What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gay rights campaigner loses Footy Show case

lockyrulz

Juniors
Messages
2,394

You call some blog from some f**ktard science?

hahahahaha

OMFG people like you crack me up, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on your conspiratorial arse.

If 'living under a rock' means being discerning enough not to believe in whatever horse manure some protagonist shovels onto a blog, and whenever said manure is refuted by actual research, blames a 'government cover up', I'll rest easily under its smooth, cool protection, cheers.

In case you missed the underlying tome of my post, you are a freakin moron my friend. But hey, don't go changin'
 

warriorsownyou

Juniors
Messages
122
You call some blog from some f**ktard science?

hahahahaha

OMFG people like you crack me up, you wouldn't know science if it bit you on your conspiratorial arse.

If 'living under a rock' means being discerning enough not to believe in whatever horse manure some protagonist shovels onto a blog, and whenever said manure is refuted by actual research, blames a 'government cover up', I'll rest easily under its smooth, cool protection, cheers.

In case you missed the underlying tome of my post, you are a freakin moron my friend. But hey, don't go changin'

Ha. You can shoot the messenger all you like, it doesn't change the fact they're citing scientific facts. Does it?

I suppose one of Britains leading scientists, a reputable Biologist at that doesn't know how to conduct proper scientific testing. He got where he is in life on the back of being a propoganda-merchant.

You silly merkin. Reading is fundamental. What I'm citing are scientific facts. It doesn't matter if they were posted in Zoo Magazine or Science Magazine.

Try again.
 

Kiki

First Grade
Messages
6,349
But locky it's a BLOG! it must be true! sh*t....did the govt get to u too? They can see everything u know!
 

lockyrulz

Juniors
Messages
2,394
Possibly but, like many here who are condemning it, I haven't seen the segment. Te last time I watched TFS Jason Stevens and Matty Johns were doing the gay joke segments.... oddly enough, just like 7 years ago, there was nothing worth reporting or complaining about then.....

I saw it and I can't remember being anything but bored. The Stevens stuff was kind of funny. I have laughed at all kinds of humour, racial, gay you name it.

But just because I wasn't offended doesn't mean it is objectivley unoffensive. Time isn't relevant either as morals fluctuate. Objectivity doesn't exist. I tried explainiing this to Millers once about morals, but well, you know Millers..

Precisley why each case is treated on it's own merits. There is no right or wrong answer as such. Those you accuse of moral crusading simply have a different moral compass to you. May not be vastly different, but enough to disagree. Both of you are putting forward a moral stance

Neither of you is inherently right or wrong. Think of it this way, there are those who would argue for absolute free speeech, they have a point. There are those who realise that the word is a dangerous tool, they have a pretty darn good point as well.

We find a middle point somwhere that wavers back and forth. It's the tribunals job to determine whther the show crossed a line and if any action should be taken. What actions they can take are stipulated by governments that we elect. So if you don't like where your world is, well... time to beat the hustings my friend.
 

warriorsownyou

Juniors
Messages
122
But locky it's a BLOG! it must be true! sh*t....did the govt get to u too? They can see everything u know!

LMAO I can't believe how pathetic you two are.

These are scientific facts. Where and when the story is posted do not f**king matter.

You can't ridicule FACTS. You fool.:lol:
 

warriorsownyou

Juniors
Messages
122
"
It is backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being disrupted, the UK's Independent revealed.
"This research shows that the basic male tool kit is under threat," report author Gwynne Lyons, a former UK government adviser on the health effects of chemicals, told the newspaper.
The study, published by the charity CHEMTrust, draws on more than 250 scientific studies."


Bloody blog-owners and their fairytale claims
 

lockyrulz

Juniors
Messages
2,394
Ha. You can shoot the messenger all you like, it doesn't change the fact they're citing scientific facts. Does it?

I'm not shooting it, I am laughing my arse off at it. They are not citing anything but horse sh*t. What causes gayness (sniggers) is unproven.

