i dont see a point in arguing with this man, he ignores your questions and makes bogus claims then claims YOU need to look into history and then blocks you. . .yeah
I am taking religion because it simply fascinates me even though i am Athiest. What I learned so far is that Neanderthals buried their dead w/ goods, suggesting they had some knowledge of the "afterlife". Most findings of some sort of religious belief are due to archeology. That is not to say they don't know the exact context of these findings, and whether it really points to a religious concept.
I do believe that genes determine whether you are gay or not...You can fight this (like people who have gone to church camp and got "saved") but it will not change you genes. I really think people who say being gay is a choice are really dumb. Leave any comments on your take on it by responding to this post.
True totaly agree with you on people who say sexuality is a choice thing.
they might be sexually confused or criminally insane. However i disagree, i don't think genes determine your sexuality. I believe nature does. scientist have not yet determined the exact gene that causes homosexuality.
This one deserves to be mirrored and demonicly be editted like I did with two of the videos made by TheTruePooka. You are an artist and I wonder how your voice would sound with a low pitch.
Now...I'm not gay, maybe if Krazie and I were in prison together I might consider it. Then I'd make him tie his shirt up at the bottom and sell him for a pack of smokes.
see, i don't know if gays are born that way.... but i know that i am born into sin... i don't want to be monogamous, it's not in my human nature.(nor any other guy's)
Ah, so you're born sick and you need Jesus to cure you? It's funny how Scientology also teaches that you are born sick, but you need L. Ron Hubbard to cure you.
I'm simply questioning the validity of a "perfect" god who somehow created an imperfect beings, who holds us to this impossibly high standard.
Look, if you created a life form who was biologically tuned to be very sexual, greedy, frightened, and confused, wouldn't you expect them to act accordingly? Would you hold them to a higher standard than that of which you designed? Wouldn't it be sadistic to punish them for not meeting this standard? I think it would be.
it's an impossible standard because we aren't "God". would you like God to have created you to be "God"?
you need to tell me how God can give us free-will but not have consequences for our choices. how can we have free-will but not be subject to the results of sin?
"would you like God to have created you to be 'God'? "
I'm saying that if there were a god similar to what you believe, it would be insane for him to expect us to be perfect. It's would be nothing short of sadistic for that god to create humans with, for example, the extremely strong desire to have sex and masturbate and then tell us that it's also considered sinful and we should avoid it.
And what does free will have to do with committing "sins"?
He knows we can't be perfect, that's why He sent His Son to pay the price.
sexual desire is a good thing, but lusting is not. wouldn't it suck if our desire wasn't strong enough so that sex wouldn't be something to look forward to?
committing sins is the other "choice" from obey God.... you don't want to be forced to obey God do you?
It's sadistic with that there is a price to be payed for acting upon our instincts. It's even more sadistic that the payment involves nailing somebody to a cross.
And, no, committing sins is not the other choice from obeying a god. Wouldn't simply not obeying god suffice? That's all you need. You don't need the choice to murder or steal, you only need the choice to ignore. And you definitely don't need a pit of eternal torment either - that is also EXTREMELY sadistic.
well, would you say it's sadistic to jump in front of a bullet to save a buddy?
"And, no, committing sins is not the other choice from obeying a god. Wouldn't simply not obeying god suffice? That's all you need. You don't need the choice to murder or steal, you only need the choice to ignore." - that is a logical fallacy bro.
Eternal Hell is the judgement for an Eternal decision. God doesn't want another "rebelling" in Heaven.
It would be sadistic of somebody to shoot at you and then send his son in to jump in front of it for you. Oh, and all you have to do in return is worship the son for all eternity (such a small price!). Well, you know what? I never asked for it, yet according to you, this covenant (accept Jesus or burn in hell) is thrust upon me. Some free will that is!
Besides, free will is not something that can be granted by any being. To say that it is simply negates the concept of it.
"It would be sadistic of somebody to shoot at you and then send his son in to jump in front of it for you" - sorry bud, i disagree with that analogy. God would be more like the "President" allowing the right to bear arms, and -we- are the ones who choose to screw it up.
"Besides, free will is not something that can be granted by any being" - why?
