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
******
29,222 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
*****
13,221 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
******
30,646 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
******
29,222 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (74)