Official Facebook 2 Israel dates - tickets available now (May 9 & 11, 2020)




(First link is dead currently).

Venues:
Zappa Amphi Shuni, Binyamina (May 9)
Pavilion 1 - EXPO, Tel Aviv (May 11)

(Please note: there is a date discrepancy between the FB post's date and the venue's - the gig cited as on the 10th is listed as being on the 11th via the venue).

Regards,
FWD.

Update:
A working link for tickets on the 9th:


Media item:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

If the Jews control everything, then why aren't they able to surreptitiously kill anti-Semites in their sleep, or why can't they shut down internet sites where people complain about the Jews? It's a pretty ineffective cabal if there is one.

And why do we want a return to families? What's the problem with homosexuality? Aristotle said homosexuality was a praiseworthy thing on the account that its practitioners generally did not reproduce, thus keeping the population in check. (Good point, Aristotle). At 8 billion and counting, perhaps what's needed is more homosexuality, not less. I don't know; I'm not an admirer of the aesthetic of pride parades and glittery body paint, but maybe some kind of return to ancient Greece would be a good thing. Just thinking out loud.

Morrissey, at any rate, is, if not a Zionist, then pro-Zionist, and at the very least bisexual.
Hey Aubrey, Jews already censor people on the internet. Look up how many channels have been deleted because they are critical of Jewish programming. They have passed anti-BDS laws and have made it illegal in some states in America and Europe to question the Holocaust. So get outta here pretending Jews aren't doing these things. AIPAC has power over American politicians.
And we should return to families because it's families that make a country. If you want civilization to continue to decay then sure keep promoting sodomy
 
Last edited:

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
Hey Aubrey, Jews already censor people on the internet. Look up how many channels have been deleted because they are critical of Jewish programming. They have passed anti-BDS laws and have made it illegal in some states in America and Europe to question the Holocaust. So get outta here pretending Jews aren't doing these things. AIPAC has power over American politicians.
And we should return to families because it's families that make a country. If you want civilization to continue to decay then sure keep promoting sodomy
True, there is censorship all over the internet. A lot of the strictures that apply to saying unkind things about Jews fall under the broader umbrella of what is termed "hate speech," which applies not only to Jews but to many other groups as well. Censorship specifically targeting anti-Semites, though, is not as common, though of course it exists. Mainly we see this as it applies to Holocaust denial. This is not so much a Jewish stricture as it is a governmental one. Germany for example is a minority Jewish country, but it has anti-Holocaust denial laws on the books. You might argue that the members of the German government are puppets on strings, being controlled by Jews. But that requires a certain faith in what is yet unproven (i.e., a Hebraeo-Luciferian cabal of global dominance), proof of which relies on circular logic or secret gnosis, and it is more likely (and more evident) that the Germans are simply ashamed of their country's past and wish to quash any distasteful re-emergences of that sort of thing.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something like, "why is it always that those who deny the Holocaust seem be to the very people who ought to be overjoyed that it happened?" Anyway, consider that in the U.S., the passage of anti-BDS laws does not even require puppet politicians on Jewish strings, since many elected officials here are Evangelical Protestants who support the existence of Israel due to some queer eschatological beliefs they hold about Jesus coming down from the clouds on a white horse when the Jews are returned to Zion. Or something of the sort.

If you are pro-family, then that is your stance—but your avatar, which is a very good one indeed, appears to be our beloved Morrissey holding a lamb. I will assume for the moment that you share (admirably) his concern for animal welfare. But if this is so, then kindly consider that the promotion of marriage and breeding is very bad for animals, statistically speaking, since vegans and vegetarians are only a small portion of the populace, and most people who marry and reproduce will only spawn more eaters of meat, increasing the demand for factory farming. "And such kids come to resemble their parents as ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag," as Morrissey put it.

The would-be God Emperor, I think, would not quite share your policy ideals. He has been critical of marriage ("Will Never Marry," "Kick the Bride Down the Aisle") as well as reproduction ("I'm The End of the Family Line"). I get the pronounced sense that the whole pro-family, "manly men and breeding women" scene is rather abhorrent to his tastes. He finds such people dull. The only "manliness" that appeals to him is probably of the, um, homoerotic sort. I do not think he holds to the idea of a strong, fertile, godly populace being the ideal. "The strong are always barbaric, and the finest working models of American society are still those who would never dare question firmness, strictness, Christianity, or the untouchable food and farming industries." And if you want to talk about "decay," then I submit to you that Morrissey is a decadent. At least aesthetically—artistically. Decadent with a capital D. Oscar Wilde and all that. A maundering, die-away effeminacy. I do not think you will find M. condemning sodomy ever. To the God of the Hebrews, sodomy is one "the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance." However, I doubt Morrissey would agree with God on that one. Perhaps if M. is deified and made emperor he will give us a new law and a new covenant.
 
