Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

LBGT TerrorismFollow

#202 Aug 26 2012 at 10:42 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
Speaking of being a coward, I'm still waiting on your answer how a 35 year old would hurt a 15 year old any more or less than another 15 year old, or another 35 year old for that matter, Mr. "I answered all of your questions".


Depends on the situation. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that a 35 year old could possibly have a healthy relationship with a 15 year old, but given the advantages in experience, money, strength, & power a 35 year old would have over a 15 year old I have a hard time believing the 15 year old wasn't being taken advantage of and/or manipulated. This is why parental consent comes into play, depending on the state, as if the parents judge the relationship to be healthy they can sign off on it. I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with laws protecting children from adults & even find some of the laws (arresting an 18 year old for boning his 17 year old girlfriend, consensually) to be a bit silly. However, until there's a good test to gauge maturity, age is the only thing that can be used. I'm ok with that, as I believe it does more good for children than harm.

Your turn!

____________________________
"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


#203Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 11:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Who's being the coward now? My statements can only not answer your question under two scenarios.
#204 Aug 26 2012 at 12:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,269 posts
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.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#205 Aug 26 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Let's not pretend anyone's learned anything here.

This thread's worse than a creative writing degree.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#206Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 12:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nope. You're just proving my point. How is it when I have the same exact sentiments with other posters on here, it's cowardice, but you when you feel that way, it isn't?
#207 Aug 26 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
I am surprised that people still think having a conversation with Alma would go any other way than it has been going. Alma come's up with a brain dead statement, people point out the flaws in said statement, Alma ignores said points and keeps going on rants, people ask why he is avoiding the points, Alma claims that points are irrelevant/nonsense/already covered, people point out flaws, Alma ignores, etc... Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#208Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 1:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm going out on a limb and say that you haven't actually read anything.... skim at most. Given the fact that none of that actually happened.
#209 Aug 26 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Criminy wrote:
I am surprised that people still think having a conversation with Alma would go any other way than it has been going. Alma come's up with a brain dead statement, people point out the flaws in said statement, Alma ignores said points and keeps going on rants, people ask why he is avoiding the points, Alma claims that points are irrelevant/nonsense/already covered, people point out flaws, Alma ignores, etc... Smiley: oyvey


I'm going out on a limb and say that you haven't actually read anything.... skim at most. Given the fact that none of that actually happened.


Thanks for the example! Smiley: schooled
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#210Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 1:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No problem. The fact that none of that happened is a GREAT example of how these threads are this way.
#211 Aug 26 2012 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Not surprised to not see any news on this, but apparently this guy pulled a "abortion clinic" attack (with 15 CFA sandwiches) on the Family Council and is being considered as a possible terrorist attack.

What say you?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20120817_Man_charged_in_attack_on_conservative_site.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gunman-fired-family-research-council-carried-15-chick-fil-a-sandwiches-ammo-backpack-article-1.1137935

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/alamogordo-nm/T5KQLOFGME09U5NA2


No problem. The fact that none of that happened is a GREAT example of how these threads are this way.


Did you just quote yourself and proceeded to bash yourself? Really?

Edit: Alma decided to be a sneak and edit out the quote. Put it back in for the lulz.

Edited, Aug 26th 2012 3:29pm by Criminy
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#212Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 1:48 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) "sneak"? I hit "quote original" and immediately changed it within 5 seconds of posting. Proof is in the fact that my edit was 4 mins before your edit.
#213 Aug 26 2012 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,005 posts
It's not like we're lacking evidence of your incessant idiocy...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#214 Aug 26 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
So, let me clarify. You retract your claim that marriage with minors should be banned because children get hurt.


No, I believe the laws regarding this are adequate as they are.
Alma wrote:

You support marriage with children as long as the parents consent to it?


I could. The only one I can think of in recent memory is the Courtney Stodden marriage, which I don't approve of. Not my kid though, so not my call.

Alma wrote:
I mean, typically (at least in the shallow sense) , women look for stability and men look for attractiveness. That's why you often see older guys with younger women. You wouldn't say that she was "taken advantage of", so why would you think the 15 year old would? She knows what she wants from life, if anything, the 35 year old man is being "taken advantage" of as she is getting much more out of the deal than he is.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Alma wrote:

P.S., since we're coming close to the end, I actually took the liberty to look for my post and I found at least one. When we're done and if you're still interested, I will direct you to that post for your answer.


We're all waiting with baited breath.
____________________________
"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


#215 Aug 26 2012 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Bated breath. /snark

Edited, Aug 26th 2012 5:17pm by Spoonless
____________________________
Banh
#216 Aug 26 2012 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
The goal wasn't to get you to "admit" to anything for yourself, but to make a statement for others to realize. That statement coming from you holds more value to this forum than coming from me.

