Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#227Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 5:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you're **** hurt.. I understand, but no need to create a fantasy world where people aren't making these arguments. Throughout this thread alone, people expressed dislike of any comparison to child lovers and bestiality, while making comparisons to ethnic minorities.
#228Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 6:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The topic of the thread was not about why I think homosexuality is wrong. You wanted to make this thread into that and I said that I wanted to stay on topic because that would completely derail the thread. You completely ignored an entire post of mine to ask me my opinion of homosexuality. When I said that I wouldn't derail this thread until we closed up this topic, you made an horrible attempt to close the topic. This was evident by you stating that you answered my question on why you think homosexuality isn't wrong, when I never asked you that in the first place. You falsely accused me of making inaccurate comparisons between homosexuality and child lovers.
#229 Aug 26 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Polygamy, child loving, & incest all result in "harm" in one way or another. Where's the harm in ****?
____________________________
"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


#230 Aug 26 2012 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm butthurt because you don't understand the word "most"?

Huh. If you say so.

I've barely been following your spat with Omega. If you're representing his argument accurately with that snippet then I disagree with him.

Edited, Aug 26th 2012 7:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#231 Aug 26 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you're representing his argument accurately
Post 188.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#232 Aug 26 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Post 249.
____________________________
Banh
#233 Aug 26 2012 at 7:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Samira wrote:
It isn't cowardice. I simply see no point in pursuing a discussion with you. You refuse to see, or perhaps are incapable of seeing, any point of view that diverges from your own. You have very little ability to follow basic logic, falling back instead on your own view of reality. You don't know what circular reasoning is, for example, but you insist on diagnosing it inappropriately anyway.

Some people enjoy pointless argument. I do not.

Now you're going to say that it IS cowardice.


Nope. You're just proving my point.

No she's not.
#234Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 8:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you're just now realizing his point, given that he's been the most vocal proponent of that thought in this thread, I doubt that you know what "most" people are arguing. Especially given the fact that this is HIS tangent. You're merging what you believe with the rest. That's fine that you believe that, but as I searched for "page 14", I saw the same exact arguments from several people. It's the same arguments every time. That's why the people on this thread, except for Omega, are just doing one liners. We all know our stances and we all know they wont change.
#235 Aug 26 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Again, you're not understanding. But I suppose it's not a real problem for me. Call yourself the winner and go on with it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236 Aug 26 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Polygamy, child loving, & incest all result in "harm" in one way or another. Where's the harm in ****?


Your **** will whistle.

____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#237 Aug 27 2012 at 2:30 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
What harm is present in a 18/16 relationship that isn't present in a 35/15 relationship?


Depends on the nature of relationship. If the 15 year old can legally marry a 35 year old with parental consent wherever this hypothetical situation is happening, & all parties are for it, then there may not be any harm in it (Google Courtney Stodden & let me know if you think she hasn't been harmed by her marriage). However, if the parents don't consent, or if they do & it's illegal, or if the 15 year old isn't mature enough to make those decisions (which is the case, psychologically, most of the time)- the 35 year old would be sexually abusing the 15 year old & go to jail. This harms both parties.

Alma wrote:
****? You do realize there's harm in **** ***, hetero or ****, right?


If it's consensual, there's usually no harm in it provided the same "safe ***" practices (& some extra lube) are used. Accidents can happen, but that applies to vanilla *** too.

Now, you asked me a question on page one.



I answered it depends on why one thinks homosexuality is wrong & then I gave examples of some situations where people could find homosexuality is wrong & not necessarily be a bigot. I then asked you why you felt homosexuality is wrong.

You've actively not answered for 4 pages, again, because you are a coward.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 4:47am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"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


#238 Aug 27 2012 at 4:00 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,338 posts
Don't ya get it guys? One needs to solve ALL THE INEQUALITIES AT ONCE OR IT ISN'T FAIR!!!!!

Since all equalities haven't been fixed, Alma is saying he's just love to be a slave.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#239 Aug 27 2012 at 5:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Again, you're not understanding. But I suppose it's not a real problem for me. Call yourself the winner and go on with it.


Again, this wasn't a "win" or "lose" scenario. You're trying extra hard to not look like a tool. Surely you remember the "discrimination isn't inherently wrong" argument? The "Separate but Equal" counters?

Look, if you really want to say your counter that you had brewing up, just say it. I'll play along so you can "win". You hit a new low.

Omega wrote:
Depends on the nature of relationship. If the 15 year old can legally marry a 35 year old with parental consent wherever this hypothetical situation is happening, & all parties are for it, then there may not be any harm in it (Google Courtney Stodden & let me know if you think she hasn't been harmed by her marriage). However, if the parents don't consent, or if they do & it's illegal, or if the 15 year old isn't mature enough to make those decisions (which is the case, psychologically, most of the time)- the 35 year old would be sexually abusing the 15 year old & go to jail. This harms both parties.


I stated that I wasn't talking about "7 year olds", but teenagers that are ALREADY in sexual relationships. You haven't you haven't explained how that 15 year old is in any MORE harm with the 35 year old than another 15 year old. Heck, you still haven't explained what harm.

In this hypothetical scenario, the law can not be used to support either side. That's the point of me asking YOU what YOU think. So, you can't say that the 35 year old would "go to jail" or it's "illegal for the two to be together" or "the two need consent" unless that is what YOU WANT to happen. I'm asking about YOUR PERSONAL beef with Tom (35) and Sarah (15) being together and how it is different than John (15) and Sarah (15) being together.

Once you define the problem, then you create laws to address those problems.


