Cycloptichorn wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
You know, I don't really give a crap about what "gets you." Yes, I think you, and all the other wimpy leftists who are weak on terrorism are lacking testicles. Now, when I say that, I'm not insulting your sexuality, I'm insulting your strength. You have it reversed. I don't think you are actually and physically without balls --- DO YOU GET THAT?
Of course I get that - if you can't rise above the level of idiocy, why even type, Tico?
Why would you think that 'not having any balls' is an indicator of 'not having strength?' That those who don't have them, = weakness? What makes that equivalence in your mind, that testicles = strength? It's quite obvious that you believe this, or else
the insult is meaningless and you wouldn't use it. I'd like you to explain that, but you won't, b/c we both know just how badly it would sound when you tried, bigot.
I find it hilarious, that you on one hand like to make insults which revolve around misogyny and homophobia, but when people call you on your behavior, you get all huffy and offended. Calling attention to your dissonance really puts you off of your game, bigot.
Every now and then you write something interesting, but why do you have to go and f*ck it up by letting your actual personality show through?
Cycloptichorn
Only a fool like you would try and claim I'm trying to insult the eunuchs of the world. How many times are you going to try and claim I'm "insinuating an insult"? In addition to growing a set, you need to grow some skin.
I'm willing to bet you were picked on as a child, right? You were bullied on the school playground. It's plain to see you had a sheltered life. Maybe you can ask someone else to explain about testosterone to you, and maybe you then would understand what I'm getting at.
You aren't trying to insult the eunnuchs of the world, Tico; nobody thinks or said you are. Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
I'm merely highlighting the fact that you seem to be unable to toss out any sort of insult at all without it being sexualized. It's your way of insulting - even in this last one, you've insinuated that I don't have balls or testosterone.
I doubt I've ever read such a revealing exchange, really
It has told everyone here much more about you then you think.
And with that, I'm done for the day. I pre-emptively mock your response.
Cycloptichorn
I was going to call you "numbnuts," but then I realized you'd just claim I was insulting you because of your sexuality.
Did you even read what you wrote? It certainly appears you were trying to insinuate I was insulting eunuchs. This is what you said:
Quote:Why would you think that 'not having any balls' is an indicator of 'not having strength?' That those who don't have them, = weakness? What makes that equivalence in your mind, that testicles = strength? It's quite obvious that you believe this, or else the insult is meaningless and you wouldn't use it. I'd like you to explain that, but you won't, b/c we both know just how badly it would sound when you tried, bigot.
Knowing a bit how your mind works, there's no doubt in my mind you were trying to accuse me of insulting eunuchs (those "not having any balls") as being weak. If you weren't what the hell was your point. Even if you were, what the hell was your point?
Don't answer ... I don't care.
And to the eunuchs of the world, if you feel insulted by anything I've said, I humbly apologize.
)