Last edited:
True, there is censorship all over the internet. A lot of the strictures that apply to saying unkind things about Jews fall under the broader umbrella of what is termed "hate speech," which applies not only to Jews but to many other groups as well. Censorship specifically targeting anti-Semites, though, is not as common, though of course it exists. Mainly we see this as it applies to Holocaust denial. This is not so much a Jewish stricture as it is a governmental one. Germany for example is a minority Jewish country, but it has anti-Holocaust denial laws on the books. You might argue that the members of the German government are puppets on strings, being controlled by Jews. But that requires a certain faith in what is yet unproven (i.e., a Hebraeo-Luciferian cabal of global dominance), proof of which relies on circular logic or secret gnosis, and it is more likely (and more evident) that the Germans are simply ashamed of their country's past and wish to quash any distasteful re-emergences of that sort of thing.

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who said something like, "why is it always that those who deny the Holocaust seem be to the very people who ought to be overjoyed that it happened?" Anyway, consider that in the U.S., the passage of anti-BDS laws do not even require puppet politicians on Jewish strings, since many elected officials here are Evangelical Protestants who support the existence of Israel due to some queer eschatological beliefs they hold about Jesus coming down from the clouds on a white horse when the Jews are returned to Zion. Or something of the sort.

If you are pro-family, then that is your stance—but your avatar, which is a very good one indeed, appears to be our beloved Morrissey holding a lamb. I will assume for the moment that you share (admirably) his concern for animal welfare. But if this is so, then kindly consider that the promotion of marriage and breeding is very bad for animals, statistically speaking, since vegans and vegetarians are only a small portion of the populace, and most people who marry and reproduce will only spawn more eaters of meat, increasing the demand for factory farming. "And such kids come to resemble their parents as ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag," as Morrissey put it.

The would-be God Emperor, I think, would not quite share your policy ideals. He has been critical of marriage ("Will Never Marry," "Kick the Bride Down the Aisle") as well as reproduction ("I'm The End of the Family Line"). I get the pronounced sense that the whole pro-family, "manly men and breeding women" scene is rather abhorrent to his tastes. He finds such people dull. The only "manliness" that appeals to him is probably of the, um, homoerotic sort. I do not think he holds to the idea of a strong, fertile, godly populace being the ideal. "The strong are always barbaric, and the finest working models of American society are still those who would never dare question firmness, strictness, Christianity, or the untouchable food and farming industries." And if you want to talk about "decay," then I submit to you that Morrissey is a decadent. At least aesthetically—artistically. Decadent with a capital D. Oscar Wilde and all that. A maundering, die-away effeminacy. I do not think you will find M. condemning sodomy ever. To the God of the Hebrews, sodomy is one "the four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance." However, I doubt Morrissey would agree with God on that one. Perhaps if M. is deified and made emperor he will give us a new law and a new covenant.
Christopher hitchens was a clown. Although at least he was more honest than his peers such as Sam Harris and Dawkins. That whole analogy is a draw argument
As far as saying Families hurt animals is just dumb point of view. I respect animals but they are certainly not above us and to suggest humans should stop reproducing is absurd. It goes against our very nature and design
 

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
As far as saying Families hurt animals is just dumb point of view. I respect animals but they are certainly not above us and to suggest humans should stop reproducing is absurd. It goes against our very nature and design
Families do hurt animals, though. That's not a point of view; it's factual. Most of the approximately 8 billion humans on this planet eat meat. Ergo, the more humans you make, the more animals will suffer. It doesn't matter if they're "above" us or "below" us. The fact is that they can suffer. You might want to figure out whether there needs to be more than 8 billion of us eating bacon cheeseburgers, or whether it would be more compassionate towards the animals to reduce our voracious carnivorous numbers.

