For the lulz. I'm worried about the butthurt this might cause. But guise it's all for the funnies. Credit to the artist.. IF MD COULD as US New Are you / serius For the lulz I'm worried about butthurt this might cause But guise it's all for funnies Credit to artist IF MD COULD as US New Are you / serius
Upload
Login or register

For the lulz

 
For the lulz. I'm worried about the butthurt this might cause. But guise it's all for the funnies. Credit to the artist.. IF MD COULD as US New Are you / serius

I'm worried about the butthurt this might cause. But guise it's all for the funnies. Credit to the artist.

IF MD COULD as US New
Are you /
seriusly killing
people in my
That is
literally the FIRST
thing I tale you not
tn CID.
THE FEST THING!
Do you realize
new old that heel:
Rtru dorfs think
same things may
have changed a
bit since it was
and why are you
still hating on gay
people?
I snustin' r make
them that way if I
thought it was
Just be kind to
each other, ;
ifs new that hard
create a planet
at kittens he
keep mysret
ham needing
everything.
Jnne Flues: -is
...
+1163
Views: 41266 Submitted: 11/29/2012
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (271)
[ 271 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
48 comments displayed.
#14 - Brass
Reply +55
(11/30/2012) [-]
I will find a use for this image.
#74 to #14 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+22
has deleted their comment [-]
#78 - hargleblarg
Reply +44
(11/30/2012) [-]
I respect all religions, just don't try and convert me and all shall be fine.
#226 to #78 - BCfUnNyJuNkIe
Reply +1
(11/30/2012) [-]
wololo
#123 to #78 - serotonin
Reply +13
(11/30/2012) [-]
I dont respect all religions. If there was ``destroy scientology`` button i would push it so hard that my finger would snap


I juste realised that if I post comment a I will mess up acidjunk s idea so I will just repost his pic to keep his creation alive
#188 to #123 - windorigins ONLINE
Reply +1
(11/30/2012) [-]
This is an eternal dbate, I know...but, Scientology is not a religion. A cult at most.
#104 to #78 - acidjunk
Reply +22
(11/30/2012) [-]





trying to fit these faces together
#113 to #104 - nnightfire
Reply +34
(11/30/2012) [-]
Dear god what have I done
#143 to #113 - oishiine
Reply +29
(11/30/2012) [-]
Oh god.
#121 to #113 - acidjunk
Reply +5
(11/30/2012) [-]
This looks awesome :D
#87 - Joseph Stalin
Reply -13
(11/30/2012) [-]
Do you smell it homies?
#88 to #87 - Joseph Stalin
Reply -13
(11/30/2012) [-]
That smell? That smelly smell?
#89 to #88 - Joseph Stalin
Reply -13
(11/30/2012) [-]
That kind of smelly smell that smells like:
That kind of smelly smell that smells like:
#4 - kallesmange
Reply +22
(11/29/2012) [-]
and thus the planet "internet" was born
#107 - AnonymousDonor
Reply +19
(11/30/2012) [-]
pretty much this
#119 - BigSammy
Reply +16
(11/30/2012) [-]
I need to find this planet of kittens.
I need to find this planet of kittens.
#54 - amandatoddd **User deleted account**
+10
has deleted their comment [-]
#31 - daddycool
Reply +6
(11/30/2012) [-]
Yeah! Stop hating on rapists! God made them that way, why would He not want them to rape!? And pedophiles, too![/sarcasm]

That's a terrible, horrible argument.
#34 to #31 - satakas
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
not being sarcastic: how could we compare gays with rapists and pedophiles?

have you ever heard of a logical fallacy, called "slippery slope"?
#35 to #34 - daddycool
Reply +1
(11/30/2012) [-]
The comparison is simple.

