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.
Why? Go on, explain your logic.
I couldn't agree more re the vapidity. You only have to look back to old Heinlein stories to see someone making an actual content-filled prediction about the social impact of driverless cars (see for example, Between Planets)
No-one, including me. That's why I used the word "even".
If you are indeed secular, perhaps you'd care to share with the rest of us what secular thought process leads you to conclude homosexual acts are wrong, why you call yourself righteousness, and why you talk about fornication. If it's an attempt at sarcasm, it's really rubbish. If it's serious, and you're seriously not religious, it's really
This is completely mad! The separation of church and state is the *same thing* as not establishing a state religion. If you put up the Ten Commandments on a gigantic plaque outside City Hall, you are, de facto, establishing Christianity as the religion that the state endorses. (Judaism doesn't have the Ten Commandments, it has the Aseret Dibrayot, which means something rather different.)
No, homosexual acts aren't wrong. Even if it says so in your "holy" book, which most people on the planet don't think is holy.
I hope this clears up your confusion on the matter!
Funny how the Bible is just as unequivocal on the subject of not eating oysters and not mixing different types of cloth, but no-one seems to give a shiny shit about banning bivalve eaters or non-shatness wearers from their premises. And the Bible also has some strong words about not tolerating unethical behaviour, such as people who give insufficiently to charity, or murder, or do not honour their mother and father, but those aspects of behaviour also never seem to be interrogated by Christian proprietors anxious to ensure their customers are behaving appropriately. No, instead the only thing they care about is where the cock gets lodged. The fixation on what happens in bedrooms is really really tiresome.