Nightmares for the Next Two Weeks

Off Topic
41

I’d like to remind you people that:

-The ancient Greeks were pedophiles/pedarasts (aristotle, socrates and co)
-It was normal to have sex and get married at the ages of 12 and up in “ancient times”.

His point is that everything you believe to be right or wrong is ingrained in you by society and your parents.

Of course some people will be so overwhelmed by their sense of right and wrong that they will look at these posts as very dangerous because they cannot view something objectively (logic), only subjectively (logic+emotions).

42

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot by comparing rape to making someone eat a sandwich.

So, if someone raped your mother, you’d just tell her to buck up? It’s just like eating a sandwich mom! No big deal.

What a joke.

Again MarvelGirl, you extrapolate in error. You come up with these stupid hypothetical scenarios, and expect to prove your point!

You have a very poor grasp of rhetoric and its technique. But I’ll still address your inane question.

If my mother was raped, with absolutely no extreme violence, and no STD contracted, or pregnancy, then I would not be too concerned. I would be upset, sure, but no more than someone force-feeding her a sandwich.

As I said, non-violent sexual assault is not inherently damaging.

If violence was involved, this changes matters. Violence IS inherently damaging in an unequivocal way.

Your argumentative style is simple, and crude MarvelGirl. You use fiery rhetoric and hypothetical situations as a crutch for not being able to think lucidly. I think it best for you to remove yourself from further intellectual discussions.

Why don’t you go debate something easy like black rights?

Leave the challenging topics to the big boys.
[/quote]

You’re an arrogant, condescending, prick, who is trying really hard to look like an itellectual and piss people off.

Thank you for contributing something worth reading. Fucking troll.

43

[quote]blazindave wrote:
I’d like to remind you people that:

-The ancient Greeks were pedophiles/pedarasts (aristotle, socrates and co)
-It was normal to have sex and get married at the ages of 12 and up in “ancient times”.

His point is that everything you believe to be right or wrong is ingrained in you by society and your parents.

Of course some people will be so overwhelmed by their sense of right and wrong that they will look at these posts as very dangerous because they cannot view something objectively (logic), only subjectively (logic+emotions).[/quote]

The example of greek culture is a perfect illustration of moral transience.

Immoral and moral are themselves so ephemeral and flimsy that the only thing required to change one to the other is time and place.

I will also re-iterate that subjective experience is irrelevant to this discussion.

44

If convicted of these offenses you’re legally considered and must register as a sex offender:

you’re a 17yr old girl having sex with a 15yr old boy.
you’re drunk or sober and get caught pissing in public(indecent exposure) such as behind a dumpster or on the side of the road in the trees but your back can still be seen from the road.

you’re a woman that flashes her boobs in public.
you’re drunk or sober and grab a woman’s ass, boobs, or crotch without her consent or with her consent in public.
you’re drunk or sober and grab a guys ass or crotch without his consent or with his consent in public.

there are some that are trying to make it a law that a person convicted of sexual harassment in the workplace should be registered as a sex offender.

If you castrate someone you will still have to keep them in jail. A male can still get an erection so they can still commit the penetration part of rape. How violent would you become if you were castrated? Modern day Red Jack?

There are also female sex offenders. Would you castrate them as they do in some countries by cutting off they’re vaginal lips? How about their boobs? If a woman was convicted or having oral sex on an unwilling female do you cut out her tongue?

Do you think facial tattoos ,scarification, or branding would work for identifying sex offenders to the general public? If they were exonerated some plastic surgery or laser work would clean them up.

45

Ancient Aztecs used to sacrifice people by burning them alive. They would also perform cannabilistic rituals. Guess we better follow suite. I love when people start pulling out “Well in the animal kingdom…well in x culture…” it doesn’t fucking matter.

46

[quote]imhungry wrote:

You’re an arrogant, condescending, prick, who is trying really hard to look like an itellectual and piss people off.

Thank you for contributing something worth reading. Fucking troll.[/quote]

Fiery invective such as this and other personal attacks on this topic have no relevance.

Imhungry, your argumentative style is avoidant, and immature. You use ad hominem as a crutch and disguise for your lack of ideas. You have not contributed any valid ideas to this discussion.

