I first thought Professor Tsukinomahou wrote:
How dare you all turn a thread that clearly has "lolicon" in the title into something about 15-year-old trannies!
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- How to deal with Lolicon
How to deal with LoliconFollow
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
RunawayFive wrote:
I was mostly entertaining the notion of unconditional love, but then again with ideas as old-fashioned as these I must seem as crazy as Ptolemy.
The earth is the center of the universe, you know.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 11:36am by RunawayFive
The earth is the center of the universe, you know.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 11:36am by RunawayFive
At 15 you knew what unconditional love was? I sure as hell know I didn't and I was mature beyond my years at that age. Matter of fact, no one my age that I knew had any idea what unconditional love was.
I'm not saying I did, In fact I'm positive I didn't, but to take my personal experiences and apply them to every other human being would be asinine.
RunawayFive wrote:
I'm not saying I did, In fact I'm positive I didn't, but to take my personal experiences and apply them to every other human being would be asinine.
So your whole argument is based on that one in a billion chance?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
RunawayFive wrote:
I'm not saying I did, In fact I'm positive I didn't, but to take my personal experiences and apply them to every other human being would be asinine.
So your whole argument is based on that one in a billion chance?
Quote:
Lloyd: The least you could do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary: More like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean like one out of a hundred?
Mary: More like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're tellin' me there's a chance.
More about that rules applied on such a broad sweep are bound to have negative consequences, and we should trust the individual instead of choosing for them, giving people a freedom of chose instead of telling people what to do, but that's close enough
Even more annoying is that some random poster decides to come here to defend the rights of 40 year olds and 15 year olds to bump donuts and then crumbles into a morass of Orwellian accusations.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Oh and the fact that coddling the masses will weaken society as a whole, and we should stand up for the rights of the individual.
Lady Annabella wrote:
Even more annoying is that some random poster decides to come here to defend the rights of 40 year olds and 15 year olds to bump donuts and then crumbles into a morass of Orwellian accusations.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
Please tell me I'm an *******. [:bitesnailsnervously:]
I wasn't defending the "rights of 40 year olds and 15 year olds to bump donuts and then crumbles into a morass of Orwellian accusations. " so much as the fact that we shouldn't tell people what to do.
That's my general stance to most situations.
That's my general stance to most situations.
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Lady Annabella wrote:
Even more annoying is that some random poster decides to come here to defend the rights of 40 year olds and 15 year olds to bump donuts and then crumbles into a morass of Orwellian accusations.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
We only have room for a few kind of posters:
1. ***holes
2. sexual deviants
3. women
We are full up of sexual deviants so I suggest you go on your merry way.
Please tell me I'm an @#%^. [:bitesnailsnervously:]
I think you may just be one # away from being an @(&($*#~!!!one!
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 2:55pm by Annabella
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 2:55pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Likewise I'm also against bicycle helmet laws, If I want to splatter my brains open in order to have the wind blow through my hair, I should be ALLOWED that choice, and not be forced to wear a %)@&#ing helmet!
I mean c'mon why should I get a FINE for not wearing a damn helmet.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 11:54am by RunawayFive
I mean c'mon why should I get a FINE for not wearing a damn helmet.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 11:54am by RunawayFive
RunawayFive wrote:
More about that rules applied on such a broad sweep are bound to have negative consequences, and we should trust the individual instead of choosing for them, giving people a freedom of chose instead of telling people what to do, but that's close enough
So you'd rather remove all the broad sweeping rules and let society and individuals do as they please? You do know that anarchy doesn't work for the human race, right?
I like this idea. I mean, if I know that someone murdered someone, and they've admitted it to me, but I can't prove it otherwise, I have the right to do to them as I please. And once I tell the law that he told me he did it, they'll just have to believe me because I'm a responsible adult who could never do anything wrong or make a poor judgment call.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible. It is one thing to be an individual and protect privacy. It is another to have a shining line determining the age of consent. In our country it is 18 and to violate it on a teenager who has not fully cogntively developed is an abuse of that power.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
To be honest, I'm more concerned about a 15 year old child dealing with the pressure of an adult talking them into having sex when they are still dealing with peuberty and the hormonal effects that has.
However, at 15, I was pretty sure I was unconditionally in love with one of the members from NKOTB. As were the rest of my 15 year old friends.
However, at 15, I was pretty sure I was unconditionally in love with one of the members from NKOTB. As were the rest of my 15 year old friends.
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible. It is one thing to be an individual and protect privacy. It is another to have a shining line determining the age of consent. In our country it is 18 and to violate it on a teenager who has not fully cogntively developed is an abuse of that power.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible. It is one thing to be an individual and protect privacy. It is another to have a shining line determining the age of consent. In our country it is 18 and to violate it on a teenager who has not fully cogntively developed is an abuse of that power.
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible.
Lady Annabella wrote:
the most namblaesque way possible
Lady Annabella wrote:
namblaesque
Yes, because there's only 2 societies, one plagued by stifling regulation and complete anarchy.
I'm against murder, thievery, rape, fraud, and the like because A: They're harmful to another party and B: was done without full knowledge/consent of all parties involved.
