Funny how much attention you've paid to the belly-buttons of a group of people you claim to despise, and totally not be a member of. Unfortunately, by that level of proof most Barbie dolls would also be birthed, rather than manufactured, by dint of their having belly-buttons. Is Bart Simpson also born, rather than drawn, since he has a belly button? Or is it not only possible, but dead simple, to imagine a set of circumstances under which an object designed to resemble a human being without actually being one might include non-functional QWERTY-style remnants of the genuine article?

It's funny that Dyldo's pretending he doesn't scream out 'PADDY' every time he cums. His mother told me so, in gratitude that I demonstrably do not have the same ejaculatory tic.

The thing about Barbie and Bart Simpson is that they're not living organisms. Their having bellybuttons does, however, prove my point even further; even when creating fictional characters/toys the artists tend to give their creations fake bellybuttons because it makes them more relatable as humans which, traditionally, have bellybuttons.

I don't despise gingers, but even if I did that wouldn't preclude me from knowing anything about their anatomy. I despise women and blacks, yet I know they all have pussies and willies and anuses, mainly from watching pornographic basketball tournaments and fisting mama PST in the gut-mouth.

I rest my case upon your face.

There's nothing disturbing about two cunts having similar cunt-faced ideas.

Ya pair o' cunt-faced pissanuses. COMMUNISTS!

This is more like it!

I love you too, Moe B. Moe B dick in my mouth.

:love:

Haha you're actually right on time, the thread was started a day early!

Cheers man :beer:

Sorry, tots. I'm the secretary of the local section of a liberal-conservative party. FAIL on you.

So is this Paddy's birthday thread or have a just stepped into a Freudian bombsite?

:beer:

True enough, but there are only about 70 billion examples of camouflage (i.e. an organism taking on the primary characteristics of another organism in order to imitate it for some advantage) the likes of which I described in my post occurring in nature. It only makes sense that something that imitates a human being would take the time to imitate all of its characteristics, and nature has always proved a more perfect artist than dollmakers and cartoonists.


Well, no. That was my point. I said it just above your post. I also said it right before this second quote.

No no, it's pronounced "dirty commy bastard party".

You would know, what with you being a shape-shifting reptilian from outer space. Also, your uncanny impression of a heterosexual despite all evidence to the contrary adds further weight to your position, as do your fat legs. However, to accord such ingenious genetics to a fleet of bog-trotting gingers by way of dehumanising them is the equivalent of asserting that Iraqis are allergic to oil so it's actually beneficial for all involved parties that we take it from them; it's a straw man argument and doesn't stand up to scrutiny when I use my Scrutinator 5000, £39.99 in all good spy shops.

Even the species-mimicking monster from the documentary The Thing was detectable as a monster by administering a simple blood test; you think gingers are capable of outfoxing hundreds of years of medical tradition? I put it to you that gingers are human and necessarily have to have been born and necessarily have to have belly-buttons I thank you.

Your point was that according to my logic Bart Simpson must be considered human because he has a belly-button. My point was that although he's not human the fact that he has a belly-button shows how inherently human we consider the possession of a belly-button to be. Art imitating life, in other words. These artists recognise, perhaps unconsciously, that a bare-bellied character which is intended to resemble a human would be a bit weird. All of this was in aid of my main argument which is that if gingers have belly-buttons they are definitely human because it's an inescapable and inherently human trait. Beyond cosmetic tinkering or fanciful fantasies of fantastical genetic mimicry there's not much chance of a ginger's belly-button being anything but the result of its 9 months spent in the womb of a ginger woman or a non-ginger woman who was fucked by a ginger man or both.

Aha! How do you explain that? You say gingers can mutate and take on the characteristics of other species, yet we know that gingers can fuck non-gingers and successfully impregnate them! If you can provide an example from nature or indeed the movies which shows that a species mimicker can actually inseminate another species (as opposed to turning their bodies into hosts, a la Wiggly Scott's Alien) then I'll accept that all gingers are non-human and that I am a fat ginger with balls like orange candy floss even though I'm definitely not because you are and by reading this sentence to the end you are agreeing that you regularly molest disabled Downs syndrome children.

Happy real birthday, Paddy. :cool:

Dude, P, that thing in your mouth... Dyldo hasn't been feeling very well lately, has he?

Fanx maw. I got your jar of liver today. I didn't have the heart to put my willy into it, so I've just been using it to moisten shut envelopes to save on saliva.

Ha! Dylan wishes he was as well hung as a party whistle, although his cock does curl up into a scroll formation when it's not fully engorged. Now, if I had a picture of a birthday cake with a candle on it that would be a different story.

Obviously seeing as how it's MY birthday it wouldn't be a normal candle and would instead be a 14" signal flare, but you get my point (you wish you'd get my point).

Desperation.

Hey if you cheapasses are sharing birthdays I'm sharing posts.

UNLESS YOU ARE RELIGIOUS,
OR SOMEONE PATRIOTIC,
ALL THOSE OTHER HOLIDAYS ARE PRETTY IDIOTIC
SO I CELEBRATE MY BIRTH,
AND WHEN I CAME TO EARTH
EVEN THOUGH I HATE MY LIFE I CELEBRATE MY BIIIIRTH


DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN
BIRTHDAYS ARE AWESOME
DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN
BIRTHDAYS ARE AWESOME
DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN
BIRTHDAYS ARE AWESOME
DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN
BIRTHDAYS ARE AWESOME

Wolfie, you rawk.

You always know just how to make my dick hard.

Once again, my point was that an imitation of humanity needs to include a belly button to be believable, and therefore pointing out that something has a belly button is a specious proof of its humanity, as any good imitation - or even as shitty a one as Bart Simpson, who has skin the color of lemonade and four fingers on each hand - would of necessity include a belly button. You are parroting this point back to me as an objection. You continue to reiterate my point as though you're making a different one without even understanding it, and in the process are just showing how much you agree with me.

So cut that out you fucking navel-gazing ginger. I hope your birthday was AIDS.

In this context art imitates life, not the other way around. A cartoon drawing doesn't carry any proofs of our biology, except that it's drawn to replicate our biology just enough that it resembles us and can be identified and related to as such. In other words, Bart Simpson having four fingers or massive white eyes with black dots on them doesn't cast into doubt the conceptions we have about what a human looks like; it's a caricature of a human which has certain key human features to make the the image work (a naval being one of them). The implication of your point is that we should consider Bart Simpson - a non-organic effigy - as much a genetic mimicker as what gingers allegedly are, and if not then you haven't really made any point at all. For Bart's loose approximation of humanness to in some way prove that gingers aren't necessarily human is just as unsound as to say that a curtain temporarily assumes or mimics human genetics because it sometimes looks like it has a face when it moves a certain way in a certain light, or that human faces aren't proof of being human because that particular feature is "mimicked" by clouds thus robbing it of its inherent humaniness.

Organic creatures/bacteria is another matter, but that's what we're debating. Well, it's what I'm debating, I don't know it is you think you're doing.

I challenge you again with my massive challenging gland: if gingers are mimickers, why is it that they can impregnate non-gingers? And what other established mimickers have that same facility?

My birthday was lovely and wasn't AIDS at all. If anything it was handjobs.