You seem only capable of posting useless comments that are not witty or creative in any way. So I think it best if you too refrain from adding more garbage to this discussion.

47

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
imhungry wrote:

You’re an arrogant, condescending, prick, who is trying really hard to look like an itellectual and piss people off.

Thank you for contributing something worth reading. Fucking troll.

Fiery invective such as this and other personal attacks on this topic have no relevance.

Imhungry, your argumentative style is avoidant, and immature. You use ad hominem as a crutch and disguise for your lack of ideas. You have not contributed any valid ideas to this discussion.

You seem only capable of posting useless comments that are not witty or creative in any way. So I think it best if you too refrain from adding more garbage to this discussion.

[/quote]

It’s my perogative to be as useless and immature as possible. I will exercise that right whenever I deem it necessary.

This “discussion” as you call it, shows no real relavance to what point that you are trying to make. You seem to make light of a few very serious issues, and you automatically discount anyone who disagrees with you.

I’m waiting for you to carry on a mature dicussion, instead of pushing buttons, Ted.

48

[quote]imhungry wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
imhungry wrote:
Turn them into organ donors.

Um…who would want that shit?

Maybe the people who are on a waiting list for organs. I would think that most people wouldn’t give a shit as long as it’s a heathy organ, no?[/quote]

Jesus Christ…no one here has a fucking sense of humor anymore!!!

49

[quote]imhungry wrote:
Ted Bundy wrote:
Non violent sex-related crime is the most over-hyped crime of the 20th and 21st century.

Rape is just a manifestation of a biological imperative, and an alternative mating mechanism.

Read some of TC’s articles. Biological mandates are a powerful, logical impetus to these actions.

Now, the current label of “Sex Offender” includes anything from violent rape to touching a kid in his naughty bits.

Hmm. I don’t think these two acts are tantamount to each other.

A guy doesn’t deserve to have his dick cut off, or testicles removed for touching a kid in the crotch.

sigh Puritanical America with its religiously informed laws…

Was this your argument after they found your kiddie porn on your computer and kicked you out of the priesthood?[/quote]

X2 WTF kind of an argument was that? You should seriously keep those thoughts to yourself…I think if you touch a lil kids wee wee or rape a dude in prison or force yourself on a chick thats hammered you deserve the exact same fuking punishment…

these are all ultimate ways of disgracing another person and all 3 are in violation of another humans body…so I think your body should be violated too.

50

[quote]lostinthought wrote:
imhungry wrote:
lostinthought wrote:
imhungry wrote:
Turn them into organ donors.

Um…who would want that shit?

Maybe the people who are on a waiting list for organs. I would think that most people wouldn’t give a shit as long as it’s a heathy organ, no?

Jesus Christ…no one here has a fucking sense of humor anymore!!![/quote]

Hey, I do, but there are people that wouldn’t want an organ from a pedaphile, rapist, etc. I figured that’s what you were saying. Sorry.

If you were here, i’d tussle your hair… (no homo)

51

imo

52

How is it justifiable to ruin a mans’ life by cutting off his genitals as punishment for touching a kid in his crotch?

Explain how touching a kid in his naughty bits is inherently damaging? This does not include sexual mores, or taboo.

Excluding societal morality which is tenuous and illogical.
50 years ago, homosexuality was thought to be immoral and damaging.

We didn’t get that one right did we?

Explain to me the exact mechanism of how touching a kid in his crotch triggers emotional, mental, or physical damage.

53

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:

So, in your mind is it just women and little kids who don’t have the right to say no, or are you a victim of biological mandates as well if some guy twice your size decides that he wants to play with your dick?

You extrapolated in error. I said nothing about the objects of said biological mandates and their reception to them. I never said that women or children didn’t have the right to say no. Do not put words in my mouth. My post explained the impetus to so called “deviant” methods of fulfilling a biological directive. You foolishly drew your own conclusion. Don’t do that.

Of course anyone can say no to a sexual advance. But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children then an arm-wrestling match.