-Okay, I accept your analogy, and have a question: If there were a technology that would make it impossible to murder somebody with a gun, do you think that technology should be used? God would ostensibly have that technology, yet he chooses not to use it. Why? Isn't there still a use to owning a gun even if it's impossible to murder somebody with it?
-As soon as you define free will as something that can be granted and taken away, it simply isn't free will. You've mutilated the concept.
1. you are basically creating a logical fallacy by saying, "isn't it possible to not allow people to have free-will while giving them free-will?" that's like saying if God is so powerful He should be able to beat Himself up.
2. free-will simply is doode... we are here and we choose... how is that so complicated?
1. Free will is not dependent on the ability to murder, nor is it dependent on the ability to do expensive drugs, or have sex with extinct animals, or whatever "sinful" activities for which it might be currently impossible for us to do. If it were physically impossible for humans to commit murder, how would that negate free will?
I believe homosexuality is genetic. Science hasnt determined that as of yet but it doesnt mean its not true. Science is all about testing theories. within time, the truth will come out. i have seen children as young as 3 who possess traits of male homosexuality. how do they know how to act feminine? its not a choice for them.
krazie should just give up. It's pointless to debate something that he said himself doesn't know about.
And to be honest, I always thought gays were able to marry until recently since it doesn't really do anyone any harm besides their religion that says gays are going to hell.
Actually I dont think the bible says that gays go to hell. Just that laying with men is an abomination and the punishment is death, but I might be wrong. Im an atheist so it really doesnt concern me whats in that book. Cheers
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So you say that the homos are born that way?!
Sorry but never in the history of man kind a doctor has said "Congratulations, you have a healthy gay baby!" And the part about the twins... well they were raised together after all. I don't mind and it is not my job if 2 guys want to do strange things to each other. But claiming that homosexualitty is genetic. That means that it has a biological purpose, wich I doubt that will be ever proven. Natural selection do not predicted it, prove me wrong pls
Is that argument to ridicule supposed to overturn all the data that suggests that male homosexuality is most likely the result of in-utero hormonal influences at a critical phase of neural development (epigenetic)?
//That means that it has a biological purpose, wich I doubt that will be ever proven.//
First, "purpose" is a psychological construct. You mean biological *function*. Second, religionists splutter about "proof", scientists discuss withstanding falsification.
contd to madhatter: As I implied, experimental testing does support the hypothesis that male homosexuality has an epigenetic basis. Castrating male rats at birth results in their behaving like females in response to male rats.
If you want more information, google some of the terms that I have used. I doubt that you do want more information, though. You probably assume that your opinions and prejudices suffice.
"Evolution has a "form follows function" reason, and a so far incomprehensibly complicated utilitarianism driving it... That is the beauty and even power that makes it believable, and seeable... It would logically never trigger into something not needed, as that adds a drag and drain of energy on a process OF energy, literally for no reason. There may be things we do not know yet or vestigial remains now obsolete, but pointless?"
Even as a straight man I find it unnaturally offensive to call a gay man a homo. "A gay baby". You may not have meant it that way but that just sounds down right malicious. "strange things with each other" Now does this sound right even to you? Screw being PC but you sounds like a bigot.
Would I ever sleep with a man? No. Do I think that two consenting adults should be able to enter into any contractual agreement with themselves and the government they so choose, ie marriage? I certainly do.
Oh for the love of reason, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous phrases in existence. "I'll make a claim with no actual evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you."
You assume that every single biological trait (1) has to have a concrete purpose we humans understand and (2) natural selection is a mechanism of prediction, and (3) doctors know all biological traits of a human upon their birth.
The burden of proof has not been fulfilled on your part yet.
themadhatter8888: Homosexuality is an extremely complicated human trait, and though genetics may increase the odds dramatically of a person being gay, it would never be anything definitive (same goes for things like alcoholism).
And indeed, it does seem that homosexuality might serve a biological purpose. It has been recently found that fecundity is increased in women with homosexual relatives - the mechanism of this increase is currently unknown.
Found it, thanks. Also found a newer article (2009) from the same group confirming it (pubmed number 18561014). Here they conclude that "genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals" I did not know that!!
