If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   2 Girls + 1 Cup = 4 Years   (reason.com) divider line 419
    More: Asinine, victimless crimes, Naruto characters, sexual exploitation, U.S. Department of Justice  
•       •       •

46397 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jan 2013 at 12:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



419 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-17 06:52:19 PM
Courtesy of social conservatism.
 
2013-01-17 07:46:15 PM

Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.


Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.
 
2013-01-17 07:53:30 PM

James F. Campbell: EVERYBODY PANIC: As I posted above: FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). I did not create this concept, but it is a great functional definition. Take a moment and consider its implications. First thing to consider is that: "Either you own you or somebody else does."

Your antiquated idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.


Your new-fangled idea of freedom is both myopic and dangerous.
 
2013-01-17 08:00:04 PM

Tanthalas39: Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.

Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.


www.roflcat.com
 
2013-01-17 08:12:26 PM

Raging Whore Moans: Tanthalas39: Raging Whore Moans: dammit, i just viewed a Reason article.

Let me guess; a frequent HuffPo reader. Or a Hannity fan. Either one applies.

[www.roflcat.com image 600x457]


Someday, young grasshopper, you'll learn. In the meantime, concentrate more on education, logical thinking skills, and applications of such learnings, rather than being internet cool with a tired meme.
 
2013-01-17 09:00:07 PM

GranoblasticMan: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

[i16.photobucket.com image 720x400]


i just realized- if you removed those ears, winnie the pooh looks suspiciously like charles barkley.
 
2013-01-17 09:26:09 PM

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became are even less free of a society with this decision.

 
2013-01-17 09:35:30 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?



I was once in a crowded theater and a fire occurred but nobody knew what to say.

/csb
 
2013-01-17 09:47:34 PM

Wulfman: Uchiha_Cycliste: What part of congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is so hard to comprehend

then what is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?


I was once in a crowded theater and a fire occurred but nobody knew what to say.

/csb


Seriously? Heinous, yet strangely and inappropriately hilarious.
\CSB
 
2013-01-17 09:48:51 PM

log_jammin: dookdookdook: Does CNN do a lot of reports about the STD infection rates of South American fetish porn skanks?

not unless someone tweets it.


Bah ya beat me to it.
 
2013-01-17 10:14:28 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Rockstone: Uchiha_Cycliste: pkellmey: Uchiha_Cycliste: I absolutely can not accept that someone on the other side of the world could lead a completely selfless life, entirely filled with love for their common man; essentially followed in Jesus's footsteps exactly, but since that person has never ever heard of Jesus they are damned. That's bullshiat.

Considering that is not a Catholic teaching, you pretty much left because you were uninformed. It happens.

Well shiat, I guess the priest I talked too was uninformed too.You want to elaborate? It's the core Christian doctrine that the only way into Heaven is through Jesus. Specifically, an adult must receive the sacraments, especially communion. That's what we were taught and the priests I spoke with reinforced.

You must have talked to a pre-vatican II priest, because that's not Catholic Teaching. Not at all. Last Easter Mass we had someone who converted from Islam to Catholicism. She said she was worried about whether her mother would enter heaven, and Father told her that "yes, of course she is in heaven". Good works are more important than faith in many cases. You do not need to be religious to enter heaven, according to Church Doctrine.

That's pretty awesome. And not to be a prick, but can you provide some citation? I've always been told (as I said) that the sacraments were necessary for salvation.
Thank you for correcting my misconceptions, on an unrelated not I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently. Even considering my waning belief in a higher power, sometimes I miss being part of the Church, but I can't in good conscience support that organization.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church has some information about that:
Link

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." CCC 847

CCC 846 (which states that Salvation is only possible through the Church) can be interpreted differently in light of CCC 847. It depends upon what your definition of "knowing" is. Is it willful disobedience? The Church has always taught that unless a sin is intentional, grave, and with full knowledge, it doesn't destroy salvation. My interpretation of CCC 846 is that it would only apply to someone who has full knowledge about the Church, has no reason to doubt, and still is not a part, basically, willful and total rejection despite knowing better (basically, they left maliciously)

As you mention with the sex scandals, I'm sure that someone who were to leave the Church because of that wouldn't be punished eternally for it, since they may now be filled with doubt, and likely aren't leaving maliciously. It helps to know that the number of priests who committed those crimes is very small, 0.01% of the whole population of priests.

