Jump to content
NEurope

navarre

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    591

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by navarre

  1. Posted

    Wales isn't the South of England. It's Wales.

     

    Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. :indeed:

     

     

    The Villan's notes:

     

    Take a look back at the first page. Note to self that navarre said Britain, not England. Apologise. Hope to hell navarre doesn't embarass you more.

  3. Posted

    That's because you all have to have the last word. Seriously just shut the fuck up. You aren't going to agree with him anyway so if he responds to you just ignore him.

     

    Thank you Mr Moderator! Would you like some tea there Mr Moderator? Love your pyjamas you're wearing Mr Moderator!

     

    The fish, seeing as everyone seems hell-bent on destroying out intriguing (yet admittedly unrelated) conversation, let's make our own thread about this. Yay or nay?

  4. Posted

    Have you actually lived in Paris? I doubt it. Go try it - I assure you it shits on London - like most things do in France. Sure, the French are losers, but at least they build for the future - their rail and road networks puts our to shame. Plus the metro is actually reliable.

     

    No, I have never lived in Paris, nor have any intention to live there. Their road networks are destroyed by hefty tolls you have to pay every 50 KM- and I'm very satisfied with Britain's current rail network, thanks. What, you think I'm going to move out of London just because the French have better transport? Seriously, you think Paris is better than London because their trains arrive on time?

     

    Yeah as The Villain said. What if we like where we are. Neither North nor South.

     

    But the Midlands isn't included. O.K. Let's just pretend the Midlands don't exist. What part of the country would you rather reside in?

  7. Posted

    Please, enlighten me to these flaws.

     

    Also, this reeks of the pot calling the kettle black, what with the bible being possibly the most contradictory books I've read.

     

    Religion threads never end well you the believers. This population is here is mainly atheistic and apathetic. The remainder are banned (the Finns!), can't argue points for shit, or Haden.

     

    Wait. I never said I was a Christian. Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, as my late Father always reminded me, and you seem to be doing a lot of it.

     

    For a start, Dawkins should do some real evidence other than trawling the internet for famous aethiest quotes in which he seems to do a lot.

     

    Also, he only has a superficial knowledge of the Bible (as Christianity is the main 'victim' of his book'). You'd think for someone who's so against a Holy Book would have at least sufficient knowledge of it, but Dawkins seems to have derived all knowledge from a few Sunday School Classes. I think when he attributes the book of Hebrews' authourship to Paul is when you realise just how bad things are.

  8. Posted

     

    I've read it, it's quite a good compilation of arguments against religion. My views, however, are not derived from his - he just states them in an effective manner. Oh, and at least my side's lunatic is can back up what he's raving about. :indeed:

     

    Anyway, whatever happened to the dropping of this subject?

     

    It is a book plagued by flaws, whose only appeal is to aethiests. Theists will read it but ignore it, as not serious religious person will have their views swayed by one authour.

     

    I vote for a religion thread, so lt's this drop this.

  9. Posted

     

    And whoever said "where's the London option" can get bent. London's awful - sure it's cool to visit but living there is dreadful = and horribly expensive too! Try something better like Paris.

     

    Wait, you insult London then suggest an even worse place to live in? Where's the logic in that?

     

    And for all the Midlands residents, please note this is not a 'Where do you live' thread, this is 'Which do you think is better' thread. I live in the South but I voted North. You choose which part you think is better, not where you think you live.

  10. Posted

    It's paedophilia by the way not pea..

     

    Also, sexual abuse cases are usually initiated by a close/trusted member/friend of the family, as opposed to random people on the street.

     

    Also, someone who happened to rape a kid isn't necessarily a paedophile, he may just be an oppurtunist rapist, not someone with a primary attraction to pre-pubescents, so he's a sick fuck, but he may not have the same motivations.

     

     

    Amen to that.

  11. Posted

    The ancient argument over which part of Britain is superior... revived.

     

    I live in London. I like the South. Our weather is warmer than your weather in the North. Our cities are more bustling than you I the North. Our tourist attractions are far superior and tonnes more popular than those in the North.

     

    Despite this, I prefer the North. The people are friendlier, the countryside is more beautfiul and unspoilt, the Newcastle and Northumbrian accents are cuter on females (I emphasize it is only the Newcastle and Nothumrian areas. I'm not keen on Liverpudlian or Scottish accents), and, however shallow a statement this may be, it's true: the girls are better looking. Real beauty. Not Southern ugliness masked by make-up.

     

    Vote now.

  14. Posted

    Russia, is, in my opinion, an admirable country. Following the collapse of Communism, and subsequantly half the USSR, Russia has made a fantastic recovery.

     

    But rocky relations are not the way to go. Russia is not a power to be reckoned with, and is the most powerful nation in the world, bar the US.

     

    However, another Cold War, or at least one on the scale of the previous would-be-conflict, is extremely unlikely. I doubt Russia would want to be overwhelmed by NATO and the EU, and we strengthen their economy too much for Russia to ever seriously consider wanting another Cold War.

  15. Posted

    Anyone who still doesn't get it.

     

     

     

    I doubt anyone here thinks the contrary, my friend. We're discussing, however, what makes it wrong, why people do it, and why, for the love of God, it is considering a mental instability.

  16. Posted

    It's because it's wilful ignorance. They're ignoring scientific evidence, and trying to push their groundless beliefs into the school system as scientific ideas.

     

    You're generalising, on a somewhat massive scale.

     

    I am a creationist. I'll admit that. The difference between me and you (other than the obvious ones), is that I not only accept but respect the views of others. I accept the Big Bang Theory. I accept the evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't destroy creationism.

     

    Out of interest, have you ever read The God Dilusion? Because it seems your views are derived from Dawkins, who is, to put it lightly, a raving lunatic with nothing better to do with hevery minute other than to convince himself how untrue God is.

  17. Posted

    I can't even believe we need to debate this. Though I guess this is the inevitable conclusion of a culture that subscribes to the view that whatever gives you pleasure must be fine and healthy.

     

    Things aren't right or wrong merely because a majority of people believe so. We as humans are not so primitive as to be entirely conditioned morally and socially by our societies - we have deeper moral intuitions. In the case of this subject our moral intuition against it is derived from how obviously unnatural it is to be attracted to people who are not even by nature's design supposed to be attractive to us. Just think why physical attraction itself exists - it exists as a function to encourage us to reproduce, hence why we are attracted by signs of fertility in the opposite sex. Being attracted to children isn't simply wrong because it's weird in society's eyes, it's a subversion of our nature.

    Juliet was 14. She would have been fertile and capable of bearing a child. Cases like that are entirely different to having an attraction for someone who hasn't even reached adolescence.

     

     

    I disagree. As warandchaos and rokhed00 have previously discussed, peadophilia was once upon a time considered the 'norm', and everyone was 'a pervert then'. Why, you have to ask yourself? Were children invariably more attractive then then they are today? Or was it a medieval trait? No, it was simply because of society's perception of it.

     

    Now, I do agree with you to a point. If murder wasn't against the law, I doubt I'd go out and kill someone.

     

    And, your argument stands no ground against homosexuality. It may not be deemed unaccaetable by society, but seeing as it's so unnatural, how comes our moral tuition doesn't dislike it?

  19. Posted

    Having paedophilia = being attracted to children. Not wrong.

     

    Committing acts of paedophilia = having sex with a child or watching child porn. Definitely wrong.

     

    What do we classify as a mental instability? Both peadophilia and homophilia are sexual preferences, not instabilities. Instability is when the paedophile can't control his or her urges, which leads to committing acts of paedophilia.

     

    Yes. An intelligent post.

     

    People are still mixing the words Paedophile and child molester.

     

    Just because someone is attracted to kids doesn't mean they're going to go molest one.

     

    Saying they 100% will, is like saying, because I'm attracted to blondes or whatever means I'm going to go rape a blonde?

     

     

    There is such thing as self control, and just because 10,000 people in the UK are attracted to kids, are you guys seriously saying every single one of them is going to try and have sex with one?

     

    Yes! Another intelligent post. I've skimmed this thread, and these guys have understood what I'm trying to say.

  20. Posted

    People with psychological problems who are deemed dangerous to the general public are generally sectioned to the mental health act.

     

    I think Haggis has a point, why would you likened peadophilia to homosexuality as opposed to someone who is mentally unstable and could cause harm.

     

    What? Since when did having different sexual attrations ensure you are mentally unstable?

     

    I could cause harm. A gay man could cause harm. Harming someone you're attracted to isn't restricted to peadophilia.

     

    Whats wrong in comparing them? For one, fucking a guy (who is also gay) wouldn't fuck up their life. Whereas an adult having sex with a child would :/

     

    As I said earlier, that's only because society would destroy you. If having sex with a child became legal, no-one would turn a blind eye.

  21. Posted

    I really dislike the fact you're technically comparing someone that finds the same sex attractive to a peadophile. It's simple, there's nothing wrong with a man finding another man attractive and wanting to do something about it even though like you say this was once illegal. But we know there is obviously something incredibly wrong about someone finding a child sexually attractive, there's no question about that.

     

    Would I throw a brick through their window if I knew where one lived? No. I think thats pointless behaviour.

     

    Why? They're both attractions which can't be helped. Who are you to say what's wrong and right? Morals are influenced by society; as I said earlier, if this was 40 years ago, you'd be saying the same thing about homosexuality. Moreover, if it was legal to be sexually attracted to children, no doubt your opinion would change. It would be deemed socially acceptable.

     

    Obviously, having sex with a child is wrong. There's no two ways about it. As previously stated, children are too young and don't understand (I don't understand it, their bodies aren't even developed, but it's isn't a choice). But just because I fancy mixed-race women, it doesn't mean I'm going to go out one day and forcibly have all mixed-race women I see have sex with me. I just won't.

     

    My point: Peadophilia is wrong. It is socially unacceptable, because society has branded it that way. But it isn't an inexcusable crime. Obviously, pursuing a peadophile's fantasies would be inexcusable. But merely being attracted is excusable. Peadophiles have as much control over their sexual attractions as they do over the weather.

  23. Posted

    There's a huge difference between wanting to have sex with a mixed race and wanting to have sex with a child.

     

    Yes, but their sexual attractions aren't hurting anyone unless they do go out and rape a child. Of the 10,000 peados in Britain, remember only a minority have ever acted on their feelings.

  24. Posted

    Now, jokes and insults aside, peadophilia is a serious matter. It's estimated there are 10,000 peadophiles in the UK, and it is a growing concern amongst Police. But, why should we be so judging to other people's attractions? I mean, personally I'm very attracted to mixed race women- gay men are very attrcated to men, and my friend is very attracted to older women (don't ask). The point is, we can't help what we're attracted to. I by no means condoning peadophilia, just trying to find your views on the subject matter.

     

    If there was a peadophile down your road, would you stick a brick thorugh their window?

×