1. They're all based upon sexuality.

2. They're all made by God.

Easy peasy. No slippery slope here, just understanding the common denominators.
#299 to #35 - satakas
Reply 0
(12/15/2012) [-]
not sure, if serious or sarcastic
#161 to #35 - candidvres **User deleted account**
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#37 to #35 - trollwoopnazi
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
I think the idea is that people are born neutral, and they can then go on to choose to commit crime, where as sexuality isn't a choice. Note, I am an agnostic, i'm just trying to understand.
#39 to #37 - daddycool
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
I'm not suggesting that sexuality is a choice. I can accept the idea that sexuality is innate to a person and they simply have desires with no choice in the matter.

The problem comes when you ACT upon your desires. That is a choice. You see, despite what people like to say, sexual desire is not a "need" it's a "desire." You want to have sex, you don't need it.

Just as society expects pedophiles and rapists to keep it to themselves, perhaps the same should be expected of other sexualities.
#301 to #39 - satakas
Reply 0
(12/15/2012) [-]
although true, but a little fallacy: there's no difference, what "people like to say". i like to say, that red sucks totally. my neighbor likes to say, that blue is disgusting. well...wait a moment, i'll go and burn my neighbor until this comment uploads...
#99 to #39 - audiolife
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
You're right it's about ACTING upon your desires. And two adult men/women having sex in private has absolutely no relation to an adult man/women acting out there desire on a child that doesn't understand what's going on. You really don't understand math if those are what you call the "common denominators". With your reasoning, any from of sex would be bad, because they're both based on sexuality and made by God. If you don't think the aspect of consent matters you yourself might as well go rape some kids.
#212 to #99 - daddycool
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
1. I'm not going to go rape some children because I don't find them sexually desirable and because I find the action morally terrifying.

2. Consent has nothing to do with it. Would you like to know why?

Because my argument was not that homosexuality and rape are morally equivalent. My argument is that his argument sucks. That by saying "gays are made that way by God, so God clearly wants them to act out their gay" you're effectively saying "rapists are made that way by God, so God clearly wants them to act out their rape."

I'm not making a moral judgement or argument here. I am preying upon your sense of what is justifiable, but only to go so far as to state that his justification is flawed and unethical.

Now, you would have understood this if you had tried to understand what I meant when I said in my first post "That's a terrible, horrible argument."

For the purposes of this conversation, I don't care about the morality of homosexuality OR rape. Not at all. The purpose of my argument is to shut down HIS argument, because it's backwards and if taken to its logical conclusion(which is what I've done above that you have so many problems with) leads to a horror show.
#221 to #212 - audiolife
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
Except there is a fundamental difference between a homosexual person and a rapist. Rape is an act performed, anybody can be a rapist. Being homosexual has nothing to do with having gay sex. Anybody can have gay sex, in fact there was a straight married man in the news recently because he was a famous gay porn star. If you wanted to compare gay sex and rape you would have slightly better footing, but the OP wasn't talking about rape. You brought rape up and compared it to homosexuality, but like everyone has been saying CONSENT MATTERS HERE. Acting out your "gay" on another gay person who consents to it is completely and utterly distinct from acting out your urge to rape somebody. Whether you brought up the morals of it is irrelevant, because the moral issue does matter. The comic was more a referendum on the hateful language in the bible because society better understands basic humans rights and sexuality today than we did 1000's of years ago.
#225 to #221 - daddycool
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
Ya know, I just realized that I could spend the next 5 hours trying to explain this very simple concept to you, going through the argument process little by little until you finally understand that I wasn't actually comparing rape and homosexuality in the way you describe.

Then I realized, you're just an idiot. And I don't have to justify myself to idiots.
#227 to #225 - audiolife
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
Yeah man that's how you win an argument! Call the other guy an idiot, don't argue any of the points he made, just call him an idiot! You're assumption is that you can substitute rapist for homosexual in that statement and come to the same conclusion. But you can't! The God of the bible supposedly gave us free will, which means God did not make rapists into rapists, as rape is an act. Homosexuality is not a choice you ARE born that way, which would mean that God did make them that way. As an atheist what some fake "God" did literally means nothing to me and it does come down to an argument of which one infringes upon another humans rights.

Your argument could easily have been used by racists. Let's assume that a group of people hate black people. Somebody comes up to them and says, "Stop hating black people! God make them that way, why would he not want them to be black?" The racist group would probably find your post a great response to the not racist person. But it stills has the same pitfalls.
#302 to #227 - satakas
Reply 0
(12/15/2012) [-]
you're wrong. not that I think, you're wrong, but you made a logical error

if god made homos, as you suggest, he couldn't have announced homosexual act to be a sin. thus, homosexuality has nothing to do with god-stuff (i have to mention, that i don't believe any of that bible-stuff anyways).

but coming back to the beginning of that thread....despite of banning homosexuality, i can't find any passage in the bible, that bans pedophilia! So, watch out for your li'l girls, all bible-heads, because here i come and you have NOTHING against me :P
#115 to #99 - TastyBurger
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
What he's saying is God made pedophiles and rapists that way. They are just as much of a sexuality as the others. A gay person was made by God to be gay. A rapist is made by God to rape. A pedophile was made by God to be attracted to children. And if they weren't born that way, God still created the reasons for them to become that way. God made someone that would sooner or later molest someone and because of that the molested person went on to have a sexuality problem that made them do the same.

It's kind of like the "act of God" clause that insurance companies like to rely on. When a tornado strikes and destroys your home, it was an "act of God". Technically, everything is God's will. From the hurricane to the drunk driver. If its all a part of his "plan" than everything is God's fault basically.
#213 to #115 - audiolife
Reply 0
(11/30/2012) [-]
I understand what he's saying, but there is something morally wrong(fun fact: morals have absolutely no causative relation to religion) with performing a sexual act on an A) non-consenting person B) Someone who we have deemed incapable of giving consent (ie: children/minors). And there is not any evidence that Giving gay people equal and fair treatment is detrimental to society at all. Bottom line, adult consensual gay sex does not harm or infringe upon anyone's rights, rape/pedophilia does.
#234 to #213 - TastyBurger
Reply 0
(12/01/2012) [-]
That's just picking and choosing what sexuality is and isn't okay. Morals are all subjective. It depends on the angle you're looking at it. Morals for Attila the Hun were probably pretty different to ours, but he isn't wrong because morals can't be wrong. It's just your opinion about whether or not something is good. To me, morals are no different than music taste or political choice. They're all an opinion.

Think about the death penalty. It's murdering to show murdering is wrong. But those people are still probably bad enough to deserve death. Or does anyone "deserve" death? Everything in the world is subjective. There is no right answer to anything.
#235 to #234 - audiolife
Reply 0
(12/01/2012) [-]
Except that we as a civilized society understand that the most basic aspects of morality exhibited in animals are empathy and fairness. Did Attila the Hun think what he was doing was morally right? Probably not. Most mass murderers didn't concern themselves with the morality of what they were doing. We have agreed, in the UN at least, on what some basic human rights are. We have also agreed that infringing on the rights of others is bad. So it's not picking and choosing what sexuality is and isn't okay randomly or on a basis of what I like. It's about the act of rape fundamentally infringing upon someone else's rights and the fact that neither being homosexual or having consensual homosexual sex infringe do. For the record I don't agree with the death penalty for a couple reasons. One, it costs more money to keep people on death row than to keep them in prison for life. Two, though I would personally want to kill someone who murdered a love one of mine, I do not think that it is up to the government to kill people.
#236 to #235 - TastyBurger
Reply 0
(12/01/2012) [-]
Look, I really don't care. I'm not getting into psychological/philosophical/political/moral debate here because my overall point is that no one is right. Everyone should shut the **** up, because there is no answer for anything. Only "answers" and opinions.
#300 to #37 - satakas
Reply -1
(12/15/2012) [-]
you think so? really?

OK! well, i think that red sucks and blue is way better!

BURN ALL WHO LIKE RED!!!
#41 to #31 - nucularwar
Reply +2
(11/30/2012) [-]
yeah, except for the whole consent part
#42 - verticalvampire
Reply +5
(11/30/2012) [-]
and so the internet was born
and so the internet was born
#33 - Myfoot
Reply +5
(11/30/2012) [-]
I must find this planet, the people here are assholes.