Fascinating, isn't it?! It does not suggest that the factors have a "purpose", but it does explain why natural selection has not eliminated that particular mechanism.
Actually this is somewhat the same argument that Dawkins make in "the god delusion", when he speculates over, why natural selection haven't gotten rid of religion yet.
Natural selection operates, in whatever environment, against organisms that are not adequately adapted to reproduce.
Despite the fact that the IQ distribution of creationists is lower than that of atheists and scientists, our environment permits creationists to reproduce.
In fact, the less-educated and religious are more likely to reproduce than the highly educated.
Do you mean that the genetics that predispose to increased fecundity are unknown, or the mechanism by which this might predispose to some instances of homosexuality is unknown?
If the latter, you might want to google "maternal immune hypothesis". The mechanism is postulated to be somewhat like the development of antibodies to Rh.
Female fecundity selectively affects the youngest brother of brothers -- provided that they are right-handed. Go figure!
I wonder if Krazie will ever get tired of embarrassing himself on YouTube. This is the main reason why I stopped my own debate with him: even in the face of evidence he won't see reason, and fall further into stupidity.
lol, I can already hear Krazie's lame response; "You are twisting my words." Really? How can one twist "[certain people] need to be shot in the face."
lol
letmylifeb1 11 months ago
i dont see a point in arguing with this man, he ignores your questions and makes bogus claims then claims YOU need to look into history and then blocks you. . .yeah
Mokenofrs 1 year ago
What are odds this guys gay?
angrydead 1 year ago
lol at 4:03-4:10 XD
crapatoa 1 year ago
Krazie looks like a closet case who is pissed because his boyfriend left him. His screen name is perfect for him.
lucindio6669 2 years ago
I am taking religion because it simply fascinates me even though i am Athiest. What I learned so far is that Neanderthals buried their dead w/ goods, suggesting they had some knowledge of the "afterlife". Most findings of some sort of religious belief are due to archeology. That is not to say they don't know the exact context of these findings, and whether it really points to a religious concept.
TearsOfWar1 2 years ago
I do believe that genes determine whether you are gay or not...You can fight this (like people who have gone to church camp and got "saved") but it will not change you genes. I really think people who say being gay is a choice are really dumb. Leave any comments on your take on it by responding to this post.
TearsOfWar1 2 years ago
True totaly agree with you on people who say sexuality is a choice thing.
they might be sexually confused or criminally insane. However i disagree, i don't think genes determine your sexuality. I believe nature does. scientist have not yet determined the exact gene that causes homosexuality.
SoilderofScience 2 years ago
You have a misunderstanding of how genes work. For example I have green eyes, you know how many genes are necessary for that code? 17.
TylerBoBylerFyler 1 year ago
He got his ass handed to him in "Krazie in the Brain," and he was actually stupid enough to try again?
nylonhead116 2 years ago 3
This one deserves to be mirrored and demonicly be editted like I did with two of the videos made by TheTruePooka. You are an artist and I wonder how your voice would sound with a low pitch.
allianceofdemons 2 years ago
Well, feel free to mirror if you want.
antybu86 2 years ago
Thank you.
If the experiment somehow fails according to you, let me know ;)
allianceofdemons 2 years ago
Like the little clip of "Krazie316? The name suits you!" as if he didn't notice his own name was "fool for a lifetime" at all...
sonic8005 2 years ago
thank god for the fag hating mormons lol
liberalism has the edge for now, but if you just compare birth rates it may eventually be mormon is to white as muslim is to arab.
shadowmancer1234 2 years ago
Ya know we have had same sex marrage legal in Canada for a few years now , no problems I just can't understand the objection.
pamor25 2 years ago
Kraize are fucking retarded hahahaha
C0DZ0R 2 years ago 4
Now...I'm not gay, maybe if Krazie and I were in prison together I might consider it. Then I'd make him tie his shirt up at the bottom and sell him for a pack of smokes.
