lower tuition for illegals
- Thread starter silasraven
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I do not have a wife. Are you seriously suggesting that if I had sex, that would be out of bounds? On what reasoning? cn
Trousers
Well-Known Member
Any person born in the United States of America is a citizen. That is the law. I am sorry you are unable to understand this and it causes you pain.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I knew a cat with that filthy habit once. cn
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
silasraven
Well-Known Member
nope............
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
That's a potentially self-contradictory response. Can I invite you to expand, to reconcile with what you have said so far? cn
silasraven
Well-Known Member
you never said that the women is from here or not. child or not from sex. so from the info you gave me your still clear for take off
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Must have been a straight cat.
It was pretty bent as cats go. i remember the poor miserable thing, scraping away at the linoleum, making "street art" and soiling its paws. It was catastr ... no. it was bad. cn
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Don't hold your breath.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I asked you who are the judges of sexual moderation and your response was "the wife". By implication you've disapproved of all sex outside a marriage containing at least one woman. Your logical edifice seems out of square from my vantage. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
From my campaign: "but I never exhaled" cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Crazy sex can be good. cn
silasraven
Well-Known Member
yes sex outside of marriage is a little unsettling. dont start seca, please. yes most people view sex outside marriage is ok. my view comes from the experience. it wasnt as gratifying as hoped
Trousers
Well-Known Member
silasraven
Well-Known Member
which is why i keep to my view sex before marriage isnt for me.
mysunnyboy
Well-Known Member
some how i can believe that
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But here's the thing. The statement from you that drew me in was "Limiting sex is not bad."
There it is, declarative and unqualified. You assume the duty of defending it as stated. No revisions, qualifications, circumscriptions. Don't nudge the goalposts when you think we're not looking. I was hoping for something like a debate by the rules of reason. You've established the premise, and i have been questioning it. You can't just change what you're saying. you have to prevail by the rules of debate, or you are duty-bound to expressly and formally retract, yes, to declare that you weren't right.
So let's have at it then. I challenge your bold claim, and ask that you back it up with an acceptable source, one not drawing at its core upon "revealed truth", which i hold to be neither. cn
Similar threads