Omega wrote:
If it's consensual, there's usually no harm in it provided the same "safe ***" practices (& some extra lube) are used. Accidents can happen, but that applies to vanilla *** too.


I was actually referring to the tearing of tissues, but lets not go down that tangent.

Omega wrote:
I answered it depends on why one thinks homosexuality is wrong & then I gave examples of some situations where people could find homosexuality is wrong & not necessarily be a bigot. I then asked you why you felt homosexuality is wrong.

You've actively not answered for 4 pages, again, because you are a coward.


I'm still trying to get a straight answer from you on your beef with a 35/15 year old couple vs a 15/15 year old couple. You keep saying harm, but you never mention what this harm is and how other relationships are immune to it. You avoid questions and answer what you like.

We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.

If you can't wait to start another tangent.... Then go read it yourself. +1

#240 Aug 27 2012 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:


We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.


Has it occurred to you that you're the one keeping 'this' here. (of course not!)

You are man-in-denial. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#241 Aug 27 2012 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
If there was harm it would probably be in the balance of the relationship. It would be a lot harder to have a partnership and much more likely to be a situation where the 15 year old is highly dependent on the older person. This could easily become a harmful situation. Control and power are usually the driving forces behind abuse anyway, so it's fairly easy to see that you're setting up a situation that makes it more likely. I'm not making any comment on the probability of this happening, but it's pretty blindingly obvious what some differences between the two relationships is, you shouldn't need it explained.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#242 Aug 27 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,821 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.
Has it occurred to you that you're the one keeping 'this' here. (of course not!)
Did it occur to you that you guys are the ones keeping this here as well?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#243 Aug 27 2012 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.
Has it occurred to you that you're the one keeping 'this' here. (of course not!)
Did it occur to you that you guys are the ones keeping this here as well?
At least Ugly has learned.
____________________________
Banh
#244 Aug 27 2012 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.
Has it occurred to you that you're the one keeping 'this' here. (of course not!)
Did it occur to you that you guys are the ones keeping this here as well?

Now, you've gone and implicated yourself. Smiley: drool

It's a fine fine line we tread.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#245 Aug 27 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You're trying extra hard to not look like a tool.

To who? You? I can't say I'm really worried.
Quote:
I'll play along so you can "win". You hit a new low.

I guess I hit a nerve there. Thanks for letting me know, Gbaji Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#246 Aug 27 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.
Has it occurred to you that you're the one keeping 'this' here. (of course not!)
Did it occur to you that you guys are the ones keeping this here as well?
At least Ugly has learned.

I know right. He's a shining example of all that is virtuous in internet forum trolling.

From now on, if you're tempted to make any sort of response what-so-ever that might encourage indefatigable brick-for-brains to ramble on, just stop and ask yourself "what would Ugly do?".
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#247 Aug 27 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
In this hypothetical scenario, the law can not be used to support either side. That's the point of me asking YOU what YOU think. So, you can't say that the 35 year old would "go to jail" or it's "illegal for the two to be together" or "the two need consent" unless that is what YOU WANT to happen. I'm asking about YOUR PERSONAL beef with Tom (35) and Sarah (15) being together and how it is different than John (15) and Sarah (15) being together.


I believe Tom is very likely taking advantage of Sarah, being a mature 35 year old & me believing she is too young to make this decision herself. I believe both John & Sarah are too young to make the same decision themselves, too. The problem is that 15 year olds, while physically able to have ***, are emotionally not ready for ***. I believe Sarah's relationship with Tom would lead to a bit of a warped view on ***, giving Sarah a much more likely chance of being some sort of *** worker in the future. While still not "ok", John & Sarah being at or around the same level of "maturity" give that relationship a much better chance of being healthy, as opposed to predatory.

Alma wrote:
I was actually referring to the tearing of tissues, but lets not go down that tangent.


Just like during vanilla ***.

Alma wrote:

I'm still trying to get a straight answer from you on your beef with a 35/15 year old couple vs a 15/15 year old couple. You keep saying harm, but you never mention what this harm is and how other relationships are immune to it. You avoid questions and answer what you like.

We've been at this for so long, I'm starting to forget how we even got here in the first place.


I answer, you say its not good enough, I answer again, you move the goal posts again...while still avoiding the discussion you started on page one out of cowardice.

____________________________
"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


#248 Aug 27 2012 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
I was actually referring to the tearing of tissues, but lets not go down that tangent.


Just like during vanilla ***.


Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

Not that I'm surprised that this has to be explained to him, but it tickles me nonetheless.
#249 Aug 27 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Elinda wrote:
From now on, if you're tempted to make any sort of response what-so-ever that might encourage indefatigable brick-for-brains to ramble on, just stop and ask yourself "what would Ugly do?".
Normally, egg the half wit on. This one lacks any entertainment value anymore. Every now and then, I'll fall off the wagon, but it only last 3-4 posts, at most.
____________________________
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

#250 Aug 27 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Good
******
49,821 posts
Considering all he does is posts the complete opposite of whatever someone else posts, even the occasional egging on isn't worth the effort. It's like the Argument sketch Monty Python, except without any humor and no one has the decency to get hit in the head with a mallet, though the headache still remains.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#251 Aug 27 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
even the occasional egging on isn't worth the effort.
Oh, when I post in response to Alma, it's no longer me trolling him, it's him successfully trolling me and getting me to respond. Within 3-4 posts, I clue into what he did and stop responding.

The rest of you need to wake up and realize the same thing. People just aren't that stupid. They can't be and still know how to operate a computer. He's just trolling you and you all keep taking the bait.





You is generic
____________________________
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

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)