DEEJANGO Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 ^^^ Virgin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 TBF if its your wife then you are each others 'property' and you have taken vows to celebrate the fact. Only if you made those vows prior to 1881, tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 What a lot of rubbish. Granny can speak for himself (eventually, once he wakes up from his nap) but you're grossly misrepresenting the point he was making which is that a woman's virtue is no longer the property of her husband. He was expressly dismissing the outdated concept which your silly pal has been labouring to argue. And Granny is grossly misrepresenting my point as well ffs. All I'm saying is if whoever battered Zalukas did it because a) he was shagging his missus I would have a degree of understanding. If whoever did it, thumped him because b) Zalukas is - say - a Roman Catholic - I would have no understanding whatsoever. The provocation could be any of a multitude of things - another could be c) - the culprit is basically a thug who cannot control his temper and is likely to thump someone for pretty much f**k all. My point is therefore that the culprit will get an easier ride (fnarr fnarr) all round if the reason is a) rather than b) or indeed c). Do you disagree? Am I alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 What a lot of rubbish. Granny can speak for himself (eventually, once he wakes up from his nap) but you're grossly misrepresenting the point he was making which is that a woman's virtue is no longer the property of her husband. He was expressly dismissing the outdated concept which your silly pal has been labouring to argue. What would you do if you went home and your mate was pumping your wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEEJANGO Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Only if you made those vows prior to 1881, tbf. I don't think the traditional wedding vows have changed much since then, TBF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 What would you do if you went home and your mate was pumping your wife?Take pity on him. PMS has to pump his wife. Part of the job description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I don't think the traditional wedding vows have changed much since then, TBF. Of course in those cosmopolitan towns like Arbroath, Brechin or Forfar - who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 What a lot of rubbish. Granny can speak for himself (eventually, once he wakes up from his nap) but you're grossly misrepresenting the point he was making which is that a woman's virtue is no longer the property of her husband. He was expressly dismissing the outdated concept which your silly pal has been labouring to argue. It doesn't surprise me that there is a Dee misrepresenting my point. He could be doing it deliberately or he might be too stupid to understand it. Bravo on the faux moral high ground, of course if a lassie comes home and finds her husband shagging another burd she would just accept it because 'she knows her place as chattel'. Your sad Sir Galahad routine is a tad dated and dare I say it patronising. I'm pretty sure you've dished out your share of personal insults and the like as well so lets not be having any pish about 'resorting to' nonsense. I don't think my moral ground is particularly high. Maybe just looks that way from the depth of your own.BTW, the idea that women should be treated as people in their own right is anything but dated or patronising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 It's beginning to look like Granny's missus has been getting pumped by the caretaker at the David Llloyd centre, East of Dobbies and he is too scared to go and give him a wee smack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 TBF if its your wife then you are each others 'property' and you have taken vows to celebrate the fact. Only if you made those vows prior to 1881, tbf. I don't think the traditional wedding vows have changed much since then, TBF. Yeah, you're not each others' property whatever vows you personally may have taken. At one point it could be said that a women was the property of her husband but that hasn't been the case for very many years. I don't know what vows you (or your sister) took but mine made no reference to owning my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 And Granny is grossly misrepresenting my point as well ffs. All I'm saying is if whoever battered Zalukas did it because a) he was shagging his missus I would have a degree of understanding. If whoever did it, thumped him because b) Zalukas is - say - a Roman Catholic - I would have no understanding whatsoever. The provocation could be any of a multitude of things - another could be c) - the culprit is basically a thug who cannot control his temper and is likely to thump someone for pretty much f**k all. My point is therefore that the culprit will get an easier ride (fnarr fnarr) all round if the reason is a) rather than b) or indeed c). Do you disagree? Am I alone? You still peddling that nonsense about this being a hate crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saintee Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I'm glad wee Gauld left before his innocence was corrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Yeah, you're not each others' property whatever vows you personally may have taken. At one point it could be said that a women was the property of her husband but that hasn't been the case for very many years. I don't know what vows you (or your sister) took but mine made no reference to owning my wife. That's great, but what would you do if you went home and someone was pumping your wife (or sister lololololol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEEJANGO Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I don't know what vows you (or your sister) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 That's great, but what would you do if you went home and someone was pumping your wife (or sister lololololol). You still peddling that nonsense about this being a hate crime? Still deflecting I see. I mentioned 3 out of dozens of possibilities - you focus on one - are you ITK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 So it appears if I go round to Granny's house and pump his missus, I've more chance of him making me a sandwich after it than I have of getting wrapped in the puss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEEJANGO Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 So it appears if I go round to Granny's house and pump his missus, I've more chance of him making me a sandwich after it than I have of getting wrapped in the puss. And a Werther's Original. I might go up tonight as I'm pretty peckish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Ok I worded that badly. However battering somebody because they've been riding your missus is more understandable than - for example because they are a different colour than you. The law and subsequent disposal reflect this too. And if you don't agree with that you're the fucking Neanderthal. Disagreement of this sort is not limited to men. Lots of women come to fisticuffs over other birds shagging 'their' man. Even Arab fans are aggressive - jeesy peeps. You're not doing well here Granny. Be deliberately obtuse if you like but to me and I suspect many others who live in the real world, if it turns out to over a wife shagging incident rather than say - a religiously motivated attack, the culprit, whoever it is, will have a degree of sympathy. Do you consider it impossible to have been a hate crime? If so you're the idiot. And Granny is grossly misrepresenting my point as well ffs. All I'm saying is if whoever battered Zalukas did it because a) he was shagging his missus I would have a degree of understanding. If whoever did it, thumped him because b) Zalukas is - say - a Roman Catholic - I would have no understanding whatsoever. The provocation could be any of a multitude of things - another could be c) - the culprit is basically a thug who cannot control his temper and is likely to thump someone for pretty much f**k all. My point is therefore that the culprit will get an easier ride (fnarr fnarr) all round if the reason is a) rather than b) or indeed c). Do you disagree? Am I alone? Still deflecting I see. I mentioned 3 out of dozens of possibilities - you focus on one - are you ITK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 So it appears if I go round to Granny's house and pump his missus, I've more chance of him making me a sandwich after it than I have of getting wrapped in the puss. Perhaps you could be her bit of rough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Reported - hate crime denier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.