There are a lot of things in "our very nature and design" that are not worth encouraging. Even from a Christian standpoint (in the event that you are a Christian), the standard theology there is that it is in a person's nature to incline to sin. But just because something is inherent in our nature does not make it a good thing. Cruelty and abuse come quite naturally to humans (just visit any playground to observe this in its early stages), but that doesn't mean we should promote cruelty and abuse. There is really nothing, except for our own selfish conceit, that says the human race ought to go on in perpetuity. In fact, it will not. Whether God brings about the end of the world, or whether the sun goes red giant and engulfs the planet, our species will undoubtedly go extinct. I guess the only exception is if Elon Musk, that turd, somehow succeeds and gets us to colonize other planets in other solar systems. Heaven forbid. I'm sure we'd be chowing down on Kentucky-fried alien tentacles.
 
Last edited:
Families do hurt animals, though. That's not a point of view; it's factual. Most of the approximately 8 billion humans on this planet eat meat. Ergo, the more humans you make, the more animals will suffer. It doesn't matter if they're "above" us or "below" us. The fact is that they can suffer. You might want to figure out whether there needs to be more than 8 billion of us eating bacon cheeseburgers, or whether it would be more compassionate towards the animals to reduce our voracious carnivorous numbers.

There are a lot of things in "our very nature and design" that are not worth encouraging. Even from a Christian standpoint (in the event that you are a Christian), the standard theology there is that it is in a person's nature to incline to sin. But just because something is inherent in our nature does not make it a good thing. Cruelty and abuse come quite naturally to humans (just visit any playground to observe this in its early stages), but that doesn't mean we should promote cruelty and abuse. There is really nothing, except for our own selfish conceit, that says the human race ought to go on in perpetuity. In fact, it will not. Whether God brings about the end of the world, or whether the sun goes red giant and engulfs the planet, our species will undoubtedly go extinct. I guess the only exception is if Elon Musk, that turd, somehow succeeds and gets us to colonize other planets in other solar systems. Heaven forbid. I'm sure we'd be chowing down on Kentucky-fried alien tentacles.
You're an idiot if you think Elon Musk is gonna save you. You're also an idiot if you think having families hurts animals. Life and death is a cycle all living things go through. The animal food chain is truth. Our design is intentional and reproducing is both what is important for us and animals to do. Respect it and stop with the fear nonsense
 
S

Stray

Guest
You're an idiot if you think Elon Musk is gonna save you. You're also an idiot if you think having families hurts animals. Life and death is a cycle all living things go through. The animal food chain is truth. Our design is intentional and reproducing is both what is important for us and animals to do. Respect it and stop with the fear nonsense
The average omnivorous human will eat over 800 animals in their lifetime. As 99 percent of the population is non-vegan, the odds are that if you bring a new life into that world, that person will not be vegan. Therefore, it is most likely that, if you bring another person into the world, it´ll result in at least 800 additional animal deaths. It is objectively true that having children is bad for animals. That is indisputable.
¨Life and death is a cycle that all living things go through."
This is irrelevant. Would you agree with this logic if I used it to defend the murder of a human? If not, you must see the moral difference between someone dying naturally and someone having their life taken preemptively and unnecessarily.
"The animal food chain is truth. Our design is intentional and reproducing is both what is important for us and animals to do."
I assume the point you're making here is that it's natural to eat animals. If so, that's an appeal to nature fallacy, as it assumes that what is natural is also right and moral. Pneumonia is natural. Antibiotics are not natural. Are we therefore justified in withholding antibiotics from a patient for the sake of naturality thus allowing them to perish from otherwise perishable malady? If your answer is no, than that proves not only that what is natural isn't always what's right but it proves that sometimes we have a moral imperative to defy nature. Therefore, "our design" is morally irrelevant.
 
