo has been much better out of office than he ever was when he held power.
I reckon 70%+ of tea-drinking Brits have never had loose leaf tea.
You don't know very much about Britain if you think the use of tea bags is unusual here. It's not Downton fucking Abbey you know.
Blimey, it really is incompetence in your case, isn't it? I was replying to your specific post.
You said something, and I replied. This is not very difficult logic to follow. Well, not for most of us.
Excellent., thanks for your answer. You've made it quite clear that in your case, it's a toxic mix of both malice *and* incompetence. Well done!
I've re-read that a couple of times, and it still makes no sense. Parity of treatment, which is what feminists actually argue for, is not the same as "we demand equal numbers of suicides between men and women!", because the latter would be *a really stupid thing* to argue for. Is it malice or incompetence that leads you to put forth weird strawmen?
Why would you use such a stupid example as "an atractive [sic] female and I passed out nudies of myself to any and every short-term fling"?
There are plenty of cases of people having pictures put up by long-term partners with whom they're in a loving relationship. And there are some cases where the pictures have been taking without the victim's knowledge.
1. You're creating a hierarchy of sexual behaviour that reinforces conservative notions of what is morally "worthy", as though we're still in the 50s
2. You're deliberately ignoring that even people who are "blameless" within the rules of such a hierarchy are victims.