by Alyakia » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:25 pm
by Stoic Melancholics » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:26 pm
Genivaria wrote:I don't really trust the Dailymail.
by Des-Bal » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:27 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Stoic Melancholics » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:27 pm
Khadgar wrote:Daily Mail is not a source.
by Stoic Melancholics » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:28 pm
by Redsection » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:28 pm
by Alyakia » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:28 pm
Stoic Melancholics wrote:Khadgar wrote:Daily Mail is not a source.
The double standards are strong here.
As opposed to addressing the point, and the fact that the OP has posted more than one source, it's more convenient to whine about the Daily Mail. That's not debate, that's childish.
Furthermore, few right wingers here say "wah HuffPost isn't the source", so id hope that the other side can respect most sources, regardless of their political slant. I acknowledge that the Daily Mail isn't perfect, but can we stop with this "Wahh Daily Mail" evil nonsense?
by Visegradian Poland » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:28 pm
by Des-Bal » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:28 pm
Redsection wrote:Dear god , the left wants to do what ? This is just disturbing ...
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Zoice » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
by Sanctissima » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
Pommerstan wrote:The youth wing of the Swedish Liberal party has filed a motion to legalize necrophilia and incest
They want to legalize sex between two consenting siblings over the age of 15, and sex with a corpse if there is a written permission made before the person died.
'We don't like morality laws in general, and this legislation is not protecting anyone right now,' Cecilia Johnsson, Liberal Youth chairperson in Stockholm told Aftonbladet.
'We are a youth wing and one of our tasks is to think one step further.
It also said that if a person has stated in a written will that they consent to someone having sex with their corpse, this should also be legal.
'It should be your own decision what happens with your body after you die, and if that happens to be that you want to bequeath your remains to a museum or to science, or if you want to bequeath your remains to someone to sleep with them, then that should be ok,' Ms Johnsson adds.
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... enior.html
Since it is from the Daily Mail I shall post from swedish mainstream media because it was the only english source I could find: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article22305329.ab
I personally do not agree with this and think it is to bit far. So, what the NSG audience say about this proposal? Should necropfilia and incest be legalised?
by Visegradian Poland » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
by Dejanic » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
Redsection wrote:Dear god , the left wants to do what ? This is just disturbing ...
by UIJ » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
Lore TL;DR; The stars are dead, the Universe is cold and empty. This is The End. Hoosher Dump send me ☢️uranium☢️ so my hooshies can eat xoxoxo | I am tired of summies :alas: Pro: you reading my lore and getting kinda sad, maybe a lil glum, then seeing the Hooshers and getting a lil happy, ☣️☢️☣️ Anti: anyone under the age of 20, summies, generic boring nations, super tryhard edgelord nations, NSG, NSGers (all of them) |
by Zurkerx » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:29 pm
by Stoic Melancholics » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 pm
Alyakia wrote:Stoic Melancholics wrote:
The double standards are strong here.
As opposed to addressing the point, and the fact that the OP has posted more than one source, it's more convenient to whine about the Daily Mail. That's not debate, that's childish.
Furthermore, few right wingers here say "wah HuffPost isn't the source", so id hope that the other side can respect most sources, regardless of their political slant. I acknowledge that the Daily Mail isn't perfect, but can we stop with this "Wahh Daily Mail" evil nonsense?
hurrah for the blackshirts
by Genivaria » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 pm
Visegradian Poland wrote:IT'S JUST A SEXUAL ORIENTATION GUEHUEHUE
DAILY MAIL IS NOT A SOURCE HUUEEEEEE
by Visegradian Poland » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 pm
by Des-Bal » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Redsection » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Elwher, Keltionialang, Kowani, Maximum Imperium Rex, Plan Neonie, Rio Cana, Talibanada, Tungstan, Zancostan
Advertisement