Again, I don't think you've fully thought it through if you consider that any sort of a victory. Or else you just grossly misunderstand most people's stance on the whole issue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Aug 26 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The goal wasn't to get you to "admit" to anything for yourself, but to make a statement for others to realize. That statement coming from you holds more value to this forum than coming from me.

Again, I don't think you've fully thought it through if you consider that any sort of a victory. Or else you just grossly misunderstand most people's stance on the whole issue.


The sad part is that almost everyone here who is pro-SSM has said that some discriminations about who can marry are necessary, but this one is an unjust discrimination.

I suppose he thinks that makes us hypocrites. To me, it's just normal, complex logic at work. But we all know that "logical thinking" should rarely, if ever, be attributed to Alma.
#218 Aug 26 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,269 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Bated breath. /snark



No, Omega actually baits his.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#219 Aug 26 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm a master baiter.
____________________________
"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


#220Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 4:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Read above.
#221 Aug 26 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
Then we're back where we started. If you believe the laws are "adequate", then why do you have beef with a 15 year old being in a "serious" relationship with a 35 year old, but not with another 15 year old (in a state where that is illegal)?


I wouldn't provided the minor's parents consented. I don't know what else you want from me?

Alma wrote:
Well, I'll help you out... "it's page 14"... You remember that response? I bet people are remembering now...


That was another non answer, or such a terribly explained "answer" that we needed you to explain it. You've refused, for months, or accused us of being "too dumb" to understand it. Or said we were wrong when we explained what we got out of it. And so on.

So here we are again. My argument is that as long as its between two consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it, so it can't be "wrong" to be ***. What's your explanation for why you think being *** is "wrong"?
____________________________
"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


#222 Aug 26 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Everyone says people's rights are being taken away, even though they aren't. People also frame their arguments that there is nothing "wrong" with what two consenting adults do, so they should be allowed to marry. However, we still have laws that prevent two consenting adults, outside of SSM, that people don't necessarily agree with, but accept. So, unless you're fighting to change all of those laws as well, your argument will have to differentiate SSM from say, polygamy or incest. Regardless if the groups of people are different, it's the EFFECTS of the law that matter.
I previously wrote:
Or else you just grossly misunderstand most people's stance on the whole issue.

Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223Almalieque, Posted: Aug 26 2012 at 5:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ignoring that horrible argument. Did you even think about what you just said. Let's recap.
#224 Aug 26 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Everyone says people's rights are being taken away, even though they aren't. People also frame their arguments that there is nothing "wrong" with what two consenting adults do, so they should be allowed to marry. However, we still have laws that prevent two consenting adults, outside of SSM, that people don't necessarily agree with, but accept. So, unless you're fighting to change all of those laws as well, your argument will have to differentiate SSM from say, polygamy or incest. Regardless if the groups of people are different, it's the EFFECTS of the law that matter.
I previously wrote:
Or else you just grossly misunderstand most people's stance on the whole issue.
Right.
Honestly, did you expect anything else?
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#225 Aug 26 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You said that the laws are "adequate", but not every state law will allow any child of any age to marry an adult just because there is parent consent. So, you either support the marriage and think that laws are wrong for not allowing those marriages to exist or you support the law and think the marriages should be banned.

You have said both. I just need to know exactly which one it is.


It depends on the situation. I'd be more willing to support an 18 year old wanting to marry his 16 year old girlfriend than I would be a 35 year old marry a 15 year old, provided there is parental consent. There are no hypothetical situations were I would support ALL underage marriages or be against ALL underage marriages.

Alma wrote:
Really? Now, that's a generic answer if any. You literally just made some crap up.


No, that's pretty what happened from this post on. That's where I told you what I got out of your big "explanation" post, & I broke down your follow up here. It really just goes round & round from there, me asking you to clarify, you saying it's already there, me saying what I got from it, you saying thats wrong, me asking you to clarify, you refusing...& so on.

You're basic premise, in this very thread, seems to be that you can think homosexuality is wrong & not be a bigot/hate group. I agree with that statement but believe the "why" you think homosexuality is wrong is the deciding factor in whether or not anti-*** folks are bigots for thinking being *** is wrong ( & I even gave examples as to when I believe thinking being *** is "wrong" is not based on bigotry). I've asked you why you believe being *** is wrong & you've refused to answer.



____________________________
"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


#226 Aug 26 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nope.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#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
******
44,018 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
*****
16,289 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
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.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#239 Aug 27 2012 at 5:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,023 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

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#240 Aug 27 2012 at 6:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,078 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
******
44,018 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
*****
16,078 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
*****
16,078 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
****
4,041 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
******
34,706 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
******
44,018 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
******
34,706 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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: 38 All times are in CDT
Kastigir, RavennofTitan, someproteinguy, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (34)