Told you you wouldn’t understand. I put it right in your face, yet you cannot comprehend.
First, the book is likely not a real school book.
Second, it describes bullying, not sex acts.

My take is he’s reading about a bully taunting a gay kid….something that happens daily in most schools beyond 1st grade today.
If you think every 6th grader in America hasn’t heard, even used the exact same insult then you are insane.
Scratch that. No if/then statement required here.
You are insane.
Every 6th grader in America has heard most have used some variation of that insult.
This was likely a high school, not a convent preschool. Grow up, or home school and make more ignorami.
This is in schools already, which is more than enough justification to teach about it.
This is normal prime time broadcast tv conversation, but makes you go nuts.

You didn’t notice the two young kids in the audience…why wasn’t his display completely inappropriate in front of children then? In his and your tiny brains you think it’s perfectly fine to read these things to children if it helps your hate filled anti-freedom movement.

Edit: If you want to protect school children from disgusting indoctrination into groups known for abusing children sexually, start banning any mention of religion from schools and keep MAGA republicans away. No other group is more likely to sexually abuse children than the Christian church besides possibly NAMBLA….but Republican politicians are a close third.

It’s not the dick in mouth part you can’t stand or find offensive, it has nothing to do with the act, it’s the mental image of two men that you can’t stop thinking about that’s getting you amped up. You know it, I know it, we all know it. Homophobes are always angry at themselves for having homosexual thoughts they’re afraid to act on….always.

What a delusional fool you are.

America is with TRUMP, not limp dick liberal politicians and police chiefs.

As much as I'll defend police, this guy can ram his entire head up his shit-doesn't-smell ass. The rider can subpoena his phone records to verify that it was in fact a police related call, not sending dick picks to teenagers. And the goings on of a public official are abso-fucking-lutely the business of citizens.

I'd say reprimand and remediate the officer, but this may be the behaviors the bosses want exhibited. I think a lot of problems with law enforcement today need to be addressed from the top down...not always reacting to the end result.

any creator who only reveals himself to certain people and not others is a dick and not worth following or caring about. Any person who "thinks" god has been revealed to them and uses that as an assertion of authority over those who haven't had similar "revelations" are not just dicks, they deserve to be locked up.

I'm still ignoring shiny but I'm assuming he's making all the same tired arguments about god revealing himself as he always does. I'm sure he's also still quoting the bible as an authoritative source.

As Matt has continued to point out, secular morality has proven itself better than biblical morality.

God and religion are two separate things. always have, always will be. The question of the existence of a creator is largely irrelevant. If a creator exists and I'm doing things contrary to what this creator wishes me to do, tough. If this creator has a problem with it, it can come down here and tell me directly instead of using a ancient book as it's main source of communication. God is either a dick or incompetent for using such an inefficient means of communicating its wishes. Even if a creator did manifest itself physically and declared its undisputed existence, this creator would have a lot of angry people (and that includes people who DO believe in a creator) on its hands demanding some answers and rightfully so. The threat of eternal damnation just really isn't that effective of a means of ensuring compliance. Again. secular morality beats biblical morality.

Even if a creator does not exist it still doesn't change anything. Even if it was possible to scientifically prove a creator doesn't exist. It doesn't change shit. Countless people will still continue believing it. A creator may not exist, but Religion ain't going anywhere for a long time. There isn't a magic set of words that magically convince someone to not believe in an imaginary god. This ain't the TV show Stargate and there is no "Ark of Truth" and in my opinion, it would be immoral to use such a device if it existed. (great googely boogely that was such a horrible tv movie).

If we want a free society, people have to make their own conclusions. By and large, all atheists and agnostics support Freedom of Religion. They just want religion out of government. You can be religious, but government has to be secular.

science is agnostic to the existence of a creator. It doesn't care if a creator exists. If the evidence is there. then the evidence will point to it. If there is no evidence then it doesn't exist. Even if there is evidence and we just haven't found it yet, we still have to err on the side treating it as if it doesn't exist. Theists make the claim the a creator exists. You have to back that shit up. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Not only that, but you have a double burden. Not only do you have to prove a creator exists, you have prove that this creator wants you to do X, Y, and Z. None of which has been done.

And guess what, not all atheists/agnostics believe/disbelieve the same thing. just because you trot out some non-believer that says things that other non-believers don't agree with doesn't mean a thing. Yeah, atheists and agnostics like to squabble over the definitions of atheist and agnostic and the myriad of combinations of both words. So what? it doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof, Yes, there are some atheists out there who don't just want separation of church and state, they would eliminate all forms of religion if they could. Shock, someone in a group is taking things a little far. ZOMG! THAT NEVER HAPPENS ANYWHERE!! It STILL doesn't remove the theist's double burden of proof.

Matt has argued this countless times. you make a claim? you gotta back it up. You may wish to quibble over the semantics of what an atheist is or isn't. I too don't strictly agree with his definition of atheism. But he has declared his views on the subject countless times: He used to be a Christian, but he decided that he needed to know that what he was preaching was actually rational and Christianity could not meet the burden of proof in his eyes. So he is not making the claim that god doesn't exist, because he cannot prove that. The problem is, Christians, or any other religion for that matter cannot prove any of their claims either, thus, there is no reason to believe them or consider them trustworthy.

