Search results

That which I'm given. I detest pointless suffering and cruelty, it's inbuilt. It's not of my own doing. That should answer all your queries and your latter was ironic as it was a soundbite in want of support itself.

For shame... As it happens I've just read 'Q's unofficial latest: "The sky is dark, be vigilant. Lasagne is evil, avoid bechamel sauce. The time is coming..." Some superb cryptic allusions going on there frankly. No wonder folk are hooked on this stuff!

Most people have a functioning moral compass/conscience and a sense of empathy. Do you need a manual to tell you that it's wrong to be cruel to animals or is it inbuilt?

Oh, absolutely not.

There's differences in sex drive from person to person but those that claim males have higher ones than women clearly don't know many... The double standard is absolutely societal.

Curiouser and curiouser...

You do realize that the device you're using to post this loony tunes drivel came about through...science?

What you consider "God's way" would be heresy to another. You seem to make all manner of presumptions in want of support.

I don't claim to be. I'm not so arrogant as to presume I do. Take yer own advice.

He isn't and neither are you. You can both think that you have the authority to speak on behalf of God and what he approves if you like but you don't and it certainly doesn't deserve any respect. Cute soundbite with your latter.

If you think that God implemented a double standard then that bizarre claim alone should have given you pause for thought. Why on earth would God do that?! Where in the name of sanity do you get the notion that men are designed to have a stronger sex drive than women? Seriously, where? This is...

Okay, well, you've parsed this out to shreds for some reason so I'm gonna address parts in short paragraphs and in the main surrounding children's rights as that's the meat of this AFAIC. You want to force people to live by what you believe to be government imposed laws that comport to your...

There's trolling going on here but it's not on UN's part. It's not necessarily on yours either...

What child would that be exactly? You believe that couples having sex outside of wedlock should be forced into marriage with no possibility of divorce regardless, right? You reckon that's a healthy environment for anyone, including a child either present already or further down the line if this...

And still a gullible enough audience to be suckered right back in...

Well, my reply was in the context of a married couple working through disagreement and not about abortion itself but rather the woman having equal say.

In a healthy relationship through the methods outlined to you already. If you respect your wife you'll value her input and if she does with you then the same in turn. A lot of couples have disagreements that are resolved without the need for the husband putting his foot down. There'll be times...

Eh, of course they shouldn't be forced into that. They will anyway. "Consequences" that some on the far religious right deem appropriate? Those can be and are dismissed. What if there is no extended family to step in or if there is, they're just as irresponsible as the parents? What then JR...

Not remotely what I said so what you 'got' sure ain't what I wrote.

All "Q" has been doing since inception is 'throw you a bone'. It's about time you realised that there isn't and never has been any meat on it. Even the emperor would probably have admitted he wasn't wearing any clothes by now...