I suppose one of Britains leading scientists, a reputable Biologist at that doesn't know how to conduct proper scientific testing. He got where he is in life on the back of being a propoganda-merchant.

Blah blah. It isn't proven, and if your reputable scientist has proven it he should go collect his nobel prize.

You silly merkin. Reading is fundamental. What I'm citing are scientific facts. It doesn't matter if they were posted in Zoo Magazine or Science Magazine.

It matters as to whether it is factual or not you idiot. A blog isn't peer reviewed and any ignorant c**k smoker can go write any old crap on a blog.

Try again.

Ok, you are really, really, really stupid.
 

warriorsownyou

Juniors
Messages
122
I'm not shooting it, I am laughing my arse off at it. They are not citing anything but horse sh*t. What causes gayness (sniggers) is unproven.

Horse sh*t. Yes, that's what it is. The leading biological scientists of the world are full of horse sh*t. They all have an anti-homosexual agenda and shop propoganda to the masses. Because that isn't f**king crazy.

I'm laughing my arse off at the stupidity of you mate. These are not non-factual myths created by deluded blog owners. These are accepted facts in the scientific community.


Blah blah. It isn't proven, and if your reputable scientist has proven it he should go collect his nobel prize.

What noble prize? It's commonly accepted that chemicals and pollution are feminising the male species. There is no noble prize to claim. It's not like the laws of gravity have been redifined. You tit.

It matters as to whether it is factual or not you idiot. A blog isn't peer reviewed and any ignorant c**k smoker can go write any old crap on a blog.

You f**king fool. The blog obviously wasn't the first to publish this story. The blog is citing a story posted by the Mail which is citing Scientific research that is undismissable. The fact you even attempt to dismiss is it is laughable in itself.

Ok, you are really, really, really stupid.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that you're some sort of fundamentalist religious head. Your refusal to accept factual realities is bewildering. I'm guessing you're against Evolution and other scientific laws that can't be refuted.

Keep trying battyboy, every neutral reader knows who's out in front with this debate. Me. The one with evidence and facts for my claims Vs You, the one who can only try and shoot the messengers to save face.

If the blog told you the sky was blue would you argue against it on the basis of it being a blog?

You're a moron of unrivaled proportions.
 

ramble_on

Juniors
Messages
2,255
lockyrulz... I may or may not have the same morals as those I'm accusing of moral crusading... it's actually the crusading that I'm crusading against...... just something in my unbalanced makeup.. I've done many things I didn't really want to do only because I was told not to do it.......
 

lockyrulz

Juniors
Messages
2,394
The only conclusion I can draw here is that you're some sort of fundamentalist religious head. Your refusal to accept factual realities is bewildering. I'm guessing you're against Evolution and other scientific laws that can't be refuted.

Keep trying battyboy, every neutral reader knows who's out in front with this debate. Me. The one with evidence and facts for my claims Vs You, the one who can only try and shoot the messengers to save face.

If the blog told you the sky was blue would you argue against it on the basis of it being a blog?

You're a moron of unrivaled proportions.

Ahh dude,

You claimed there were more gays due to chemicals, nothing you have posted supports this, nothing.

You claimed the cause of gayness was genetic, you have failed to support this.

You argued govermnets were part of some big conspiracy to cover it all up, obviously not doing much of a job if you have all these news articles. Needless to say, you proivded no evidence to support this

Bottom line is you are some women/gay hating f**ktard. I am sure there is some research somwhere that correlates women and gay bashing to being a closet homo, maybe you should go read a blog on it somewhere.
 

lockyrulz

Juniors
Messages
2,394
lockyrulz... I may or may not have the same morals as those I'm accusing of moral crusading... it's actually the crusading that I'm crusading against...... just something in my unbalanced makeup.. I've done many things I didn't really want to do only because I was told not to do it.......

But clearly you don't, even if your moral differences only pertain to what should and shouldn't be allowed on tv, it is still a moral differecne however small.

You call it crusading, but in reality it is just a particular moral view that impinges on free speech that you disagree with.
 

Latest posts

Top