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
see, i don't know if gays are born that way.... but i know that i am born into sin... i don't want to be monogamous, it's not in my human nature.(nor any other guy's)
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Ah, so you're born sick and you need Jesus to cure you? It's funny how Scientology also teaches that you are born sick, but you need L. Ron Hubbard to cure you.
antybu86 2 years ago
yes, we are born desperate for God... that's what happens when we are given free-will.... we are corrupted by sin.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
I guess God fucked up then.
antybu86 2 years ago
look, i like you doode.... but that is one of the most superficial statements i have ever heard you say.
you are basically saying that even though we have free-will we wont have to bear the consequences of our choices.
i admit that you are smarter than me, which is why i'm surprised that you aren't understanding that.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
I'm simply questioning the validity of a "perfect" god who somehow created an imperfect beings, who holds us to this impossibly high standard.
Look, if you created a life form who was biologically tuned to be very sexual, greedy, frightened, and confused, wouldn't you expect them to act accordingly? Would you hold them to a higher standard than that of which you designed? Wouldn't it be sadistic to punish them for not meeting this standard? I think it would be.
antybu86 2 years ago
it's an impossible standard because we aren't "God". would you like God to have created you to be "God"?
you need to tell me how God can give us free-will but not have consequences for our choices. how can we have free-will but not be subject to the results of sin?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
"would you like God to have created you to be 'God'? "
I'm saying that if there were a god similar to what you believe, it would be insane for him to expect us to be perfect. It's would be nothing short of sadistic for that god to create humans with, for example, the extremely strong desire to have sex and masturbate and then tell us that it's also considered sinful and we should avoid it.
And what does free will have to do with committing "sins"?
antybu86 2 years ago
He knows we can't be perfect, that's why He sent His Son to pay the price.
sexual desire is a good thing, but lusting is not. wouldn't it suck if our desire wasn't strong enough so that sex wouldn't be something to look forward to?
committing sins is the other "choice" from obey God.... you don't want to be forced to obey God do you?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
It's sadistic with that there is a price to be payed for acting upon our instincts. It's even more sadistic that the payment involves nailing somebody to a cross.
And, no, committing sins is not the other choice from obeying a god. Wouldn't simply not obeying god suffice? That's all you need. You don't need the choice to murder or steal, you only need the choice to ignore. And you definitely don't need a pit of eternal torment either - that is also EXTREMELY sadistic.
antybu86 2 years ago
well, would you say it's sadistic to jump in front of a bullet to save a buddy?
"And, no, committing sins is not the other choice from obeying a god. Wouldn't simply not obeying god suffice? That's all you need. You don't need the choice to murder or steal, you only need the choice to ignore." - that is a logical fallacy bro.
Eternal Hell is the judgement for an Eternal decision. God doesn't want another "rebelling" in Heaven.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
It would be sadistic of somebody to shoot at you and then send his son in to jump in front of it for you. Oh, and all you have to do in return is worship the son for all eternity (such a small price!). Well, you know what? I never asked for it, yet according to you, this covenant (accept Jesus or burn in hell) is thrust upon me. Some free will that is!
Besides, free will is not something that can be granted by any being. To say that it is simply negates the concept of it.
antybu86 2 years ago
"It would be sadistic of somebody to shoot at you and then send his son in to jump in front of it for you" - sorry bud, i disagree with that analogy. God would be more like the "President" allowing the right to bear arms, and -we- are the ones who choose to screw it up.
"Besides, free will is not something that can be granted by any being" - why?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
-Okay, I accept your analogy, and have a question: If there were a technology that would make it impossible to murder somebody with a gun, do you think that technology should be used? God would ostensibly have that technology, yet he chooses not to use it. Why? Isn't there still a use to owning a gun even if it's impossible to murder somebody with it?
-As soon as you define free will as something that can be granted and taken away, it simply isn't free will. You've mutilated the concept.
antybu86 2 years ago 3
1. you are basically creating a logical fallacy by saying, "isn't it possible to not allow people to have free-will while giving them free-will?" that's like saying if God is so powerful He should be able to beat Himself up.
2. free-will simply is doode... we are here and we choose... how is that so complicated?
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
1. Free will is not dependent on the ability to murder, nor is it dependent on the ability to do expensive drugs, or have sex with extinct animals, or whatever "sinful" activities for which it might be currently impossible for us to do. If it were physically impossible for humans to commit murder, how would that negate free will?
antybu86 2 years ago
sorry man, i still think you are presenting a fallacy.
