However. That does not make it OK for people in the wheelchairs to try and make the rest of us abandon our “different” lifestyles (of walking, running, climbing, etc.) and force their medical treatments on perfectly healthy people. Not only is that wrong in the sense that forcing anyone to change his personal life or attitude (apart from preventing others from getting hurt) is wrong, it’s also wrong for the very objective reason that medicine is actually harmful to a person who does not need it. A alcoholic might need God to be able to get his life together, but for an up-and-coming scientist with a career, strong belief in the irrational, absurd and always-in-the-future rewards & punishments that no-one is able to confirm or deny will only end up destroying his life (and possibly a lot of others, like if he was in stem-cell research, for example).

No real children were involved and no sexual abuse occurred — Handley’s crime was owning explicit cartoons, and he now faces the same punishment as someone with actual child porn. That means he could get up to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for owning drawings. Gross drawings, for sure, but drawings nonetheless.
[..]
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled this sort of thing is unconstitutional because it outlaws “speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production,” the PROTECT Act of 2003 — another gift from George W. Bush — says pretty much the opposite, and now the law can no longer tell the difference between buying videos of children getting raped and ordering a dirty book.

According to the Christians/New Testament, the Old Testament is all about God being pissed at us for not following 10 presumably simple rules. Hence all the wars, the murders, rapes, etc. that God himself personally ordered. Apparently, it took God 4000 years to realize that people aren’t going to change, no matter how much of them you torture and kill, so he made a (divine?) plan of turning things around. Instead of killing & tourturing sinners, he sent his son, which is sort of himself at the same time but not really (the divine trinity is supposed to be a whole, but consisting of 3 individual parts, each of which is also a whole and not in any way missing the others), to tell us to be nice to each other and do what God says, and then he would be tortured and finally murdered by the sinful “Christians” of that time (i.e. jews, Judaism being the most popular religion then, as I understand). And through this painful and bloody sacrifice, God suffered the punishment that we were supposed to suffer for not following his rules, and by doing that we have been washed clean, our sins forgiven — both past and future ones.

But here’s the thing. The very first, therefore, presumably, the most important, commandment is to believe in God as the only divine power. From that it follows that not believing in God is a sin. So here’s the question — if Jesus died so that ALL our sins could be forgiven, that should include not believing in God, right? But that would mean non-believers & atheists are also forgiven and go to heaven. But Christians keep insisting that non-believers go to Hell. So from that it follows that Jesus did not, in fact, died for ALL sins of ALL mankind, but for the sins of ALL mankind, EXCEPT the sin of not believing in God and/or Jesus, is that correct?

Today, I asked my girl friend of a year and a half to give me a blow job. She replied okay and bent down and proceeded to blow on my penis. Then she looked up at me and said was that good. She was serious.

Source: http://www.fmylife.com/miscellaneous/909616.

1. Sirdī es esmu ne mazāk sekls un ārišķīgs kā jebkurš cits — es patiesībā ļoti gaidīju, kad kāds man nodos šo stafeti. :) Tas, ka vienīgais (man zināmais) stafetes tālākdevējs ir gejs, manuprāt, absolūti neko nenozīmē.
2. Es zinu atbildes uz visiem svarīgākajiem no atbildamajiem makrojautājumiem. Mikrojautājums, kurš mani ir atstājis kasam galvu caur trīs dažādu pasaules uzskatu transformācijām, ir “Kāpēc vīriešiem aug bārda (bet sievietēm nē)?”. Evolūcijas teorija vismaz spēj piedāvāt variantus, bet pagaidām neviens nav tā īsti pārliecinājis.
3. Manuprāt, jebkurš darbs, kura vietā tu labprāt darītu kaut ko citu, ir piespiedu darbs, praktiski verdzība. Savukārt, ja nav nekā tāda (bez tukšas, praktiskus rezultātus nenesošas izklaides), ko tu labprāt darītu, tad tu esi garīgi atpalicis. Un pie tā ir vainīgi tavi vecāki.
4. Esmu atradis ideālo sievieti, ar kuru ceru pavadīt visu mūžu. Ticu īstai mīlestībai, tai skaitā tam, ka sieva var būt (jābūt!) labākais draugs, ar kuru var būt (jābūt!) atklātāks kā ar jebkuru citu. Mono/poligāmija gan, manuprāt, ir gaumes lieta. Pats esmu monogāms.
5. Pirmā lieta, ko es pamanu jebkurā cilvēkā, ir defekti (pazīmes, kurām potenciāli varētu piesietes, ja gribētu cilvēku izsmiet). Visbiežāk sejas/galvas. Pārāk liels deguns, acis pārāk tālu viena no otras, utt. Arī seja kā no plakāta ir trūkums, jo, pateicoties reklāmām un filmām, tā šķiet mākslīga. Līdz šim esmu sastapis tikai vienu seju, kurai neesmu atradis, kur piesieties, un šo seju plānoju apprecēt. :)
6. Es nekad nevienam apzināti necenšos nodarīt pāri. Ja kļūdas pēc sanāk, atvainojos. Sāpīgu faktu paušana, nepatīkamu tēmu cilāšana vai piemēru izmantošana nav pāri darīšana, ja vien nav konkrēti palūgts to nedarīt.
7. Es uzskatu, ka, kamēr nav cietušā, tikmēr nav nozieguma. Nozagt 1000 Ls no 100000 kontiem (t.i., pa 1 santīmam no katra konta) ir attapīgs naudas pelnīšanas veids, nozagt latu ubagam vai izkrāpt 10 vientuļai mātei — smags noziegums.

No kuriem 7 es gribētu 7 lietas lasīt? Nu, pirmkārt jau no meitenēm — simbel, Rozaa burtu kolektīva, Knipucīša , un tad vēl no Normunda, Alus džeka?, niitro iz “kritiskā diskursa” un CooLynX.

Pierādījums.

Es esmu dzejnieks mežonīgs
Pa vārsmai reizi nedēļā
Dzeja — formāts parocīgs
Gramatika? Pakaļā!

Ja nevar neko izdomāt,
Vai jēgu kopā savirknēt,
Metu vārdus randomā
Un gatavs zen/post-modernē