Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#302 Aug 28 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't hold this position because I hate gays, or want to infringe their rights.

Judging from your half-assed logic, my guess is that you hold this "belief" because the GOP does and you need to rationalize it somehow to yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#303 Aug 28 2012 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
You're just looking for a reason to run some bunny rabbits over with your lawn mower again, Joph. Not cool, man.
I'm not sayin' nothin', I'm jus' sayin' that if you needs some rabbits, I knows a guy whose can getchu some rabbits....
What kind of "bunny"? A semi-automatic "bunny" or a hand held "bunny?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#304 Aug 28 2012 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Gbaji holds his positions because his GOP masters tell him to.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#305 Aug 28 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#306 Aug 29 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I'm fine with polygamists and the guy who wants to marry a park bench pointing to same *** marriage while arguing for thrift cause. I'm not fine with blocking homosexual couples their rights because you (gbaji) are afraid that they will try to use it for their own cause.


Huh? That's not why I hold the position I hold. Don't mistake me pointing out that the removal of the restrictions denying *** couples marriage will also allow other forms of marriage as my own argument on the issue. I'm just pointing out that those who do use that as an argument do have a valid point. It's not a slippery slope fallacy as many claim.


It's almost a perfect textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy. Do we need to have that talk about how you don't understand how fallacies work again?
#307 Aug 29 2012 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's almost a perfect textbook example of a slippery slope fallacy.
It was banned in Texas.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#308 Aug 29 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Belkira wrote:
You're just looking for a reason to run some bunny rabbits over with your lawn mower again, Joph. Not cool, man.

I'm not sayin' nothin', I'm jus' sayin' that if you needs some rabbits, I knows a guy whose can getchu some rabbits....

You want a rabbut? I can get you a rabbit, believe me. There are ways, dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me. ****, I can get you a rabbit by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#309 Aug 29 2012 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
This rabbit discussion reminds me of Roger & Me.

That part makes me sad.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#310Almalieque, Posted: Aug 29 2012 at 2:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry, what was that? I don't respond very well to "coward".
#311 Aug 29 2012 at 3:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
How is 15 year old Shanice in any more harm from her new boyfriend Jorge (35) then her past boyfriend (Andre) if she has already been sexually active?


Being sexually active doesn't mean she's mature enough to consent. It's not just a belief, it's psychology, that most people under the age of 18 are still developing which is why we have age of consent laws in the first place. A 15 year old male is also developing & also can't legally consent, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen. However, while it's not prosecuted unless it's 18+ and a younger partner, its still illegal for anyone under 18 in a lot of places to have intercourse, for the protection of children.
I don't know what you're argueing anyway, as I'm ok with it as long as the girl is mature enough to consent (and/or with their parent's). Homosexuals are also covered under consent laws too.

Alma wrote:

I would argue that a notable percentage of teen girls that are sexually active are being taken advantage of period, regardless of the age of the male. Listening to the average male's conversation, I would go a step further and say that many men seek women for primarily *** and secondly a relationship. So, there is no difference in harm, just you not liking one over the other. There's nothing wrong with that, that's how I feel; however, I'm man enough to admit to it and not hide behind fictitious arguments.


Your "all or nothing" logic is ******* ridiculous dude. First of all, any woman being "taken advantage of sexually" is being harmed (& vice versa, even if you like it). Second, just because some men take advantage of women, doesn't mean it's ok to take advantage of children because some teenage girls already get taken advantage of sexually by other teens, nor does it mean its ok for older men to **** teenagers.

You completely ignore consent, which isn't something *** rights arguements can be applied too. If gays can't consent, they're being harmed too.

Alma wrote:
Dude, take your beef with Biology. I didn't make this stuff up. If you want to believe that the **** and the ****** are equally equipped for giving and receiving, then that's a personal issue.


They're not, just like your hand isn't designed to jerk you off- that's what vaginas are designed for. But you don't get laid, so you gotta make do right? I bet if you liked dudes, you'd find a way to get off too.