CapnnOrdinary 2 years ago
Even if homosexuality was a choice, so what? Still doesn't mean it is wrong.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Yup. Agreed.
antybu86 2 years ago
Krazie was Pwned again....oh well, it won't be the last time he sets himself up again.
sydgetspolitical 2 years ago
I believe homosexuality is genetic. Science hasnt determined that as of yet but it doesnt mean its not true. Science is all about testing theories. within time, the truth will come out. i have seen children as young as 3 who possess traits of male homosexuality. how do they know how to act feminine? its not a choice for them.
lindsey2021 2 years ago
Funny how all the hippies (50-64) are more tolerant.
hoodedmanxz 2 years ago
krazie should just give up. It's pointless to debate something that he said himself doesn't know about.
And to be honest, I always thought gays were able to marry until recently since it doesn't really do anyone any harm besides their religion that says gays are going to hell.
ironman711 2 years ago
Actually I dont think the bible says that gays go to hell. Just that laying with men is an abomination and the punishment is death, but I might be wrong. Im an atheist so it really doesnt concern me whats in that book. Cheers
northwhale 2 years ago
needs to be shot is the face? haha
i think we have just found the new poster-boy for rational thought
queenboxi 2 years ago
I continue to love you anty. Forever.
pureuk 2 years ago
Anty...no no...PLEASE keep abusing Krazie. I need a good laugh nowadays...and you are doing such a GREAT job. Thx again...
johnnyphoenix74 2 years ago
You are made of awesome, Antybu86 :D
"spelunking in Valhalla, or rafting down the Styx.."
lol
bewarethelizards42 2 years ago
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
MUAHAHA. You really know how to rap up a video. I bet he's really pissed right now. Good work once again.
northwhale 2 years ago
He's a total hypocrite.
theendofconfusion 2 years ago
Krazie316 is gay, there is no doubt! Krazie, be yourself! Kiss a man! You know you want to!
DrivinWest 2 years ago
A scientist who prefers to remain nameless because he doesn't exist.
johnrainrules 2 years ago 9
i get along with krazi ok, but i can't begin to tell you how much i think he is wrong on this whole issue he has now dedicated his channel too.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
Thank you for making this video finally, Krazie thought he had actually won.
samsamsztuk 2 years ago
Krazie is the type of guy that will claim victory no matter what.
antybu86 2 years ago
Are you going to use the pigeon analogy? You know, the pigeon who craps on the chessboard, and go home to his friends saying he won?
JohnTraviss 2 years ago
Denzel washington is a faggot XD
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So you say that the homos are born that way?!
Sorry but never in the history of man kind a doctor has said "Congratulations, you have a healthy gay baby!" And the part about the twins... well they were raised together after all. I don't mind and it is not my job if 2 guys want to do strange things to each other. But claiming that homosexualitty is genetic. That means that it has a biological purpose, wich I doubt that will be ever proven. Natural selection do not predicted it, prove me wrong pls
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
Well, you can't determine your baby's sexual orientation until it actually becomes sexually mature.
MarowakDidIt 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
Is that argument to ridicule supposed to overturn all the data that suggests that male homosexuality is most likely the result of in-utero hormonal influences at a critical phase of neural development (epigenetic)?
//That means that it has a biological purpose, wich I doubt that will be ever proven.//
First, "purpose" is a psychological construct. You mean biological *function*. Second, religionists splutter about "proof", scientists discuss withstanding falsification.
pareidolian 2 years ago
contd to madhatter: As I implied, experimental testing does support the hypothesis that male homosexuality has an epigenetic basis. Castrating male rats at birth results in their behaving like females in response to male rats.