You want to quibble over whether or not that's an atheist or an agnostic, be my fucking guest but it's just a distraction that doesn't change the end result. Matt (and myself) do not accept the claim that a creator exists, nor do we accept the claim that even if a creator exists, that this creator follows the Christian belief system (or any other belief system for that matter). And the reason that we can't accept any of these claims is because of the lack of evidence and not meeting the burden of proof

@chingalera

I'm impressed with your ability to craft an elegant response when you choose to. However, many of your arguments can be cast on yourself in the exact same way. From your argument that, 'it depends on your experience,' perhaps you live in an armpit down in texas where all the police treat everyone terribly, and you can certainly go online and find examples from all over the world which self-support your idea that all law enforcement is bad. However, I have lived in a college town area in the midwest all of my life, and I have found the local law enforcement to be extremely helpful and amicable. Most of my friends are not white, and I do hear an occasional bad story, though on the whole, we have far more good stories than bad.

We indeed have our own constructs, but your assessment that 'all law enforcement is corrupt' is an example of everything you hate about law enforcement which you exhibit yourself. When I first read your statement, '...profiling, unprovoked aggression, and general douche-baggery from the hind-brained, alpha-or-wannabe-alpha victims of abuse and racism...' I was legitimately confused about whether you were talking about those in law enforcement or not. Consider your opening statement, 'up voted for all the times I have personally told cops to go fuck themselves. Some reacted as expected or were otherwise prone without my attitude, and the others took it very well....and those that did not, simply, dicks,' You seem to be exhibiting all of the behaviors that you personally detest, and seem to be describing it as a social experiment. You don't have to stretch the imagination too far to see why people are thinking of you as 'whiny' or 'not a good person.' Unless your goal is to troll for responses so that you can blow off your canon about law enforcement corruption, don't be surprised when people continue to think lowly of you.

up voted for all the times I have personally told cops to go fuck themselves. Some reacted as expected or were otherwise prone without my attitude, and the others took it very well....and those that did not, simply, dicks.

The ones that carried-out their duties as human beings are the ones who most likely are no longer police officers. These cunts that are cops forever??....They're the problem, and the exception is no where near the rule.
If one has the dick costume at one's disposal worn with limited use and in times of necessity, one can so can spot the douche who's boudoir contains but the one suit.-

Takes one to know one, explained.

If an exchange with a cop has no out but that of arrest or jail, he's gonna get the full-on, "Question why I took this job and my own humanity and manhood" speech on the way downtown, the fucking piece of shit.
Saints and criminals, sinners and cops, some nay MOST cops, don't deserve the responsibility-

>> ^yellowc:

Honestly? Good. Don't park on clearways right near the time, sorry but that seems like a no brainer, you should be gone before the time (even 5-10mins before). Not on it or a little after it, before it. The most frustrating thing in the world after cyclists (feel free, I don' hate you but you're still annoying as fuck ) is dicks who park on clearways, this causes a lot of traffic delays.
>> ^EvilDeathBee:
Goddamn vultures. In Melbourne, I've seen tow trucks driving up and down a section of road whose clearway times start soon so they can tow cars the second the clearway starts



Some people live on a clearway and have to park there over night. Few things annoy me more when driving than people parking in a clearway, but I'm not a dick. I don't demand they be out of it the minute the clearway time starts. People can be a bit late, you know

He's not a dick. He's self-assured.

Is there not a "dick photographer" channel? The guy is clearly saying the bison is about to kick off but does nothing to warn the foreign tourists!

I think your an ass, not a dick. I was thinking of someone else in particular.

That bitch rosa parks for starting this shit.

In answer to question above (which I will not quote because I'm not a dick):

I know I don't really support the movement much. (I agree with some of the basic ideas, but I think the actual protest is mostly full of "me too" and "free handouts" people.)

But to bring the topic back to the point of the video: It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea of the protest itself, free speech is the most basic right of the people. Removing that (for any reason) is the proverbial "thin line" between freedom and fascism. Just because the whole OWP thing doesn't impress me much doesn't mean that I -- or anyone else -- should have the right to silence them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it, there's nothing wrong with that either.


The difference between cannabis and alternative medicine is HUGE! Cannabis has proven medical benefits with minimal side effects.

The reason why you see it used as an argument frequently is because the anti-cannabis idiots keep saying it should be illegal because it has no practical uses. Not only is this a ridiculous argument for a freedom-loving country, it is also patently false. So you see the medical uses being discussed a lot.

You are correct in your assertion that many people just want to be able to grow and smoke weed legally, but the "medical marijuana" angle is not just a front. It's a real issue.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.
Nice appeal to pity.
They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.
Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.


Don't give a shit about any of that. I know Marijuana helps with pain, and for people suffering from pain problems who can't play with their kids or do really anything it means a lot. So yeah that's a huge benefit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.

Nice appeal to pity.

They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.

Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)


I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.