Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Birdy ([info]skewed_tartan) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2005-11-22 23:42:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Amazed

For Once they're Not Wanking about Slash!
My, my, GAFF how far ye have fallen!

It all starts out as a Godawful News thread about a rape victim being denied the morning after pill by a local pharmicist.

People naturally boo and hiss however this being a volatile subject (it seems all you have to do is *mention* abortion and people get riled)several small wanks break-out.



I'm not exactly for casual sex. At least, not with tons of people. Protection is great & all, but there's still a risk. I'd prefer it if the couple knew each other for a while, say six months. Yeah, it's a long time, but I think sex is something only properly done between two people who truly care about each other. Ideal? Yes. Impossible? Nearly. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic.

Response #1

Response #2


*Cough* Moving on...



Someone just had to bring it up.


You use the word child to refer to a fetus. A quaint notion, but scientifically innacurate.


I'm utterly disgusted by women who take no such precautions, have unprotected sex, and then just casually use abortion as birth control.

Abortion discussion always brings out the wankers on both sights and I need a profile for a later.

Never a truer word spoken.




Summarized, his theory is that people should be free to be racists or sexist or religious zealots of that's what they believe in, and other people shouldn't be forcing them to violate their own beliefs -- particularly in situations like pharmacists refusing prescriptions, when the person who needs the medicine can go to another pharmacist. Who is more harmed -- the person who has to drive the extra 10 miles, or the person who was forced to violate their religious beliefs? Just a thought.

Yes you just read that right. But it just keep getting better! When people point out:

So, by that reasoning, if I'm a biology teacher, can I just ignore the evolution theory because it's against my beliefs? You can go read a book if you want to know more about it.

Or... let's say I'm hiring people, but I really don't like people with blond hair. I refuse to employ them. But that's okay, they're also hiring next door, and they have nothing against blond hair. So no harm is done, right?



She has an ever so rational answer!

And another!

People attempt to reason with her as best as they can manage.

Apparently using the same logic again and again will make it right!

And again!

And yet again!

For yet another time!

Now I think she's just backed herself into a corner.

I'm right so nyah!


Boggle away!



(Read comments)

Post a comment in response:

From:
( )Anonymous- this user has disabled anonymous posting.
Username:
Password:
Don't have an account? Create one now.
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message:
 
Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs your IP address when posting.
 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map