I've always been told, at least my Church has told me, that as long as someone truly believes that what they believe to be correct, they may obtain salvation. And I feel purgatory becomes one of the most important things here, since it means anyone could still enter heaven.

Of course, the Church doesn't claim to know who is and who isn't in heaven (other than the Saints).

/ On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...
 
2013-01-17 10:17:20 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently


Yes, it should have. But it wasn't the global Churches at fault, it was individual parishes and diocese. And alot of it was just surprise. Nothing like that had ever happened before. When you think about it, schools were ill prepared to handle similar events until they started happening as well.
 
2013-01-17 10:42:49 PM

Rockstone: / On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...


Let me think for a second... I went from mentioning ye old "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" to saying that while aggravating it shouldn't be surprising and in the process of elaborating spoke of our relatively puritanical society and blaming some of the limits of obscenity of the Dominionists and fundamentalists.

I was asked if I though we'd have a more or less Jesusy acting people if Romney was elected.

Someone else mentioned that while they may have beliefs stemming from their religious views they would never try to legislate based on those views. To which I commended that that poster was a much better person than practically all the God botherers. We discussed what I meant by God botherer. then is snowballed into a discussion of personal views on religion and theology in general.

I appreciate that you took the time to throw up the relevant parts of these Papal edicts, we had discussed them and we decided my misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine stemmed from the discussions I had had with older priests who were not privy to these new fangled and awesome changes.
 
2013-01-17 10:51:53 PM

Rockstone: Uchiha_Cycliste: I really wish the church had dealt with the sexual abuse issues differently

Yes, it should have. But it wasn't the global Churches at fault, it was individual parishes and diocese. And alot of it was just surprise. Nothing like that had ever happened before. When you think about it, schools were ill prepared to handle similar events until they started happening as well.


While the individual abuses were on a more local level, it's my understanding that the awareness that priests were committing these acts and being transferred out of their diocese (only to offend again) instead of being dealt with in a more permanent, punitive, or even judicial manner went pretty high up. I've even heard that Ratzinger may have been aware of what was happening and possibly was even behind covering up these occurrences instead of neutralizing the guilty parties and ensuring that any priest caught would never have another opportunity to offend again.

There seemed to be a systemic corruption and willingness to shuffle around very bad people instead of effectively taking action to stop and prevent abuses. It makes it very hard to support the organization.

Is your understanding of the depth of organizational complicity different from mine?
 
2013-01-18 08:11:22 AM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Rockstone: / On another note, how did this topic start getting discussed in this thread? Only on Fark could that happen. Only on Fark could I reference the CCC in a thread like this...

Let me think for a second... I went from mentioning ye old "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" to saying that while aggravating it shouldn't be surprising and in the process of elaborating spoke of our relatively puritanical society and blaming some of the limits of obscenity of the Dominionists and fundamentalists.

I was asked if I though we'd have a more or less Jesusy acting people if Romney was elected.

Someone else mentioned that while they may have beliefs stemming from their religious views they would never try to legislate based on those views. To which I commended that that poster was a much better person than practically all the God botherers. We discussed what I meant by God botherer. then is snowballed into a discussion of personal views on religion and theology in general.

I appreciate that you took the time to throw up the relevant parts of these Papal edicts, we had discussed them and we decided my misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine stemmed from the discussions I had had with older priests who were not privy to these new fangled and awesome changes.


Conversrations go off course very quickly, heh. But yeah, older priests, mostly those who were priests before Vatican II are more likely to have those misunderstandings. On the other hand, at my parish, the priest is in his 70s and he's one of the most liberal people I know. He did a whole homily on how "all are welcome, whether they are rich or poor, gay or straight, married or divorced, etc".

Uchiha_Cycliste: Is your understanding of the depth of organizational complicity different from mine?