If you want more information, google some of the terms that I have used. I doubt that you do want more information, though. You probably assume that your opinions and prejudices suffice.
pareidolian 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
it has been proven you idiot fuck you retard. it is genetic, it is in their genes. you are fucking ignorante.
michaelnicosia 2 years ago
l2evolve
I'm too lazy to answer, so copy-paste:
"Evolution has a "form follows function" reason, and a so far incomprehensibly complicated utilitarianism driving it... That is the beauty and even power that makes it believable, and seeable... It would logically never trigger into something not needed, as that adds a drag and drain of energy on a process OF energy, literally for no reason. There may be things we do not know yet or vestigial remains now obsolete, but pointless?"
flawbertrobert 2 years ago
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
Even as a straight man I find it unnaturally offensive to call a gay man a homo. "A gay baby". You may not have meant it that way but that just sounds down right malicious. "strange things with each other" Now does this sound right even to you? Screw being PC but you sounds like a bigot.
Would I ever sleep with a man? No. Do I think that two consenting adults should be able to enter into any contractual agreement with themselves and the government they so choose, ie marriage? I certainly do.
LogicIsDying 2 years ago
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
"prove me wrong pls"
Oh for the love of reason, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous phrases in existence. "I'll make a claim with no actual evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on you."
You assume that every single biological trait (1) has to have a concrete purpose we humans understand and (2) natural selection is a mechanism of prediction, and (3) doctors know all biological traits of a human upon their birth.
The burden of proof has not been fulfilled on your part yet.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
Comment removed
themadhatter8888 2 years ago
themadhatter8888: Homosexuality is an extremely complicated human trait, and though genetics may increase the odds dramatically of a person being gay, it would never be anything definitive (same goes for things like alcoholism).
And indeed, it does seem that homosexuality might serve a biological purpose. It has been recently found that fecundity is increased in women with homosexual relatives - the mechanism of this increase is currently unknown.
antybu86 2 years ago
Really! Could you give the UID please? That sounds quite interesting.
northwhale 2 years ago
The article is called, "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity."
I wish I could post a link in comments, but googling that should take you to a link where you can view the entire paper for free.
antybu86 2 years ago
Found it, thanks. Also found a newer article (2009) from the same group confirming it (pubmed number 18561014). Here they conclude that "genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals" I did not know that!!
northwhale 2 years ago
Yeah, yeah. I thought there was a more recent paper published about it.
antybu86 2 years ago
Fascinating, isn't it?! It does not suggest that the factors have a "purpose", but it does explain why natural selection has not eliminated that particular mechanism.
pareidolian 2 years ago
I agree. It makes perfect sense.
northwhale 2 years ago
Actually this is somewhat the same argument that Dawkins make in "the god delusion", when he speculates over, why natural selection haven't gotten rid of religion yet.
northwhale 2 years ago
Natural selection operates, in whatever environment, against organisms that are not adequately adapted to reproduce.
Despite the fact that the IQ distribution of creationists is lower than that of atheists and scientists, our environment permits creationists to reproduce.
In fact, the less-educated and religious are more likely to reproduce than the highly educated.
That's why we are stuck with the duhs.
pareidolian 2 years ago
Do you mean that the genetics that predispose to increased fecundity are unknown, or the mechanism by which this might predispose to some instances of homosexuality is unknown?
If the latter, you might want to google "maternal immune hypothesis". The mechanism is postulated to be somewhat like the development of antibodies to Rh.
Female fecundity selectively affects the youngest brother of brothers -- provided that they are right-handed. Go figure!
pareidolian 2 years ago
krazie is crazy
indeed
redFISTofEUROPE 2 years ago 4
I wonder if Krazie will ever get tired of embarrassing himself on YouTube. This is the main reason why I stopped my own debate with him: even in the face of evidence he won't see reason, and fall further into stupidity.
Swordsage 2 years ago 3
Great vid. =)
TheAtheistSwede 2 years ago
lol, I can already hear Krazie's lame response; "You are twisting my words." Really? How can one twist "[certain people] need to be shot in the face."
MikeLibertarian 2 years ago 2
Although bigots such as Krazie316 make me angry, it`s comforting to know that they will be a minority in years to come.
DickensianDreams 2 years ago 2
they are a minority, but sadly they are a loud minority.
rational human beings are not going to make videos about how much we accept gays. sadly negatives are the only things that spark debate.
but it would be a boring world if every one agreed.
mxdirector 2 years ago 3
Krazie sounds like he is closeted homo,
Obasiliasfilosofos 2 years ago 15