Friday, 15 January 2016

Offended liberal curated my tweets on sex

'Tis true that I do say extramarital sex should become a sexual offence attracting corporal punishment as prescribed by 24:2.

Says I am sexually-frustrated and may wish to assist me in relief.

Actually, the male adulterer and fornicator would also be similarly punished under 24:2 of the Koran.

What have I said that is untrue or illogical? She won't say, but agrees with a self-confessed madman that I am mad. Liberals, eh?

What's there to be scared of? What does she think is going to happen?

Metuant dum oderint, eh?

"May" is not the same as "is" or "will", is it? When you say of someone they need sorting it out or a good slapping or even "a good poking", you don't actually mean you would do it yourself, do you? You might do perhaps, but you have certainly not said so, therefore it should in no way be interpreted as a promise or a declaration.

As for being an extremist, this term just means "non-mainstream" or "out of harmony with current government thinking". If the government says YES but you say NO, who is the extremist? If the government says NO but you say YES, who is the extremist? It is a meaningless term! As I keep saying, it is better to be Far Right than Far Wrong ...

Wow, not only has this silly woman blocked me, she has protected her tweets and changed her username to @BerthaBagshot in a desperate effort to hide from me, as if she feared I would do something to her. Don't worry, Victoria Bertha darling! It is enough for me to know that I won the argument and as a result you tried to traduce me in all sorts of ways, maliciously calling me mad, bad and dangerous to know and even claiming I merited police attention. That woman is clearly hysterical. I suppose she is afraid her friends who think her so erudite and enlightened will notice that she cannot come up with a single counter-argument to any of mine.


CG said...

If you had 3 desert islands; put 100 fertile men on one, 100 fertile women on the other, & 50 fertile of each on the last. Who would last longer? Its very simple.

Take into account as well that in a complex civilization a same-sex couple always need a third party. Third parties have to be constantly procured for each couple presuming they want to propagate.

Claire Khaw said...

Libtards like this Victoria woman haven't mastered the basics of sexual reproduction, it would appear.

CG said...

I thought sex education was supposed to inform the public about these things.

The other point I was trying to make with the desert island thing was that its not the number of individuals involved in a relationship thats important but the complementarity.

Claire Khaw said...

If you are going to have children you might as well have legitimate children.

CG said...

I think you've hit on something profound. In a mass democracy people want to be seen to be something by their peers & dont reflect on themselves to see if they are actually talking a lot of nonsense.

Probably a deep sense of alienation that is only relieved by appearing to stand out from the crowd while still being part of an in crowd.

Claire Khaw said...

You mean like this stupid woman who probably thinks she is so very intelligent and enlightened?

CG said...

I think theres a lot of people like that. Maybe even people who occupy high public office.

Claire Khaw said...

If she could she would have me thrown in jail. She was pretending to be frightened or maybe she was really frightened ... of truth and reason! Then she pretended that I was a danger and so so scary, when in fact people like her have been in charge for DECADES.

CG said...

Another contradiction occurs when people say that 'it is my business what I do at home.' That is true. But marriage is a public act. Two people present themselves publicly asking for public approval. The public can disapprove of the union. What is the reason for that?

All these seemingly obscure things that peoples everywhere have put in place are to protect family lines, protect legitimacy, inheritance, etc... Things that an 'enlightened rationalist' cant understand. I think the British aristocracy still has strict rules in place & if they do they might just end up back in charge.