It might be. I don't really know of the extend of the abuses. I know that the diocese where I live probably would have excommunicated priests who comitted the sexual abuses (though I hope the diocese around here never has to do that). I do agree with you that the priets should have been sent to an eclassical court and excommunicated. I'm not sure why they were not especially when the evidence quickly stacked against them. I do not think the intent was malicious. Now the Church does have protocols for handling such abuses. Part of the way I look at it too is like this: I'm an American, despite the cover ups and abuses by the federal government towards GITMO detainees and other prisoners of war. The actions of a small number of individuals in my government does not speak for me. Same with the Church. The actions of a small number of individuals in my Church does not speak for the Church as a whole.

That doesn't absolve the Church of responsibility of course, and I hope I will see an annoncement 'ex cathedra' warning that priests who have comitted these abuses will immediately be defrocked and excommunicated.
 
2013-01-18 12:10:06 PM

cryinoutloud: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

He's a nasty freak, so I don't give a fark. You can find people depraved or desperate enough to do anything. It still doesn't mean that you aren't preying on them. If he's an "artist" and this free expression of ideas means so much to him, how come he isn't making movies of himself eating shiat and farking animals?

Yeah, freedom, blah blah blah. fark him and fark all you perverts who enjoy looking at stuff like this. There's something wrong with you.


Yeah, but you know how this site operates. Farkers always stay true to their school, even if, as in this case, they instinctively know something is wrong and find it repugnant.
 
2013-01-18 03:17:13 PM
spman
We've covered this. In all of those activities the participants take precautionary measure to ensure their safety. You can't ingest feces in an uncontrolled environment without landing in the hospital where my taxpayer dollars are going to pay treat your uninsured ass for salmonella. When people get injured or die doing those things, it's as a result of an unforeseen accident which often times could not be prevented. When you get hepatitis and die from ingesting feces, it's not an accident, it's the natural result that comes about from eating feces!

Yeah we "covered" this - I debunked your "dangerous feces" BS - and you just keep on marching with it. You must really enjoy your ignorance. If fecal matter is so damn dangerous - why is there a medical procedure that involves consuming the feces of a healthy person(to restore a balance of good bacteria and fight infections of bad bacteria)? Those doctors are clearly monsters...

As for precautions, that is easy. Have the actors submit a stool sample prior to filming - to check for infections/harmful microbes. Feces cannot pass along a bacteria that was not present already in the intestines of the person from whom it came. That is what those doctors do before the fecal transplant. Even then this can only be necessary in cases where an actor is to consume another person's feces. Might as well check for STDs while they are there - which I assume is standard practice.

Of course if there where harmful bacteria on the floor/grass etc, and the poop fell onto that... well obviously you could get an infections much the same as if you licked the ground directly. But a person will not get sick from eating their own fresh feces. They would only ingest bacteria that are already present in abundance anyhow. By abundance, I mean bacteria numbering in the trillions. The rest of the feces is simply partially digested food.

As for the rest of you talking about how screwed up someone must be to enjoy this - screw you. It's called a fetish and most people have some sort of sexual abnormality such as this. I'm sure every one of the people casting their judgement has SOMETHING on their computer that other people would look down upon you for(if not call it OBSCENE). But hey - MY paraphilia is different! Everyone is "normal" until you get to know them.

First they came for the furries, but I do not yif so I said nothing.
Then they came for the traps, but I am not a homo in denial so I said nothing
They came next for the feet lovers(you certainly can get an infection from this), and I said nothing because I don't care about feet.
They they came for me, and from by cold dead hands can they have my scat.
 
2013-01-18 03:19:27 PM
Damn I should have previewed that ^^^ Not supposed to be all bold and you can't really tell where quoting him ends an I begin.
 
2013-01-18 05:18:56 PM

bk3k:
First they came for the furries, but I do not yif so I said nothing.
Then they came for the traps, but I am not a homo in denial so I said nothing
They came next for the feet lovers(you certainly can get an infection from this), and I said nothing because I don't care about feet.
They they came for me, and from by cold dead hands can they have my scat.



They sure came a lot.

[i_came.jpg]
 
Displayed 19 of 419 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report