Also, both the ****** & **** receive, you should read some biology.

How come people can't say "I think homosexuality is wrong" and not be a homophobic bigot like you are towards furries?

1- Do you think homosexuality is wrong?
2- If you do think it's wrong, why?
3- If not & the question is rhetorical, I'm curious how you think someone else could hypothetically think homosexuality is wrong & not be a homophobic bigot? I gave examples here.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#312 Aug 29 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just to be a pedant, once again it's not illegal for people under a certain age to have ***, it's illegal to have *** with people who are under a certain age. It's an important distinction.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313Almalieque, Posted: Aug 29 2012 at 5:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Page 14.
#314 Aug 29 2012 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Quote:
Post 279. This is why I'm not going in any further discussions with you. You're simply incapable of understanding simple concepts.


Lie #29381747492.
#315Almalieque, Posted: Aug 29 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How so? To clarify, I was referring to his tangent of my personal belief, not what's being discussed in this thread.
#316 Aug 29 2012 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Alma wrote:
If she's already having ***, her being taken advantage of isn't any more or less with either guy.


Depends. I think it's rare, but possible, that a 15 year old could consent to *** with a 35 year old. I've said that. It all depends on her maturity. I just think it's more likely that a sexually active 15 year old ******* a 35 year old isn't mature enough to consent. I don't have statistics on it, but growing up the younger sexually active girls all seemed a bit damaged already, because they had *** before they were mature enough.

Alma wrote:
So, you believe that ALL *** under the magical age of 18 is not consensual ?


No, it depends on the maturity of the child.
Alma wrote:

You somehow believe that dirty old man wanting to get in her pants is somehow more harmful than that 15 year old boy lying to get in her pants.


You don't? What kind of perv are you? A 35 year old is mature enough to know better, which is why he'd do more jailtime than a 15 year old would if it wasn't consensual.
Alma wrote:

The whole point of this derail was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of SSM arguments when supporters use the civil rights movement as a foundation for their argument and then get offended when compared to other groups of people, i.e. child lovers, saying that they are "different", using the same prejudice against them as others have done towards homosexuals.


Using your logic, I could use the african american civil rights movement to justify kiddie fucking. See how they don't equate?

Alma wrote:
We as a society just think it is completely disgusting and therefore ban it (kiddie *******). I'm man enough to support. I believe it is wrong for any grown man to prey on a high school student, sexual or not, because it's disgusting.


No, we use legal reasons to ban kiddie *******. Sure, how people feel about it certainly comes into play, but that isn't the legal justification for it. The legal justifications for banning kiddie ******* aren't the same as the one's denying homosexuals equal rights, nor were they similar justifications for the civil rights movement. The latter two (Civil rights, *** rights) are quite similar.

Alma wrote:
As I said, take your beef out with Biology. I'm not sure how any person over the age of 6, not know this.


I know what it's function is, just like you "know" sitting on your thumb is "wrong" but it feels so good.... (It's not wrong. We're problem solving, tool using apes)

Me wrote:
1- Do you think homosexuality is wrong?
2- If you do think it's wrong, why?
3- If not & the question is rhetorical, I'm curious how you think someone else could hypothetically think homosexuality is wrong & not be a homophobic bigot? I gave examples

alma wrote:

Page 14.


Of what, coward?







____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#317Almalieque, Posted: Aug 29 2012 at 6:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Omega,
#318 Aug 31 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Omega,

I've been asking you for a consistent answer on how and why are these girls harmed any differently with an adult than any other child. You say that you support these relationships as long as that there are consent from the parents. You also say that consent doesn't equal maturity, but your argument is that young children aren't mature enough to have ***. Lastly, you say that the laws are "adequate", but the laws mostly don't approve of such relationships. So, your comments don't add up.