The average omnivorous human will eat over 800 animals in their lifetime. As 99 percent of the population is non-vegan, the odds are that if you bring a new life into that world, that person will not be vegan. Therefore, it is most likely that, if you bring another person into the world, it´ll result in at least 800 additional animal deaths. It is objectively true that having children is bad for animals. That is indisputable.
¨Life and death is a cycle that all living things go through."
This is irrelevant. Would you agree with this logic if I used it to defend the murder of a human? If not, you must see the moral difference between someone dying naturally and someone having their life taken preemptively and unnecessarily.
"The animal food chain is truth. Our design is intentional and reproducing is both what is important for us and animals to do."
I assume the point you're making here is that it's natural to eat animals. If so, that's an appeal to nature fallacy, as it assumes that what is natural is also right and moral. Pneumonia is natural. Antibiotics are not natural. Are we therefore justified in w
ithholding antibiotics from a patient for the sake of naturality thus allowing them to perish from otherwise perishable malady? If your answer is no, than that proves not only that what is natural isn't always what's right but it proves that sometimes we have a moral imperative to defy nature. Therefore, "our design" is morally irrelevant.
Animals aren't humans so no, I don't equate their deaths as equal. And you wanna be some coward idiot that doesn't have kids to save a squirrel then cool but normal people can and should have children and grow families. I'm not wasting my time with your semantics about percentage of vegans, I don't care. What is important is men and women growing families together fulfilling their roles as hunter/gatherers , nurturing children and growing into healthy communities. As humans procreate, so do animals, it works out as it has done since beginning of creation
 

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
You're an idiot if you think Elon Musk is gonna save you.
You should work on your reading comprehension before throwing around accusations of idiocy. I do not think Elon Musk is going to save me or anyone else. There is, as with everything, a possibility of that happening, but the odds of it are so infinitesimal that I said it was all but a fact that the human race will go extinct (thank the gods) here on earth. Extinction is what I would prefer—and not a long line of, as Joe Pesci might say, "fat f***s" boarding some Tesla starship. As I said, it would be tragic if we were to somehow go interstellar with our arrogance and rapacity.

You're also an idiot if you think having families hurts animals. Life and death is a cycle all living things go through. The animal food chain is truth. Our design is intentional and reproducing is both what is important for us and animals to do. Respect it and stop with the fear nonsense
As both I and the poster above have already pointed out, it is a factual statement that having families hurts animals. You will not refute logic with belligerence and insults. Your argument here is the so-called "appeal to nature fallacy" mixed with "might makes right." Just because something happens or exists in nature does not mean that it is necessarily good. Otherwise we would be savages, and there would be no ethics. And you're the one lecturing us on "having a civilization"? You should consider making a different avatar for yourself, because both Morrissey and that lamb would not enjoy the fruits of your philosophy.
 
You should work on your reading comprehension before throwing around accusations of idiocy. I do not think Elon Musk is going to save me or anyone else. There is, as with everything, a possibility of that happening, but the odds of it are so infinitesimal that I said it was all but a fact that the human race will go extinct (thank the gods) here on earth. Extinction is what I would prefer—and not a long line of, as Joe Pesci might say, "fat f***s" boarding some Tesla starship. As I said, it would be tragic if we were to somehow go interstellar with our arrogance and rapacity.



As both I and the poster above have already pointed out, it is a factual statement that having families hurts animals. You will not refute logic with belligerence and insults. Your argument here is the so-called "appeal to nature fallacy" mixed with "might makes right." Just because something happens or exists in nature does not mean that it is necessarily good. Otherwise we would be savages, and there would be no ethics. And you're the one lecturing us on "having a civilization"? You should consider making a different avatar for yourself, because both Morrissey and that lamb would not enjoy the fruits of your philosophy.
Aubrey, I'm willing to bet no man wants to procreate with you. I don't even know you and you're nagging me Your boyfriend Elon is an actor and you're living in a fantasy world if you think we're going to Mars. Listen to how stupid you sound. You want the human race to die out for the sake of animals. You're pathetic and should rethink when you speak or else no man will have you. My logic is rooted in nature and history. Your logic is based on unhealthy emotional attachment to animals and clearly a bitter root towards humanity. Men & Women are designed for procreation. Woman who shun children are missing out on their primary design and it leaves them unfulfilled and serving little purpose. Don't ever put a child beneath animal's again
 

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
Aubrey, I'm willing to bet no man wants to procreate with you. I don't even know you and you're nagging me Your boyfriend Elon is an actor and you're living in a fantasy world if you think we're going to Mars. Listen to how stupid you sound. You want the human race to die out for the sake of animals. You're pathetic and should rethink when you speak or else no man will have you. My logic is rooted in nature and history. Your logic is based on unhealthy emotional attachment to animals and clearly a bitter root towards humanity. Men & Women are designed for procreation. Woman who shun children are missing out on their primary design and it leaves them unfulfilled and serving little purpose. Don't ever put a child beneath animal's again
Being a man myself, there is neither any man who wants to procreate with me, nor any man who biologically could. (Aubrey, you should know, is a unisex name). I suppose I could tell you for a third time that I abhor both Elon Musk and his intergalactic fantasies, but that point, like many others, seems hopelessly lost on you, so we must let it pass.

You offer us no logic in your scheme, only your own conceits and preferences. Suffering is a brute fact of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that life should go on. For someone who hates the Jews, your views here appear peculiarly Semitic, seeming to accord with the Hebraic notion of a Creator deity who crafted this world and pronounced it good. But that is only one conceit. A different view is offered in Buddhism, where the obvious fact of life and its sufferings was considered more thoughtfully, and the logical conclusion there is that the goal should be annihilation. Only annihilation can put an end to suffering: anything else, such as procreation, is to varying degrees a sin, since all it does is throw everything back into this world of samsara—the cruel wheel of birth and death and suffering. This too, admittedly, is only a conceit, but conceptually it is far more logical than your own, which is an unthinking appeal to preference and not fact. Voiced with hostility and insults, I might add, which betrays the inscecurity and poverty of your position. Social Darwinism. I think I know your type. "Answerable only to Jesus."
 

Pippistrella

Well-Known Member
Being a man myself, there is neither any man who wants to procreate with me, nor any man who biologically could. (Aubrey, you should know, is a unisex name). I suppose I could tell you for a third time that I abhor both Elon Musk and his intergalactic fantasies, but that point, like many others, seems hopelessly lost on you, so we must let it pass.

You offer us no logic in your scheme, only your own conceits and preferences. Suffering is a brute fact of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that life should go on. For someone who hates the Jews, your views here appear peculiarly Semitic, seeming to accord with the Hebraic notion of a Creator deity who crafted this world and pronounced it good. But that is only one conceit. A different view is offered in Buddhism, where the obvious fact of life and its sufferings was considered more thoughtfully, and the logical conclusion there is that the goal should be annihilation. Only annihilation can put an end to suffering: anything else, such as procreation, is to varying degrees a sin, since all it does is throw everything back into this world of samsara—the cruel wheel of birth and death and suffering. This too, admittedly, is only a conceit, but conceptually it is far more logical than your own, which is an unthinking appeal to preference and not fact. Voiced with hostility and insults, I might add, which betrays the inscecurity and poverty of your position. Social Darwinism. I think I know your type. "Answerable only to Jesus."
...And some say I'm crazy?

You've just taken my crown as the site loon (and you're welcome to it).
 
Being a man myself, there is neither any man who wants to procreate with me, nor any man who biologically could. (Aubrey, you should know, is a unisex name). I suppose I could tell you for a third time that I abhor both Elon Musk and his intergalactic fantasies, but that point, like many others, seems hopelessly lost on you, so we must let it pass.

You offer us no logic in your scheme, only your own conceits and preferences. Suffering is a brute fact of life. It doesn't necessarily follow that life should go on. For someone who hates the Jews, your views here appear peculiarly Semitic, seeming to accord with the Hebraic notion of a Creator deity who crafted this world and pronounced it good. But that is only one conceit. A different view is offered in Buddhism, where the obvious fact of life and its sufferings was considered more thoughtfully, and the logical conclusion there is that the goal should be annihilation. Only annihilation can put an end to suffering: anything else, such as procreation, is to varying degrees a sin, since all it does is throw everything back into this world of samsara—the cruel wheel of birth and death and suffering. This too, admittedly, is only a conceit, but conceptually it is far more logical than your own, which is an unthinking appeal to preference and not fact. Voiced with hostility and insults, I might add, which betrays the inscecurity and poverty of your position. Social Darwinism. I think I know your type. "Answerable only to Jesus."
I think I know your type too, arrogant darwinist that loves sodomy. You probably keep a Dawkins book by your bed next to your tissues You say you're a man but argue like a female. You brought Jews into this , I don't hate the small hats you clown but I recognize some truths about their culture and leadership that you're too cowardly to admit to. You say I have no logical argument yet you're actually arguing against nature this whole thread.
Darwin was an inbred retard who believed in eugenics and wanted the Irish eradicated. You wanna mock Jesus who's Passion represents standing for truth in the face of evil. Meanwhile you're a weak coward that wouldn't stand for anything.
 
