Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 For the hundredth time I'm not talking about pedophilia. Pedophilia is having sex with a prepubescent child. A child who has reached puberty is naturally ready to reproduce. We want that to be illegal because it pisses us off and for no other reason. You made up something about consent which you can't even explain. ( think again about whether a child can consent to do his chores go to school or clean his room . If he refuses he is punished right?) Think of the times you bray at people for saying homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. It's because it creeps them out and they have made up a reason to be angry about it. What's funny is I know you are bright enough to understand that but you just can't let yourself admit it. The lasting damage done to the psychology of a 13 year old as sex with an older person is because of societal reaction. Much like homosexual persecution. If it were not so severely condemned in society people would be much less fucked up. Imagine if those taboos didn't exist and that 2% of the population could just go about their lives without worries. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 This was culturally decided between men and women long ago. If you ever had a young daughter and came home to find a grown man sticking is cock in her but she swore she consented, you'd still kill the guy. I hope that happens to you in your next life. Well what you hope for doesn't concern me much, since you are such an unmitigated asshole but you are correct. The only reason that's a taboo is because it pisses you off. Just like homosexuality pisses some people off. If you came home and found you are 30 year old wife in bed with another man you'd probably kill him. Or her or want to.Why? The Bible says so? So should that be illegal? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well that's the way it used to be - when there was grass on the wicket, it was ready for cricket, as the saying went. So then why introduce any kind of laws? Because young people generally are not capable of making responsible decisions for themselves. It's not so much about consent, and I didn't mention consent. Kids can consent to drinking a litre of vodka because it would make them cool - it would also make them dead. Besides, 16 is not a crazy old age for consent, is it? We're agreed that sex with pre-pubescent kids is wrong. Good. Then when puberty starts, and the kids start looking more like adults, with the associated attributes, it's an understandable reaction to occasionally find them attractive. But then they're still going through puberty, they're still not really adults yet. So, when does puberty end, when do they actually become adults? Well, that would be some time around 16 years old. Hey look, that's the age of consent! Wow, what a coincidence with that number society plucked out of their arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Sorry, I did mention consent, but not in the context you're suggesting, of "kids can't consent, that's why it's illegal, but the don't consent to eating broccoli" or whatever bullshit you're trying to pedal this time. Six months ago, I would have assumed you could tell the difference, and you were just playing devils advocate. Today, you've done that so much, and with such bullshit arguments and twisted misinterpretations, I have to wonder if you actually believe what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 No you didn't mention consent that's why I revised the post. I often have to reread and revise. Usually I do it fairly quickly. But you understand how silly it is to make a blanket law because some people can't make a responsible decision right? You don't have any friends that have been taken for a ride by a boyfriend or girlfriend? Despite their age? Do you think Donald sterling can make an informed decision when a twenty something fashion model offers to pretend to love him for his money? Really? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well I do believe it's true. And I am being the devil's advocate because it pisses me off as much as it would any of you patriarchal types. But I'm smart enough to see that correlation. And whether the arguments are bullshit or not no one has been able to dispute a single one without using some ridiculous consent excuse. Did you ever see the island of dr. Moreau? Or read the HG Wells book? WSS PS we all make the same arguments over and over and over year after year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 No you didn't mention consent that's why I revised the post. I often have to reread and revise. Usually I do it fairly quickly. But you understand how silly it is to make a blanket law because some people can't make a responsible decision right? You don't have any friends that have been taken for a ride by a boyfriend or girlfriend? Despite their age? Do you think Donald sterling can make an informed decision when a twenty something fashion model offers to pretend to love him for his money? Really? WSS "Some people?" Most kids won't make responsible decisions when left to their own devices. Maybe one or two in a hundred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well I do believe it's true. And I am being the devil's advocate because it pisses me off as much as it would any of you patriarchal types. But I'm smart enough to see that correlation. And whether the arguments are bullshit or not no one has been able to dispute a single one without using some ridiculous consent excuse. Did you ever see the island of dr. Moreau? Or read the HG Wells book? WSS PS we all make the same arguments over and over and over year after year I've literally just disputed it without using the consent excuse, ~five posts ago, and you agreed that ~three posts ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 "Some people?" Most kids won't make responsible decisions when left to their own devices. Maybe one or two in a hundred. Well what's the ratio from 18 to 30? Maybe 5 or 6 in 100? Would we be better if you raise that age to 25 like running for Senate? But aside from societal indignation what are the consequences to making the wrong decision? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And yes, it's the same arguments year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day, because there are some seriously stubborn people on both sides who have the means to pedal the same nonsense to rile up the base, meaning that nothing is ever agreed upon. American politics has become so firmly entrenched in the "us or them" mentality that even things that should be unilaterally supported - funding for schools, hospitals or whatever - get divided up in to "there's too many freeloaders, the liberals are trying to make this a socialist/communist state" versus "all the christian right just want to keep the rich rich" or whatever lame arguments are in vogue at the time. Nobody can reach across the aisle and get something done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well what's the ratio from 18 to 30? Maybe 5 or 6 in 100? Would we be better if you raise that age to 25 like running for Senate? But aside from societal indignation what are the consequences to making the wrong decision? WSS Apart from the mental and possibly physical damage? OK, suspending reality to call it a 'victimless crime' - should a crime only be a crime if it's victimless? Like trespassing, gambling, speeding, smoking weed, gay marriage, things like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 So here's something to think about. I'm assuming each of us masturbated for the first time in our early teens. What was your very first fantasy? Magazine picture? One of your teachers? A girl in school? (if it's something really really kinky you don't have to tell us ) Did that experience warp your mind? Did it create psychological damage that you live with to this day? Seriously tell me why or why not. (keep in mind your fantasy with the teacher or the magazine model or the classmate would be considered illegal) Honest answers only WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I've literally just disputed it without using the consent excuse, ~five posts ago, and you agreed that ~three posts ago?Perhaps disputed is the wrong term. Yes you did disputed but you did not disprove it. I agreed with the fact that it pisses me off as well not that it's based in any kind of scientific or natural reality. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Apart from the mental and possibly physical damage? OK, suspending reality to call it a 'victimless crime' - should a crime only be a crime if it's victimless? Like trespassing, gambling, speeding, smoking weed, gay marriage, things like that?Physical damage is a completely different thing. Should a man with a large penis face criminal charges for marrying a small woman? Nobody should hurt anybody for fucks sake. And the psychological damage??? That's because puritanical society will hound her like the Sisters of Magdalena. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And yes, it's the same arguments year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day, because there are some seriously stubborn people on both sides who have the means to pedal the same nonsense to rile up the base, meaning that nothing is ever agreed upon. American politics has become so firmly entrenched in the "us or them" mentality that even things that should be unilaterally supported - funding for schools, hospitals or whatever - get divided up in to "there's too many freeloaders, the liberals are trying to make this a socialist/communist state" versus "all the christian right just want to keep the rich rich" or whatever lame arguments are in vogue at the time. Nobody can reach across the aisle and get something done. Which I assume has been the case from the time there were 5 caveman arguing over a piece of brontosaurus meat. Sorry that revelation shocked you. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Which I assume has been the case from the time there were 5 caveman arguing over a piece of brontosaurus meat. Sorry that revelation shocked you. WSS Difference being, in your pointless analogy, the cavemen would have agreed that killing the brontosaurus for its meat was a good thing. Today you'd have one side saying "one of those brontosaurus' trampled some guy I'm vaguely related to, we must hunt down and kill every single brontosaurus" with the other saying "but we can just survive on berries, we don't need to kill *any* brontosaurus" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Difference being, in your pointless analogy, the cavemen would have agreed that killing the brontosaurus for its meat was a good thing. Today you'd have one side saying "one of those brontosaurus' trampled some guy I'm vaguely related to, we must hunt down and kill every single brontosaurus" with the other saying "but we can just survive on berries, we don't need to kill *any* brontosaurus" Charge WSS with a pointless analogy then expand on it? Way to take a stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Charge WSS with a pointless analogy then expand on it? Way to take a stand. I told him how his analogy was pointless, using his analogy. But even so, do you expect me to "take a stand" on an analogy? Really? Like there aren't actual important things to take a stand on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I guess you are upset I just gave the analogy in response to your observations on American politics. No shit Sherlock, that's the way of the world. Always has been whether or not you feel you are superior. (and I'm not necessarily making that charge) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 I guess you are upset I just gave the analogy in response to your observations on American politics. No shit Sherlock, that's the way of the world. Always has been whether or not you feel you are superior. (and I'm not necessarily making that charge) WSS Except in most countries, there are at least *some* issues that have unilateral support - gay marriage, climate change, counter-terrorism, for example. The big things that should be above party politics. Except, they *are* party politics in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 American politics has become so firmly entrenched in the "us or them" mentality that even things that should be unilaterally supported - funding for schools, hospitals or whatever - get divided up in to "Us or them" translates to right and wrong. Right and wrong will always be with us. Theres a reason the right is called the right and the left incorporates a jackass as their party symbol. "there's too many freeloaders,There are too many freeloaders. Truth. " the liberals are trying to make this a socialist/communist state" versus "all the christian right just want to keep the rich rich" or whatever lame arguments are in vogue at the time. Truth. What does "FUNDAMENTALLY transforming America" mean to you? What person has ever made a good living working for someone making 70k a year? I make a good living because the guy I work for is rich. Truth. "Nobody can reach across the aisle and get something done. Reaching across the isle translates to all or nothing to liberals. Ask Harry Reid how many compromise bills offered by Republicans he has blocked. Rhinos, aka Republican liberal ass kissers not only reach across the aisle, they walk across it...a fine demonstration of all or nothing. Sorry to skew away from yours and Steves debate....carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And there it is again. "Don't blame us, blame them!" Also do you actually know why the parties are right-wing and left-wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Except in most countries, there are at least *some* issues that have unilateral support - gay marriage, climate change, counter-terrorism, for example. The big things that should be above party politics. Except, they *are* party politics in America.Well I stand corrected. Now I guess I am necessarily making that charge. Anyway if all you enlightened Europeans are on the same page on all those big big issues salut! So just out of curiosity when we see clips of fist fights and shouting each other down in Parliament what are those issues being debated? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 You mean like this? Well, that was when they were deciding whether to rejoin mother-russia, or become more EU-centric. Some heated tensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And just to check, no comments on the other 'top tips' I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 And just to check, no comments on the other 'top tips' I posted? Not really I didn't think they were directed toward me but I will go back and look. As I recall I didn't disagree with many except one and that was only because I think people should at least try to be a bit civil even if it's against their nature. I'll go back. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Not really I didn't think they were directed toward me but I will go back and look. As I recall I didn't disagree with many except one and that was only because I think people should at least try to be a bit civil even if it's against their nature. I'll go back. WSS None were aimed at anyone in particular, just at the general stupid things one hears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 The concept of tying up homosexuality with paedophilia to try to demonise them both equally is as old and tired as, well, a lot of people here Just in case you're having difficulty with this, please try to bear in mind the following: - No, being gay doesn't automatically make you a sexual predator. - No, speaking to a gay person won't make you or your kids gay; it might make them realise that being gay is fine, and they might come out, but in that case, they were already gay. - We have an age limit on consent because kids generally cannot make responsible decisions - this is also why they can't drink, drive, vote, join the army or watch fifty shades of grey. ☆ the reason I find that argument meaningless is that millions of people are on different levels as to making good decisions and we don't base any other law upon that. ( except drinking laws which most of us think are probably stupid) ☆ - Nobody is attacking heterosexual marriage. Everyone is still free to marry someone of the opposite sex. - Nobody is forcing you to have gay sex. Except that guy in the prison showers. Sorry about that. - Advocating gay rights in general does not mean you're gay, it means you're a decent person. - Nobody should be forcing churches to marry gay couples. ☆ I predict those lawsuits are right around the corner.☆ - You don't have the right to refuse someone from your business just because they're gay. Or black, old, young, have weird hair, smell slightly funky, or cheated to beat you at mah-jong yesterday. That being said, people should still be understanding in these situations and not resort to law suits. ☆ I think people should be civil and homosexuals should try to be a bit understanding as they expect others to be and not target people with the intention of inflicting discomfort. That's my biggest beef with some of these people is that I believe their desire to shock and offend trumps their desire for acceptance☆ - Nobody is attacking religious freedom. You're still free to worship whichever deity (deities) you choose, but the religious doctrine should not impact the law, and you do not get to impose it on other people - they have religious freedom too. There may be a lot of crossover, but there'll also be lots of things in your scripture not in the law. ☆ I believe lawsuits by groups including the ACLU have demonstrated hey bigotry toward religion. According to our Constitution I don't believe Congress has ever made a law establishing a state religion. And that should be the end of the discussion but thanks to anti religious bigots it is not.☆ OK? That's for me? I can't ever remember arguing against most of those things. If you think I am you must be thinking of a straw man. I'll go back and voice a slight disagreement with a few of them if it makes you happy. The rest you may I assume I just agree with it don't give a shit okay? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 That's for me? I can't ever remember arguing against most of those things. If you think I am you must be thinking of a straw man. I'll go back and voice a slight disagreement with a few of them if it makes you happy. The rest you may I assume I just agree with it don't give a shit okay? WSS Could you maybe try a different colour or bold for your inline comments? Easier to distinguish! ☆ I predict those lawsuits are right around the corner.☆ And they'll lose. ☆ the reason I find that argument meaningless is that millions of people are on different levels as to making good decisions and we don't base any other law upon that. ☆ Laws based on good decision making? Like speeding, drink driving, alcohol and smoking age limit, compulsory schooling until a certain age? Yeah, there are other laws on that. ☆ I think people should be civil and homosexuals should try to be a bit understanding as they expect others to be and not target people with the intention of inflicting discomfort. That's my biggest beef with some of these people is that I believe their desire to shock and offend trumps their desire for acceptance☆ I agree, and most gay people would agree with you, because they're generally nice people, like most people. But unfortunately, whether it's the fat guy suing McDonalds for making him fat, the guy suing Starbucks because the coffee didn't have a 'contents may be hot' warning, or whoever, there will be people from all walks of like looking to make a quick buck out of nothing. ☆ I believe lawsuits by groups including the ACLU have demonstrated hey bigotry toward religion. According to our Constitution I don't believe Congress has ever made a law establishing a state religion. And that should be the end of the discussion but thanks to anti religious bigots it is not.☆ There's no state religion, yet you still see things like this, like swearing on a bible in court, and like a bunch of other stuff showing christianity as the de facto state religion, and the assumption that if you're american you're also christian, and if you're not, you're not a proper american. Trying to change that status quo isn't an attack on your religious freedom, it's championing the religious freedom of everybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 30, 2015 Report Share Posted June 30, 2015 Actually it's much more of a pain in the ass for me to change font color. I'm using a Samsung s5 and voice input. Changing something about the type means typing in a bracket going back to another section of symbols typing in a letter then another symbol then another bracket. I thought the stars would be good enough. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.