Can you take a minute, make a non-hypocritical argument and present it, while discussing the difference between the male being 15 or 35?

t's a simple question. What is the difference between the male being 15 vs 35? The fact that young sexually active girls are "already damaged" or their inability to give consent is irrelevant to the age of the male.

What are these legal reasons and how are they any different than two 15 year olds? It's the same question that you've been ignoring Mr. "I've answered all of your questions".


Legally, one is considered a child if they are under the age of 18. The reason for this, is because most people mature, both physically & emotionally, by that age. For those that mature, both physically & emotionally, before the age of 18, I'm ok with them banging whomever they want & see little difference between them banging another 15 year old or a 35 year old as they can consent (depending on how young, & the jurisdiction, the parents need to consent too though). This is also how minors can get charged as adults, depending on the crime, if the prosecution can prove they're mature enough to make adult decisions.

Alma wrote:

I'm sorry. What was that? I don't respond well to "coward"?

*Hint- Ask the same question without the derision.


Go fuck yourself you cowardly bitch.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#319Almalieque, Posted: Sep 01 2012 at 6:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) SURVEY SAYS!!!! ..................
#320 Sep 01 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The homosexual movement and child lovers have way more in common than the civil rights movement in almost every way. You're letting your disgust for child loving cloud your judgement.

I could be wrong, but I think this is the most retardedly disgusting thing you've ever said.

Seriously, you should be put down.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#321Almalieque, Posted: Sep 01 2012 at 9:54 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Like I said, you're letting your disgust towards child lovers cloud your judgement. I'm saying that the battle for social acceptance for p-philia is much more in common to the battle that homosexuals are ongoing now than racial civil rights.
#322 Sep 01 2012 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
Comparing the struggle of Black Americans, from slavery to the civil rights movement, to the homosexual movement is the most "retardedly disgusting thing" and offensive in every way, but it doesn't stop you all from continuously making that comparison, now does it? So, if you truly feel disgusted by it, then stop doing it to others. Yet again, the point of this derail. Quit being hypocritical.


And this is why we're confident the reason you think homosexuality is "wrong" is a bigoted one. It's criminal for adults to **** children because children can't consent- not if they or their parent can. It isn't criminal for blacks & whites to **** anymore, provided everyone can consent. It used to be illegal, for purely bigoted reasons (gotta protect them white woman from the naggers!). In most places, it's legal for homosexuals to **** (And in the places it isn't, I'd argue sodomy laws are in place for mostly bigoted reasons).

There's zero bigotry involved in laws involving molesting children, those laws are in place to protect kids. I'd argue most laws against homosexual rights, much like the various anti-black laws before the civil rights movement in the past, are rooted in bigotry & religion while not protecting anyone, but rather treating people as 2nd class citizens, in this case, because of what they do in the bedroom & not who they are.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#323Almalieque, Posted: Sep 01 2012 at 5:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Now, we're talking. Your true self finally comes out from your bogus words you've been spewing. Protection from what? It goes right back to the original question. How is a sexually active teen affected by the age of their partner? Unless you can demonstrate how a sexual active teen is affected WORSE by an older person, due to their physical age and not a stereotypical personality, then there is no protection, but prejudice.
#324 Sep 01 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
It's criminal because we think it's disgusting.


Cite? I can assure you "creepy" isn't mentioned anywhere in any child protection laws..
Alma wrote:

Just like you said, we charge children with adult crimes and we also have Juvenile court. Now, there is legitimacy in the "consent", but as I said, I'm talking about 15 year olds that are already sexually active, not 7 year olds. It would be hard to argue the "child card" with a sexually active 15 year old "not able to consent" with *** just like you would with stealing, fighting or killing.


This is like the friar blaming those slutty alter boys for seducing priests. Just because a 15 year old is sexually active doesn't mean she's necessarily mature enough emotionally to consent to it. If she and/or her parents can, then I don't have an issue with it though.
Alma wrote:

I'm not arguing that there aren't 15 year olds that can't be taken advantage of but, I'm stating that this is 2012 where it's common for teenagers to have *** and give birth before graduation. We don't live in a society where *** is taboo anymore. It's open and it's everywhere and teenagers seek it just as much or even more (in some cases) than adults.


