calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 jblew - you are going around in circles, then claiming you are the only one talking in a straight line. Sorry, blew all you want, but you are wrong. Using snopes is stupid, biased, and very hypocritical when you libs demand "scientific" sources for everything. Except YOU are the only ones who get to determine which scientific sources are okay. So, snopes is you fall back cya move - you should be embarrassed. But liberals never are. Not self-aware enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Not self-aware enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 asshole woodpecker is back. he just could not stay away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Post Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 There's things you do and things you don't do. You don't fuck your dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 jblew - you are going around in circles, then claiming you are the only one talking in a straight line. Sorry, blew all you want, but you are wrong. Using snopes is stupid, biased, and very hypocritical when you libs demand "scientific" sources for everything. Except YOU are the only ones who get to determine which scientific sources are okay. So, snopes is you fall back cya move - you should be embarrassed. But liberals never are. Not self-aware enough. I will say this, taking neither side and indicating right nor wrong... J forms and outlines a much stronger argument than you have. The links you posted weren't very supportive and for the most part very catch-phrase-y. Honestly this forum could be taken half way serious if the threads were condense and the information on both sides presented in a much more intelligent and less flaming way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Ah, the habitual lush finally makes his appearance. Rough night in the drunk tank? Wrong kind of tank. His o2 tank has been giving him all kinds lately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Jbluhm buried you here cal. I mean basicslly ehat we've learned is that snopes is a husbsnd wife team that knows how to operate that googlejoogle thingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 It is a little bit ironic isn't it? You can kill your cow and eat her but you can't stand on a soapbox and fuck her. WSS That order is probably reversed in India... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 asshole woodpecker is back. he just could not stay away. This won't matter at all... But I'd just like to point I haven't insulted you at all since our truce. I haven't called you any kind of name. Here, I posted a reaction gif to you attacking someone else's level of self awareness. But I have not called you anything. For the most part, immediately after that truce you were back to your old attacks against me. Claiming everything was a personal attack so you could use "self defense".... Well now you are here, calling me an asshole, and I have yet to say anything similar to you. I'm not surprised you'd get back to this point. Go ahead and claim self defense. Do whatever you need to do. I know any of the reasonable posters on here will see where I'm coming from. We can now return to Jbluhm basically working you over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Honestly this forum could be taken half way serious if the threads were condense and the information on both sides presented in a much more intelligent and less flaming way. The wise and all powerful Tiamat63 has spoken! Fear his word peasants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 So what do we have with this story? - Man is charged with bestiality stemming from oral sex, but no penetration. - His camp argues he shouldn't be charged, because that's not how the law is written - The court agrees based on their interpretation of the law. He isn't charged. - Canada's legislature immediately sees the fault in how the law is written, and is now working to correct it to include oral sex Soooo.... where is the slipper slope argument? Where are Canadian liberals ruining society? Are any of the claims attempting to be made in the OP of this thread still valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 So what do we have with this story? - Man is charged with bestiality stemming from oral sex, but no penetration. - His camp argues he shouldn't be charged, because that's not how the law is written - The court agrees based on their interpretation of the law. He isn't charged. - Canada's legislature immediately sees the fault in how the law is written, and is now working to correct it to include oral sex Soooo.... where is the slipper slope argument? Where are Canadian liberals ruining society? Are any of the claims attempting to be made in the OP of this thread still valid? I guess we will need to see where they go from here right? Did you have a problem with blowing your goat? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 That order is probably reversed in India... Or with you and your sheep, right freak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiamat63 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Or with you and your sheep, right freak? Sometimes a sheep needs to be pushed through the fence. What's the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Or with you and your sheep, right freak? Keep up the good work, DH. You'll get one of these eventually: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com/2013/05/snopes-got-snoped.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2195441/posts https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/ I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder. Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore. http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1284141 http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2009/12/the-problem-with-snopes.html http://blog.doodooecon.com/2012/04/fact-checkers-at-snopes-cover-up-scytl.html https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2010/08/12/snopes-com-leans-left/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 http://theracketreport.com/facebook-proves-snopes-articles-are-fake-satire/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 So if the Canadian legislator actually decides to ban all forms of beastiality are they now going to have to list every single form? It seems as though the Canadian Supreme Court wants a list. For their next orgy perhaps? The slippery slope is obviously getting steeper because it is redefining what actual sexual acts are and what perversion is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 So if the Canadian legislator actually decides to ban all forms of beastiality are they now going to have to list every single form? It seems as though the Canadian Supreme Court wants a list. For their next orgy perhaps? The slippery slope is obviously getting steeper because it is redefining what actual sexual acts are and what perversion is. We live in such an overly litigious society that you would have to list off a Tijuana donkey show menu in the new law because sick turds with lawyers would try to find the one thing left off the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The claims that were attempted to be made in the OP are false. This isn't some drastic move down the slippery slope where oral sex with animals is ok now. It was a loophole in a Canadian law that they are in the process fixing. This provides no ammo to the ridiculous "slippery slope" types. Cal might have realized this, so he is just going on and on about Snopes now, hoping everyone forgets the beginning of this thread. PE is still fighting that losing fight though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Jesus christ enough about these canadian goat fuckers. We've always known this about them now moving on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Like a said before the slippery slope is the fact that they have to define specific sexual acts with animals. Labeling want sex is not a sexual act defined by a law is a slippery slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Like a said before the slippery slope is the fact that they have to define specific sexual acts with animals. Labeling want sex is not a sexual act defined by a law is a slippery slope. No its not. It is some weirdo's lawyer doing their job and identifying holes in how the law is written (which is now going to be immediately changed) to get their client a lighter sentence. The shitty slippery slope argument is still a shitty argument and a logical fallacy that would never stand up in an actual debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1T9JN_bad-woodpecker-bad woodpecker syndrome...sound familiar? http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/01/26/how-not-to-talk-to-or-argue-with-your-spouse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.