[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.
[/quote]
For any who read this above (yes both of you), please know:
I don’t actually know CAR’s gender nor do I have knowledge of any of her(his?) private info.
I do not have any info about any gender enhancement nor do I actually see her as a tool.
I was just saying that I agree with her and that I like the turn her discourse has taken for the insightful and I was saying it in a douchebag-like manner (shocking I know).
I do not know if she is female, black, or klingon (or all three) and don’t actually care.
The only point was that she made some good points and that I liked them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.
[/quote]
For any who read this above (yes both of you), please know:
I don’t actually know CAR’s gender nor do I have knowledge of any of her(his?) private info.
I do not have any info about any gender enhancement nor do I actually see her as a tool.
I was just saying that I agree with her and that I like the turn her discourse has taken for the insightful and I was saying it in a douchebag-like manner (shocking I know).
I do not know if she is female, black, or klingon (or all three) and don’t actually care.
The only point was that she made some good points and that I liked them.

[urbanrealtor]

California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.

[urbanrealtor]

California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.

[urbanrealtor]

California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.

[urbanrealtor]

California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.

[urbanrealtor]

California law typically lets a buyer back out but not a seller.
That being said, I don’t think most buyers will take you into court and force the sale.
It would be easier to try to shut it down and offer money to make it right with all parties.

But seriously, you have no real rights on this issue.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

That is why we have a word for it.
That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

That is why we have a word for it.
That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

That is why we have a word for it.
That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

That is why we have a word for it.
That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Being gay should not define a special class of citizens or special status; and gays should not be recognized in a public school curriculum in the way that is being proposed.

Being gay is a behavior, not a social class.[/quote]

Social class is defined by any designator (eg: hair color, skin color, sexual behavior, income, alcohol consumption) that can be used to draw a circle around a group.

People who have same-sex relations may or may not be gay (eg: prison) but the point is that behavior is a perfectly acceptable designator of social class.

That is why we have a word for it.
That is why it is a designated “protected social class” in the state code.

By your definition, religion would also be likewise non-recognized.

Being a Mormon is also a behavior.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=walterwhite]what percentage of the population do you think could be happy with pure onanism? I wonder if it’s higher than generally recognized. I bet it’s at least 10%, but people are pressured socially to interact with each other. we could have less social problems if people didn’t interact with other humans

also, plushies should be encouraged.

and we should be giving tax credits for sex robots.[/quote]

@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.

@ Walterwhite/scaredycat/publicdefender/snapdoodlepoopsmearstupidhandleoftheminute

The cheaper government option would of course not be robots. It would be plush solutions and some sort of lubricant.

Yiffing as public policy (I needed Wikipedia for that word).

Summary:

Discussion of educational policy to debate over tax dollars for sex with robots and stuffed animals in just 118 comments.

Score!!!!!

I have now won the internets.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=walterwhite]what percentage of the population do you think could be happy with pure onanism? I wonder if it’s higher than generally recognized. I bet it’s at least 10%, but people are pressured socially to interact with each other. we could have less social problems if people didn’t interact with other humans

also, plushies should be encouraged.

and we should be giving tax credits for sex robots.[/quote]

@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.

@ Walterwhite/scaredycat/publicdefender/snapdoodlepoopsmearstupidhandleoftheminute

The cheaper government option would of course not be robots. It would be plush solutions and some sort of lubricant.

Yiffing as public policy (I needed Wikipedia for that word).

Summary:

Discussion of educational policy to debate over tax dollars for sex with robots and stuffed animals in just 118 comments.

Score!!!!!

I have now won the internets.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=walterwhite]what percentage of the population do you think could be happy with pure onanism? I wonder if it’s higher than generally recognized. I bet it’s at least 10%, but people are pressured socially to interact with each other. we could have less social problems if people didn’t interact with other humans

also, plushies should be encouraged.

and we should be giving tax credits for sex robots.[/quote]

@ CAR:
You are a tool and I therefore would request that you stop making posts that I agree with.
It horrifies me.
Please dude.
Also, I know you are female but my reference to dude was a reference to your original gender.
Unfortunately I agree with much of what you have written here.

@ Walterwhite/scaredycat/publicdefender/snapdoodlepoopsmearstupidhandleoftheminute

The cheaper government option would of course not be robots. It would be plush solutions and some sort of lubricant.

Yiffing as public policy (I needed Wikipedia for that word).

Summary:

Discussion of educational policy to debate over tax dollars for sex with robots and stuffed animals in just 118 comments.

Score!!!!!

I have now won the internets.

[Author]

Posts