Awesome. Now why do you think it should be different if they are ***?

Alma wrote:
Once again, the ability to be with a white woman was very low on the totem pole. NO ONE CARES (figuratively). People were fighting for the right to vote, to legally be a person, not have substandard schooling, substandard housing, harassed by the police, etc.
The civil rights movement is not even remotely close to the "homosexual struggle". I'm not taking anything away from it, but don't try to compare the two, it's just plain wrong and insulting.


Let's look at Loving v Virginia, where the Supreme Court struck down the miscegenation laws of the day. Here's why the judge found them guilty of it (because of the laws on the books)

Judge wrote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.


Religion being the justification, right? It's not a bigoted reason (although he could be using religion as an excuse, but that's purely speculation).

Can you tell me religion isn't the primary justification again *** marriage? We guarantee equal rights for all people, of all races, & sexes, yet are doing the same thing to homosexuals NOW that we did to african americans then. And even more similarly, the argument that since both partners (the black & the white partner), suffered the SAME consequences for intermarrying (before Loving v Virginia) therefore weren't in violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment is the SAME one anti-*** rights folks use to justify "one man one woman" (Gays are free to arry opposite *** partners so its equal protection! /sarcasm off)

You not liking the comparison because you are black & dislike gays is bigotry, dude.

Alma wrote:

Unless you can demonstrate how a sexual active teen is affected WORSE by an older person, due to their physical age and not a stereotypical personality, then there is no protection, but prejudice.


They're not effected "worse" if they're able to consent. If they aren't able to consent, the older man does more time because he is mature, knows its wrong to take advantage of a child, & chose to do it anyway. A slutty, sexually active 10 year old could throw herself at an 18 year old & I'd argue there's no way in **** she'd ever be emotionally able to consent, even if she was physically mature & "wanted it". The onus is on the 18 year old, being he is "mature" enough to make adult decisions & know right from wrong, to not take her up on it. If he decides to go through with it anyway, he his knowingly & willingly using his advantages as an adult to fuck a child. If she throws herself at another 10 year old, he's not mature enough to consent so he bears little responsibility for it.

Alma wrote:
If you assume that a grown adult hooking up with a teen is a "freak", "perv" or "sicko", simply due to their age difference, then you are indeed prejudging them.


Yup.

Quote:
I think those things are likely true,


Maybe yes, maybe no.

Quote:
but the difference is that I'm man enough to admit to my prejudice.


If you were really man enough, you'd just admit to your homosexual prejudices & be done with it.

Alma wrote:
In reality, that adult could be the best partner that teen has ever been with.


Anythings possible, dude.





____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#325Almalieque, Posted: Sep 01 2012 at 7:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Page 14... It's all there. There is no prejudice. Do I think homosexuality is utterly disgusting? Yes I do. I also think 50 year olds dating 22 year olds is utterly disgusting, as well with a lot of other sexual things that people do in their bedrooms. Homosexuality isn't anything special. It gets the same treatment as everything else. Which goes back to the original point of this thread, just because someone disagrees with homosexuality doesn't make them a bigot.
#326 Sep 01 2012 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Do I think homosexuality is utterly disgusting? Yes I do.


Why?

Alma wrote:
I also think 50 year olds dating 22 year olds is utterly disgusting, as well with a lot of other sexual things that people do in their bedrooms.


Fair enough.

Quote:
Homosexuality isn't anything special. It gets the same treatment as everything else


No, it doesn't, hence the whole *** rights movement that started in the 60's & was encouraged due to the civil rights movement.

Alma wrote:
Which goes back to the original point of this thread, just because someone disagrees with homosexuality doesn't make them a bigot.


How does one "disagree" with homosexuality exactly?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 36 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (36)