S

Stray

Guest
Animals aren't humans so no, I don't equate their deaths as equal. And you wanna be some coward idiot that doesn't have kids to save a squirrel then cool but normal people can and should have children and grow families. I'm not wasting my time with your semantics about percentage of vegans, I don't care. What is important is men and women growing families together fulfilling their roles as hunter/gatherers , nurturing children and growing into healthy communities. As humans procreate, so do animals, it works out as it has done since beginning of creation
I never said that we should regard humans and non-human animals as equal. I was making an argument from consistency by applying your logic elsewhere to see if it stands.
If you're saying that it's okay to kill animals because death is natural, it must also be okay to kill humans because death is natural for humans as well. If the fact that death is natural for humans isn't justification enough to kill a human, the fact that death is natural can't be used as a justification to kill anyone.
You're using an appeal to nature fallacy and ad antiquitatem. Nature and tradition are not always correct or moral. We defy nature all the time for our own well-being. Again, if you believe in curing disease, you're going against nature too. Also, tradition isn't always right either. We've been benefiting from enslaving each other since nigh on the beginning of human history as well. Does that mean that we should continue enslaving people today?
(These are both arguments from consistency, as well. I'm not comparing disease or slavery with the animal holocaust.)
You give no logical reason why we should grow families and why it's so important.
The point that having kids is bad for animals doesn't rely on the opinion that animals are worth more than children. Only when there's consciousness can there be pleasure or suffering. If you don't have the baby, neither the baby nor the approximately 800 animals that the baby will likely demand will come into existence. The non-existent baby will not suffer from being deprived of the pleasures of life because a non-existent baby can't suffer. Nor can the hundreds of animals who were never bred. However, if you have the baby, you'll be bringing a lot more suffering into the world; the baby will suffer from the pain of existence and the animals will suffer greatly as well. By having a baby, you're bringing a lot more pain and suffering into the world and by not having a baby, you're preventing it. Again, choosing not to have a baby doesn't hurt the non-existent baby.
Do you have any objections to this reasoning?
I'm actually an anti-natalist for the sake of human suffering, though Aubrey has opened my eyes as to the effect that producing children will have on other animals. If ever I get a maternal urge, I'll adopt.
 
I never said that we should regard humans and non-human animals as equal. I was making an argument from consistency by applying your logic elsewhere to see if it stands.
If you're saying that it's okay to kill animals because death is natural, it must also be okay to kill humans because death is natural for humans as well. If the fact that death is natural for humans isn't justification enough to kill a human, the fact that death is natural can't be used as a justification to kill anyone.
You're using an appeal to nature fallacy and ad antiquitatem. Nature and tradition are not always correct or moral. We defy nature all the time for our own well-being. Again, if you believe in curing disease, you're going against nature too. Also, tradition isn't always right either. We've been benefiting from enslaving each other since nigh on the beginning of human history as well. Does that mean that we should continue enslaving people today?
(These are both arguments from consistency, as well. I'm not comparing disease or slavery with the animal holocaust.)
You give no logical reason why we should grow families and why it's so important.
The point that having kids is bad for animals doesn't rely on the opinion that animals are worth more than children. Only when there's consciousness can there be pleasure or suffering. If you don't have the baby, neither the baby nor the approximately 800 animals that the baby will likely demand will come into existence. The non-existent baby will not suffer from being deprived of the pleasures of life because a non-existent baby can't suffer. Nor can the hundreds of animals who were never bred. However, if you have the baby, you'll be bringing a lot more suffering into the world; the baby will suffer from the pain of existence and the animals will suffer greatly as well. By having a baby, you're bringing a lot more pain and suffering into the world and by not having a baby, you're preventing it. Again, choosing not to have a baby doesn't hurt the non-existent baby.
Do you have any objections to this reasoning?
I'm actually an anti-natalist for the sake of human suffering, though Aubrey has opened my eyes as to the effect that producing children will have on other animals. If ever I get a maternal urge, I'll adopt.
Sweetie, you have no kids and no man because of stupid shit like this. Going on and on giving nonsense reasons to live in fear and not enjoy the fulfilment of your womanhood. Also some straw man about killing Humans as justifiable. You're letting Aubrey, the gamma retard, encourage your behavior but need an actual man's guidance because you're lost.
Why is it important? Well for one you're not gonna change the world by voting but by families and instilling traditions, values and culture that gets passed on and spreads. Bear good fruit and you've done more for the world than any vote or public protest ever will
 

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
You've just taken my crown as the site loon (and you're welcome to it).
Surely there are many others deserving of the title. Poor Morrissey can't even post a tribute to one of his favorite actors on his website without people here finding an obscure reason to be disgruntled about it. Then there are the posters who feel they can dogmatically spot wool and leather from a single photograph. There are more than several deranged users on this site.

