Forster Keys wrote:I sometimes think he might be having us on.
[sarcasm]Y-you mean trolling? No wai! That's impossible![/sarcasm]
Advertisement
by Jormengand » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:38 pm
Forster Keys wrote:I sometimes think he might be having us on.
Jormengand wrote:It would be really meta if I sigged this.
by Forster Keys » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:41 pm
by 1000 Cats » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:42 pm
Forster Keys wrote:1000 Cats wrote:Yeah. And when he does answer something that wouldn't be easily countered even by someone who doesn't share his viewpoints, he just rattles off something he has said before with little meaning, no evidence, and that has no relevance to the post he is supposed to be answering, as in Simon Cowell's post above.
Has he actually answered how it could be considered a "social construct" when sexual stimulation has inbuilt evolutionary chemical rewards? And that this phenomenon exists in even animals of basic psychology?
I sometimes think he might be having us on.
Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.
by Jormengand » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:42 pm
Jormengand wrote:It would be really meta if I sigged this.
by New Amerik » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:44 pm
by Domicia Rex » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:46 pm
by Forster Keys » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:48 pm
1000 Cats wrote:Forster Keys wrote:
Has he actually answered how it could be considered a "social construct" when sexual stimulation has inbuilt evolutionary chemical rewards? And that this phenomenon exists in even animals of basic psychology?
I sometimes think he might be having us on.
He hasn't yet, no, and there must be two dozen people who have said it. He's just a confused and repressed fellow who has difficulty reconciling differences between his feelings and empiricism. His threads haven't changed in half a year. So no, I don't think he's having us on, and I certainly feel sorry for him, however much these threads aggravate me.
by Forster Keys » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:48 pm
by Tlaceceyaya » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:18 pm
Forster Keys wrote:1000 Cats wrote:Yeah. And when he does answer something that wouldn't be easily countered even by someone who doesn't share his viewpoints, he just rattles off something he has said before with little meaning, no evidence, and that has no relevance to the post he is supposed to be answering, as in Simon Cowell's post above.
Has he actually answered how it could be considered a "social construct" when sexual stimulation has inbuilt evolutionary chemical rewards? And that this phenomenon exists in even animals of basic psychology?
I sometimes think he might be having us on.
Dimitri Tsafendas wrote:You are guilty not only when you commit a crime, but also when you do nothing to prevent it when you have the chance.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:49 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ethel mermania, Hidrandia, Norwegian Socialist Republic, Port Carverton, Rosartemis, Russian Brotherhood, The Last World, The Second Order of Life, The Two Jerseys, The Xenopolis Confederation, Valyxias, Vanuzgard, Waffland, Zucksland
Advertisement