I'm FOR euthanasia because one person doesn't WANT to live anymore and NEEDS someone to assist them into the "great beyond"
I'm against mandatory seatbelt laws because it forces one to wear seatbelts even if they don't want to, but I'm FOR them being in every Vehicle because they improve safety and everyone should be given the CHOICE of wearing them.
I'm also AGAINST smoking in public places unless EVERY PERSON in the building consents to being potentially harmed by secondhand smoke.
What I'm for is giving people the CHOICE to do what they want with their lives, and not telling people what they can or cannot do.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:04pm by RunawayFive
I'm against murder, thievery, rape, fraud, and the like because A: They're harmful to another party and B: was done without full knowledge/consent of all parties involved.
I'm FOR euthanasia because one person doesn't WANT to live anymore and NEEDS someone to assist them into the "great beyond"
I'm against mandatory seatbelt laws because it forces one to wear seatbelts even if they don't want to, but I'm FOR them being in every Vehicle because they improve safety and everyone should be given the CHOICE of wearing them.
I'm also AGAINST smoking in public places unless EVERY PERSON in the building consents to being potentially harmed by secondhand smoke.
What I'm for is giving people the CHOICE to do what they want with their lives, and not telling people what they can or cannot do.
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:04pm by RunawayFive
Seatbelt don't protect just you. They protect me from you flying out of the vehicle when it suddenly goes from 60 to 0 and hitting me. Also, I don't want your grey matter splattering all over me when you crash on your bike.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
It also prevents me from being stuck paying your medical bills if you have a massive head injury from not wearing a seat belt.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Professor Tsukinomahou wrote:
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible. It is one thing to be an individual and protect privacy. It is another to have a shining line determining the age of consent. In our country it is 18 and to violate it on a teenager who has not fully cogntively developed is an abuse of that power.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
The question really is do you have any minimal standards in this case? How young is too young?
I've had 12 year old girls in my office argue passionately for the right to @#%^ their 32 year old pimp boyfriends. Should I defend their freedom? By your criteria, I should take these girls individually, considering the merits of their case rather than determining that it would be wrong for a sexual relationship to occur.
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible. It is one thing to be an individual and protect privacy. It is another to have a shining line determining the age of consent. In our country it is 18 and to violate it on a teenager who has not fully cogntively developed is an abuse of that power.
Lady Annabella wrote:
I think you are miscontruing freedom in the most namblaesque way possible.
Lady Annabella wrote:
the most namblaesque way possible
Lady Annabella wrote:
namblaesque
Leave it to you to get a rise out of that.
No, I'm with the whole "If you ***** up while having something easily preventable (like a seatbelt) you're *@&#ed.
Personally I use my seat belt every time I get in the car A: it's automatic, and B: I don't really want to die in a car crash.
You choose the risks you deal with the consequences
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:08pm by RunawayFive
Personally I use my seat belt every time I get in the car A: it's automatic, and B: I don't really want to die in a car crash.
You choose the risks you deal with the consequences
Edited, Nov 7th 2007 12:08pm by RunawayFive
I'm also with the whole "No means no" and against pressure, If you have to make a choice under duress, or without all the facts, it's not really your choice, is it?
RunawayFive wrote:
What I'm for is giving people the CHOICE to do what they want with their lives, and not telling people what they can or cannot do.
You know what, you've changed my mind, Runway.
I say, let kids do whatever the hell they want. They wanna bring guns to school? Have at it! Cake for dinner every night? No worries! It's a free country! They want to quit school at 10? GREAT!! Let'em! Kids are so smart, they know exactly what's best for them, don't they? They want to move out and get a job and pay rent at 15? Sweet. Less work for the parents, eh?
Please note the sarcasm. I'm laying it on pretty thick.
StubsOnAsura the Shady wrote:
Leave it to you to get a rise out of that.
Bring guns to school could and WOULD easily lead to violence (accidental discharge, heat of the moment, showing off ect)
Cake for dinner every night? if they are intelligent and mature enough to know both the short and long range side effects: including nutritional facts, diabetes, ect.
They want to quit school at 10?
Then point out how little money they'll make, how to run a budget, how hard it will be to survive in the long term, their projected starderd of living, ect.
I also believe in free education for X amount of years (not based on age) so if they wanted to start a business halfway through their school career they're free to come back later.
This is all assuming they're Intelligent and Mature enough to understand the long-term effects, including the trouble the absence from school will cause.
Cake for dinner every night? if they are intelligent and mature enough to know both the short and long range side effects: including nutritional facts, diabetes, ect.
They want to quit school at 10?
Then point out how little money they'll make, how to run a budget, how hard it will be to survive in the long term, their projected starderd of living, ect.
I also believe in free education for X amount of years (not based on age) so if they wanted to start a business halfway through their school career they're free to come back later.
This is all assuming they're Intelligent and Mature enough to understand the long-term effects, including the trouble the absence from school will cause.
Quote:
This is all assuming they're Intelligent and Mature enough to understand the long-term effects, including the trouble the absence from school will cause.
That's one huge assumption.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 101
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (101)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- How to deal with Lolicon
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC