this thread is useless without pics
[quote]msd0060 wrote:
matko5 wrote:
Jaime - Cersei style?
Badass books! Got to read a few still though…[/quote]
There’s no rush. The fifth book isn’t done yet. Sigh…
[quote]Game_over wrote:
no it wasnt ok for you to do that dont come on here trying to have help you feel better about yourself. [/quote]
ROFLMAO!
Well stated game. LOL
I’m just hoping his sister wasn’t like 13 years old.
Next thing you know we’ll have a new SAMA thread popping up saying someone just fucked their mom and asking if it was ok.
[quote]football061 wrote:
Next thing you know we’ll have a new SAMA thread popping up saying someone just fucked their mom and asking if it was ok.[/quote]
Pics or it didn’t happen.
OP: your username is Ted Bundy and you only post about topics related to sex crimes.
Go see a shrink before you end up on the evening news, you sick bastard
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Maybe next time he can improve on his subject matter with, “Is anal sex wrong if you don’t wipe the shit off your dick?”
.[/quote]
Well, that would then explain his bad breath.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
Jaime - Cersei style?[/quote]
Great series. I can’t wait for the next book.
And to the OP, no.
You are a sick motherfucker.
[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love.[/quote]
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Yeah, I just hope Mr. Martin hurries with the books, he ain’t getting any younger 
Why on earth are they asking other people for permission or approval?
I think it’s totally Ok if you plan on admitting yourself to Belvue
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
[quote]JMB wrote:
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
[/quote]
Because they don’t feel the need to explain themselves why a brother and sister shouldn’t be engaged in a sexual relationship.
[quote]matko5 wrote:
JMB wrote:
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
Because they don’t feel the need to explain themselves why a brother and sister shouldn’t be engaged in a sexual relationship.[/quote]
And that is of course their prerogative. But if they just don’t feel the need to dignify the question with a reasoned response, why respond at all?
Clearly what I’m getting at is that I think it’s possible that many responders just don’t HAVE a carefully thought-out reason for their response. If I’m right and they don’t, WHY don’t they? And is it okay for them not to?
[quote]JMB wrote:
matko5 wrote:
JMB wrote:
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
Because they don’t feel the need to explain themselves why a brother and sister shouldn’t be engaged in a sexual relationship.
And that is of course their prerogative. But if they just don’t feel the need to dignify the question with a reasoned response, why respond at all?
Clearly what I’m getting at is that I think it’s possible that many responders just don’t HAVE a carefully thought-out reason for their response. If I’m right and they don’t, WHY don’t they? And is it okay for them not to? [/quote]
Of course not, every opinion made without at least a little thought on the subject is… stupid.
[quote]JMB wrote:
matko5 wrote:
JMB wrote:
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
Because they don’t feel the need to explain themselves why a brother and sister shouldn’t be engaged in a sexual relationship.
And that is of course their prerogative. But if they just don’t feel the need to dignify the question with a reasoned response, why respond at all?
Clearly what I’m getting at is that I think it’s possible that many responders just don’t HAVE a carefully thought-out reason for their response. If I’m right and they don’t, WHY don’t they? And is it okay for them not to? [/quote]
Could it be they have recognized that ‘Ted Bundy’ is actually one of T-Nation’s most prolific trolls posting under an alias (if you have encountered this troll in his ‘real’ identity, you should be able to spot his pompous writing style without too much trouble)? His insistence that “no naturalistic fallacy, moralistic fallacy, or ad hominem” be used in a response is basically an attempt to manoeuvre anybody that does reply into a position where they are forced to admit that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest.
His goal, depending on which of his posts you read, is to make everybody implicate themselves as pedophiles or sister-humpers. Simply put, he is not looking for intelligent debate: he is looking to make fools out of people that try to refute his argument. The reason nobody is responding with a full answer is that they haven’t been sucked in by his little mind games…
Why do you compare pedophilia and incest? It’s not right.
Have you read Ted Bundy’s post history? He has started a similar thread to this one, except he is waxing lyrical on child abuse.
I was not comparing pedophilia and incest: I was pointing out that depending on which of his threads you respond to, he is trying to bait you into admitting you either engage in incest or pedophilia. I don’t really know what made you think I was comparing the two.
Unless you were kidding, that is…
[quote]roybot wrote:
JMB wrote:
matko5 wrote:
JMB wrote:
A lot of people have said “no,” but very few (if any) have given any reason. Why is this?
Because they don’t feel the need to explain themselves why a brother and sister shouldn’t be engaged in a sexual relationship.
And that is of course their prerogative. But if they just don’t feel the need to dignify the question with a reasoned response, why respond at all?
Clearly what I’m getting at is that I think it’s possible that many responders just don’t HAVE a carefully thought-out reason for their response. If I’m right and they don’t, WHY don’t they? And is it okay for them not to?
Could it be that they have recognized that ‘Ted Bundy’ is actually one of T-Nation’s most prolific trolls posting under an alias (if you have encountered this troll in his ‘real’ identity, you should be able to spot his pompous writing style without too much trouble)? His insistence that “no naturalistic fallacy, moralistic fallacy, or ad hominem” be used in a response is basically an attempt to manoeuvre anybody that does reply into a position where they are forced to admit that there is nothing inherently wrong with incest.
His goal, depending on which of his posts you read, is to make everybody implicate themselves as pedohiles or sister-humpers. Simply put, he is not looking for intelligent debate: he is looking to make fools out of people that try to refute his argument. The reason nobody is responding with a full answer is that they haven’t been sucked in by his little mind games…
[/quote]
You got it. It wasn’t worth the time or energy to even address this thread in an intelligent manner.
Also, pointing out the fact nobody is responding with more detailed answers, (when at least they have given one) but not really responding to the OP’s questions at all looks a little hypocritical. (this is not directed at Roybot)