I'm not sure what you found so crazy in my post. All I essentially did was to delineate certain differences between the Hebrew and Buddhist worldviews. As these religions have millions of adherents, I don't know if I'd say they're crazy in the same way we'd speak about a mental illness. There is, of course, the old adage that if one person has a delusion, they're crazy, whereas if enough people share it, it's a religion.

For the prize of Bull Goose Loony, though, it almost has to go to this condescending, macho-strutting, 4-chan-reject creationist anti-sodomy Christian who, inexplicably, likes and admires Morrissey. I mean, that's just insane.
 

Aubrey McFate

Lonely in Barcelona
I think I know your type too, arrogant darwinist that loves sodomy. You probably keep a Dawkins book by your bed next to your tissues You say you're a man but argue like a female. You brought Jews into this , I don't hate the small hats you clown but I recognize some truths about their culture and leadership that you're too cowardly to admit to. You say I have no logical argument yet you're actually arguing against nature this whole thread.
Darwin was an inbred retard who believed in eugenics and wanted the Irish eradicated. You wanna mock Jesus who's Passion represents standing for truth in the face of evil. Meanwhile you're a weak coward that wouldn't stand for anything.
Technically speaking, fellatio is a form of sodomy, so I guess I'm guilty as charged, but surely you're not even averse to that one yourself, unless your Christianity is of an extreme form. Did you know that the Catholic Church permits rectal intercourse between spouses? True story. It's in a theology manual. I wonder if you're one of those. Some of the vilest sodomites are Christians. As for Darwin, I do accept the theory of evolution. I don't find much to like about it, though. Darwin said, "there is grandeur in this view of life," which is maybe true in some sense, but it's a vicious sort of grandeur, and it repulses me. Again, nature is nothing to be emulated. Things like rape and infanticide are natural, known not only to humans but other animals, but I don't think you'd want to argue that those things are permissible because they occur in nature. If you want to have ethics, you have to appeal to something other than nature, otherwise you're an amoral barbarian (something you evince more and more with each post).

I'm not sure where I mocked Jesus' Passion. But do you know who said, "Jesus died for somebody's sins | but not mine?" One of Morrissey's favorite lyricists, that's who. A "rock n' roll n*****." And a woman, at that. Whose best friend was a notorious gay photographer who took pictures of bullwhips shoved up anuses. Look out, Francine.
 
Technically speaking, fellatio is a form of sodomy, so I guess I'm guilty as charged, but surely you're not even averse to that one yourself, unless your Christianity is of an extreme form. Did you know that the Catholic Church permits rectal intercourse between spouses? True story. It's in a theology manual. I wonder if you're one of those. Some of the vilest sodomites are Christians. As for Darwin, I do accept the theory of evolution. I don't find much to like about it, though. Darwin said, "there is grandeur in this view of life," which is maybe true in some sense, but it's a vicious sort of grandeur, and it repulses me. Again, nature is nothing to be emulated. Things like rape and infanticide are natural, known not only to humans but other animals, but I don't think you'd want to argue that those things are permissible because they occur in nature. If you want to have ethics, you have to appeal to something other than nature, otherwise you're an amoral barbarian (something you evince more and more with each post).

I'm not sure where I mocked Jesus' Passion. But do you know who said, "Jesus died for somebody's sins | but not mine?" One of Morrissey's favorite lyricists, that's who. A "rock n' roll n*****." And a woman, at that. Whose best friend was a notorious gay photographer who took pictures of bullwhips shoved up anuses. Look out, Francine.
Aubrey, you're a clown. I made it very clear why Its important to procreate. You can keep your circle jerk with Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens. All athiest idiots who's arguments have been exposed for being on a foundation of sand. Darwin was into incest (fact) and believed in eugenics (fact). Go worship that retard all you want. Your comments on masculinity expose your insecurity. My morals are grounded in the Creator and your dumb strawman about rape and murder being a part of nature, thinking some how that invalidates my point that human reproduction is natural is stupid. You're a weak coward that would rather your bloodline die off than see harm to an animal makes you a joke of a man. I'm done conversation with you because I think you're pathetic
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom