Masturbation is for Losers
- Thread starter Lori_7
- Start date
- Status
C
charles cure
Guest
masturbation rules, who are you trying to fool?
Onanism is a natural phenomena in all mammal creatures, there's nothing wrong with it, however psychologically if one is overdoing it, it may be just a psychosis of the individual but I've never heard of any physical damage by the act, only perhaps rash, it the individual likes the ruff feel. LOL...
But what got me to posting is the retard making the claim that one will go blind in one eye. LOL, LOL..What an idiot. Sore legs, bad arm, forget what other claims.. If this be true I'd be blind, limped and with one arm looking like Arnold Shartznegger. LOL...LOL
Godless
But what got me to posting is the retard making the claim that one will go blind in one eye. LOL, LOL..What an idiot. Sore legs, bad arm, forget what other claims.. If this be true I'd be blind, limped and with one arm looking like Arnold Shartznegger. LOL...LOL
Godless
Lori:
You're right, that would be a tad silly. An intelligent person would take them to the local police station and hand them in. Perhaps it does not work the same where you are, but if you hand something in and nobody claims it after a month or two, you get to keep it. That way you at least know you have actually tried to reunite the owner with their property.
To be honest the whole affair actually makes me quite curious, (with a little laugh on the side). I mean, judging from what you've said, you would have just used anything you happened to find lying about - whether it be cream or ecstacy tablets. Why, if you are even remotely sane, would you even dream of putting discarded testicle cream on your back?
It could have been a needle full of heroin and you'd just say: "ah, isn't god so sweet", and start injecting. It's foolish - and don't think that applying discarded testicle cream to your back is any less foolish.
Even being the immoral type that would prefer to keep stolen property than hand it in, why oh why would you then use medicine you cannot assume is perfectly safe, in a place that it does not belong? If that is not a clear indication of your mental state then I don't know what is.
What a weak way of trying to justify your dishonesty.
I don't hate you at all. I feel sorry for you, as anyone in my profession would do.
I fail to see what that would accomplish, and to be honest if that's the best you can come up with because a few people happen to disagree with your behaviour, then my pity for you has just gone up a notch.
-----
Happeh:
I hate to burst that bubble you're living in, but so far you haven't said anything even remotely 'powerful'. You are doing what we refer to in England as: "talking utter bollocks".
So, once you're done with all the verbal diarrhea any chance you could provide some evidence for your claims?
I tend not to beat around the bush. Glad you noticed.
Justify this statement. Why "must" I trust you?
It's worth pointing out to you that I am a doctor. You're quite new here so you wouldn't have known that, but having now mentioned it, (and given your statements), if I now say you are mentally ill, it is apparent that I know what I'm talking about. Being a 'shrink', it stands to reason that you "must trust me".
Of course what you failed to realise, (which is rather silly for someone that demands trust), I don't know you. You have in no way provided any credentials, nor have you shown that you are worthy of any level of trust whatsoever. You're just some unknown person somewhere behind a computer screen. As a result of that, when you make claims you need to provide evidence if you expect to get anywhere.
Do you understand?
This entire statement does the exact opposite of reassuring me that you have put any thought into it.
I didn't treat Lori in any manner, other than to inform her that her actions were immoral, and that as a consequence to her actions other people could be suffering needlessly.
Let's stick to the facts here:
1) For her prayers to have been answered, (and some guy to drop medicine outside her house), would mean that some humans free will had been removed by god all because of Lori's demands.
2) The property does not belong to her. By taking and using it she is just as guilty as the person that originally stole it.
3) By not handing it in to the authorities, or at least trying to find the owner, she is clearly demonstrating that her only care is for her own wellbeing.
4) By making demands of god in the first place so he would then remove someone's free will, and provide her with stolen goods clearly demonstrates that her only care is for herself.
These are the facts of the matter. If you think you can dispute them rationally and logically then kindly do so.
If you consider debate and someone informing you of errors or misjudgements as "hurt" and "evil", then fine, ignore me and stay protected. If on the other hand you can handle having your assumptions and beliefs challenged, and have the guts to accept that people will not always agree with you, then by all means talk to me.
But hey, you don't even have to talk to me. Just provide the evidence and we're done.
Alas my friend, it is not. The same goes for father christmas, the tooth fairy and tragically even Lenny the leprechaun.
I know, it's a cute little way to rationalise all the bad things that happen on this planet, indeed to put a 'face' to evil - but you must understand by now that these beings are not real beings?
No it isn't. If you had have said: "'evil' is a word used to describe human beings that act a certain way", then I would concur, but 'satan' is not a word, it's a name.. and implies a specific being:
Satan: n : (Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell
That's debate, Happeh. It wasn't an attack. Being the direct kind of person I am, if I intended to attack her it would be done in one sentence. What I did do was push some facts her way in the hope that it would improve upon her level of morality. Moral humans do not steal from others, do not deprive owners of their property, do not demand that sky beings remove people's free will. And to add to that, it should also be said that sane people do not apply testicle cream to their backs.
I'm blunt, sure, but I do not set out to hurt. If people are hurt by it, then one can only conclude that there is truth in what's being said. Having pointed out the facts of the case, we can now see it quite clearly.
Now you are just being plain silly. I would advise you stop watching Buffy for a while.
A curious statement. If we take that statement one step further would you then concur that:
A) The most powerful being in existence is god
B) Religious people follow that power
C) A+B = religious people are the biggest lemmings on the planet.
Or perhaps it's just an indication that they agree with you. 0_o
And therefore your statement that I'm the worst you've seen doesn't really mean much.
You're right, that would be a tad silly. An intelligent person would take them to the local police station and hand them in. Perhaps it does not work the same where you are, but if you hand something in and nobody claims it after a month or two, you get to keep it. That way you at least know you have actually tried to reunite the owner with their property.
To be honest the whole affair actually makes me quite curious, (with a little laugh on the side). I mean, judging from what you've said, you would have just used anything you happened to find lying about - whether it be cream or ecstacy tablets. Why, if you are even remotely sane, would you even dream of putting discarded testicle cream on your back?
It could have been a needle full of heroin and you'd just say: "ah, isn't god so sweet", and start injecting. It's foolish - and don't think that applying discarded testicle cream to your back is any less foolish.
Even being the immoral type that would prefer to keep stolen property than hand it in, why oh why would you then use medicine you cannot assume is perfectly safe, in a place that it does not belong? If that is not a clear indication of your mental state then I don't know what is.
What a weak way of trying to justify your dishonesty.
I don't hate you at all. I feel sorry for you, as anyone in my profession would do.
I fail to see what that would accomplish, and to be honest if that's the best you can come up with because a few people happen to disagree with your behaviour, then my pity for you has just gone up a notch.
-----
Happeh:
I hate to burst that bubble you're living in, but so far you haven't said anything even remotely 'powerful'. You are doing what we refer to in England as: "talking utter bollocks".
So, once you're done with all the verbal diarrhea any chance you could provide some evidence for your claims?
I tend not to beat around the bush. Glad you noticed.
Justify this statement. Why "must" I trust you?
It's worth pointing out to you that I am a doctor. You're quite new here so you wouldn't have known that, but having now mentioned it, (and given your statements), if I now say you are mentally ill, it is apparent that I know what I'm talking about. Being a 'shrink', it stands to reason that you "must trust me".
Of course what you failed to realise, (which is rather silly for someone that demands trust), I don't know you. You have in no way provided any credentials, nor have you shown that you are worthy of any level of trust whatsoever. You're just some unknown person somewhere behind a computer screen. As a result of that, when you make claims you need to provide evidence if you expect to get anywhere.
Do you understand?
This entire statement does the exact opposite of reassuring me that you have put any thought into it.
I didn't treat Lori in any manner, other than to inform her that her actions were immoral, and that as a consequence to her actions other people could be suffering needlessly.
Let's stick to the facts here:
1) For her prayers to have been answered, (and some guy to drop medicine outside her house), would mean that some humans free will had been removed by god all because of Lori's demands.
2) The property does not belong to her. By taking and using it she is just as guilty as the person that originally stole it.
3) By not handing it in to the authorities, or at least trying to find the owner, she is clearly demonstrating that her only care is for her own wellbeing.
4) By making demands of god in the first place so he would then remove someone's free will, and provide her with stolen goods clearly demonstrates that her only care is for herself.
These are the facts of the matter. If you think you can dispute them rationally and logically then kindly do so.
If you consider debate and someone informing you of errors or misjudgements as "hurt" and "evil", then fine, ignore me and stay protected. If on the other hand you can handle having your assumptions and beliefs challenged, and have the guts to accept that people will not always agree with you, then by all means talk to me.
But hey, you don't even have to talk to me. Just provide the evidence and we're done.
Alas my friend, it is not. The same goes for father christmas, the tooth fairy and tragically even Lenny the leprechaun.
I know, it's a cute little way to rationalise all the bad things that happen on this planet, indeed to put a 'face' to evil - but you must understand by now that these beings are not real beings?
No it isn't. If you had have said: "'evil' is a word used to describe human beings that act a certain way", then I would concur, but 'satan' is not a word, it's a name.. and implies a specific being:
Satan: n : (Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions) chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell
That's debate, Happeh. It wasn't an attack. Being the direct kind of person I am, if I intended to attack her it would be done in one sentence. What I did do was push some facts her way in the hope that it would improve upon her level of morality. Moral humans do not steal from others, do not deprive owners of their property, do not demand that sky beings remove people's free will. And to add to that, it should also be said that sane people do not apply testicle cream to their backs.
I'm blunt, sure, but I do not set out to hurt. If people are hurt by it, then one can only conclude that there is truth in what's being said. Having pointed out the facts of the case, we can now see it quite clearly.
Now you are just being plain silly. I would advise you stop watching Buffy for a while.
A curious statement. If we take that statement one step further would you then concur that:
A) The most powerful being in existence is god
B) Religious people follow that power
C) A+B = religious people are the biggest lemmings on the planet.
Or perhaps it's just an indication that they agree with you. 0_o
And therefore your statement that I'm the worst you've seen doesn't really mean much.
Last edited:
1) For your prayers to have been answered, (and some guy to drop medicine outside your house), it would mean that some humans free will had been removed by god all because of your demands.
2) The property does not belong to you. By taking and using it you are just as guilty as the person that originally stole it.
3) By not handing it in to the authorities, or at least trying to find the owner, you are clearly demonstrating that your only care in this instance is for your own wellbeing.
4) By making demands of god in the first place so he would then remove someone's free will, and provide you with stolen goods clearly demonstrates that your only care in this instance is for yourself.
Of course, if you'd prefer to just keep avoiding the issue, feel free to continue accusing me of hatred and whatever else your imagination can conjure up.
Also, I am still curious as to why, if you consider yourself sane, you would apply testicle cream to your back, and also if that cream had have instead been a heroin needle whether you would have injected it and claimed it a prayer answered by god.
2) The property does not belong to you. By taking and using it you are just as guilty as the person that originally stole it.
3) By not handing it in to the authorities, or at least trying to find the owner, you are clearly demonstrating that your only care in this instance is for your own wellbeing.
4) By making demands of god in the first place so he would then remove someone's free will, and provide you with stolen goods clearly demonstrates that your only care in this instance is for yourself.
Of course, if you'd prefer to just keep avoiding the issue, feel free to continue accusing me of hatred and whatever else your imagination can conjure up.
Also, I am still curious as to why, if you consider yourself sane, you would apply testicle cream to your back, and also if that cream had have instead been a heroin needle whether you would have injected it and claimed it a prayer answered by god.
Bells
Staff member
One question I'd like to ask however is who in the hell picks up a cream packet that, by her own admission, had been dumped with some rubbish, and then applies it to their own skin? 
, where's your proof? Medical and scientific journal article kind of proof?
I think I might have another 'symptom' to add to your list... lack of masturbation has turned you into a twit who posts stupid claims as 'symptoms' on internet forums and deserves to be treated with nothing but contempt...
Oh man. This is the kind of crap that mothers tell their little boys to stop them from playing with their willy. But since you've made this highly medical and scientific claimHappeh said:
, where's your proof? Medical and scientific journal article kind of proof? LOL! Please show me scientific proof that extensive masturbation can cause a person to become gay and/or cause the so called 'invisible' symptoms that you so stupidly claimed. From a reputable scientific or medical journal. Because right now you are coming off sounding like a lunatic and a gormless idiot. Now I have been a member of this forum for quite a while and I've seen some pure and utter crap written, and this one is right up there in the pathetic crap tray.
I think I might have another 'symptom' to add to your list... lack of masturbation has turned you into a twit who posts stupid claims as 'symptoms' on internet forums and deserves to be treated with nothing but contempt...
Lori_7 said:
the father of the chosen people had numerous wives... I'd call that an endorsement.
"It's the difference between quitting, and falling off the wagon"
when a drunk falls off the wagon they have to start counting over.
"Thanks for the spelling lesson. You're a genius for sure, and that adds so much to the discussion. Are you 12?"
Woe be to us when its ok to clamor incorrectly in a science forum.
Hmmm, calling a detractor juvenile seems to be your MO.
wrong is wrong. I find it more telling that you've labored under your
self-imposed celibacy without knowing how to spell the word.
Lori_7:
Aw, shucks. I'm rather fond of it myself.
It's a spouse's duty to have sex with you? Surely there's more to marriage than that?
I'd say that many people would disagree with you. Masterbation is enjoyable. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't do it. I think the only people who don't enjoy masterbation are the ones who feel guilty about it. And usually, that's for religious reasons - they think that God has something against it and that they are committing a sin by doing it, even though it is enjoyable at the time.
You said before that God wants us to have fulfilling sex with another person - perhaps a spouse. But can't we have both? Why can't we have a great sex life with a committed partner AND the occasional wank? What's the harm if the masterbation is just an occasional addition which doesn't take away from the "proper", God-sanctioned sex?
In an ideal world, perhaps, all sex would be great and fulfilling, and a real bonding experience. But in the real world, many people don't treat it like that. Some people just like to have sex, with no emotional content at all.
If you pick up somebody in a nightclub for some anonymous sex, is that really better than staying at home and masterbating?
But you're saying that masterbation is bad, whether or not you mean any harm by it. And I can't really see how masterbation harms anybody, most of the time. Can you?
Aw, shucks. I'm rather fond of it myself.
It's a spouse's duty to have sex with you? Surely there's more to marriage than that?
I'd say that many people would disagree with you. Masterbation is enjoyable. If it wasn't, then people wouldn't do it. I think the only people who don't enjoy masterbation are the ones who feel guilty about it. And usually, that's for religious reasons - they think that God has something against it and that they are committing a sin by doing it, even though it is enjoyable at the time.
You said before that God wants us to have fulfilling sex with another person - perhaps a spouse. But can't we have both? Why can't we have a great sex life with a committed partner AND the occasional wank? What's the harm if the masterbation is just an occasional addition which doesn't take away from the "proper", God-sanctioned sex?
In an ideal world, perhaps, all sex would be great and fulfilling, and a real bonding experience. But in the real world, many people don't treat it like that. Some people just like to have sex, with no emotional content at all.
If you pick up somebody in a nightclub for some anonymous sex, is that really better than staying at home and masterbating?
But you're saying that masterbation is bad, whether or not you mean any harm by it. And I can't really see how masterbation harms anybody, most of the time. Can you?
Happeh sez:
You and I both know that when God dumps those things in your lap, it is because he wants you to have them
So, you are of the mind that anything you come across that isn't nailed down is yours for the taking, as long as you justify it with the voices in your head.
Faith = possession is 9/10 the law.
Prayer = finders keepers, losers weepers.
The more I learn about theists, the more sickened I am.
You and I both know that when God dumps those things in your lap, it is because he wants you to have them
So, you are of the mind that anything you come across that isn't nailed down is yours for the taking, as long as you justify it with the voices in your head.
Faith = possession is 9/10 the law.
Prayer = finders keepers, losers weepers.
The more I learn about theists, the more sickened I am.
lori sez:
I did not steal anything.
You took something that wasn't yours. That was theft.
The thief gets prosecuted, the store gets their money back, the children are safe, and my rash is healed. That's the way God works.
No, the thief didn't get prosecuted. She got away with it and told everyone god told her to do it.
So, in conclusion, I would like to suggest, that Snakelord and Q go whack each other off, while fantasizing about feeding Christians to lions, or beheading them, or burning them at the stake, or whatever such imagination from which they might get some jollies.
I would find satisfaction from turning you into the authorities for the petty thief you are.
I did not steal anything.
You took something that wasn't yours. That was theft.
The thief gets prosecuted, the store gets their money back, the children are safe, and my rash is healed. That's the way God works.
No, the thief didn't get prosecuted. She got away with it and told everyone god told her to do it.
So, in conclusion, I would like to suggest, that Snakelord and Q go whack each other off, while fantasizing about feeding Christians to lions, or beheading them, or burning them at the stake, or whatever such imagination from which they might get some jollies.
I would find satisfaction from turning you into the authorities for the petty thief you are.
Bells
Staff member
Isn't that something that Christians were known to be fond of doing to mostly women in the past?Lori_7 said:
Ya.. it shows..
So tell me Lori, did Jesus tell you to pick up the box of Lamisil, most probably stolen (as even you have admitted it is a prescribed medication) and dumped, from the trash?
How very Christian of you.
- Status