Puritanical America…[/quote]

Your full of shit if you believe that. Obviously you have never been molested by a loved one. My wife lived with that until she was 12 years old. She still has nightmares about it 30 years later. Has NEVER gotten over the damage. She is just 1 of about 6 women I know who lived through that. They all remember it and not fondly. And ALL of them spent years in a selfdestructive mode of existence.

54

Ted,
For someone whos occupation is “Serial Killer”…fuck it Im too tired for this…Anyhow, I hope you sleep better tonight with your hand down your little brothers pants…well Im sure your used to it by now and its the reason that your numb to the psychlogical damage it does to a maturing adolescent…

I guess if my dad patted me on the balls and said “it will all be over soon” I would be a tad decensitised also…
Either way this has been a great debate, good evening.

55

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot by comparing rape to making someone eat a sandwich.

So, if someone raped your mother, you’d just tell her to buck up? It’s just like eating a sandwich mom! No big deal.

What a joke.

Again MarvelGirl, you extrapolate in error. You come up with these stupid hypothetical scenarios, and expect to prove your point!

You have a very poor grasp of rhetoric and its technique. But I’ll still address your inane question.

If my mother was raped, with absolutely no extreme violence, and no STD contracted, or pregnancy, then I would not be too concerned. I would be upset, sure, but no more than someone force-feeding her a sandwich.

As I said, non-violent sexual assault is not inherently damaging.

If violence was involved, this changes matters. Violence IS inherently damaging in an unequivocal way.

Your argumentative style is simple, and crude MarvelGirl. You use fiery rhetoric and hypothetical situations as a crutch for not being able to think lucidly. I think it best for you to remove yourself from further intellectual discussions.

Why don’t you go debate something easy like black rights?

Leave the challenging topics to the big boys.
[/quote]

If someone forces you to do something against your will, it will be violent. What don’t you understand about that? What is a 4 year old going to do someone sticks their dick in them? They are going to try to get away. To prevent that, the perp has to FORCIBLY hold them down. VIOLENT
Give him hell Marvelgirl!!!

56

[quote]blazindave wrote:
I’d like to remind you people that:

-The ancient Greeks were pedophiles/pedarasts (aristotle, socrates and co)
-It was normal to have sex and get married at the ages of 12 and up in “ancient times”.

His point is that everything you believe to be right or wrong is ingrained in you by society and your parents.

Of course some people will be so overwhelmed by their sense of right and wrong that they will look at these posts as very dangerous because they cannot view something objectively (logic), only subjectively (logic+emotions).[/quote]

What the hell is it with this thread that’s attracting all the troll-like thinking? So ancient greeks are pedophiles and what are we supposed to conlude from this statement? That it makes pedophilia ok then? It was also normal in ancient times to throw human sacrifices into the angry volcano god to appease him.

Who the hell cares what was normal in ancient times? And marrying at 12 years old and having an adult physically force themselves upon a minor against his or her will is pedophilia; two completely different topics.

I don’t think anyone is “overwhelmed” about the sense of right and wrong on this thread. I think having a healthy sense of right and wrong is called morality. And viewing this subject objectively, pedophilia is plain wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. I can’t believe I even have to write these words and explain this to anyone.

57

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
How is it justifiable to ruin a mans’ life by cutting off his genitals as punishment for touching a kid in his crotch?

Explain how touching a kid in his naughty bits is inherently damaging? This does not include sexual mores, or taboo.

Excluding societal morality which is tenuous and illogical.
50 years ago, homosexuality was thought to be immoral and damaging.

We didn’t get that one right did we?

Explain to me the exact mechanism of how touching a kid in his crotch triggers emotional, mental, or physical damage.

[/quote]

I’m starting to agree that your nothing but a fuckin troll with nothing better to do with their time than go to online forums and type outrageous crap to fill the void in your worthless pathetic existence.

58

[quote]randman wrote:

What the hell is it with this thread that’s attracting all the troll-like thinking? So ancient greeks are pedophiles and what are we supposed to conlude from this statement? That it makes pedophilia ok then? It was also normal in ancient times to throw human sacrifices into the angry volcano god to appease him. Who the hell cares what was normal in ancient times? And marrying at 12 years old and having an adult physically force themselves upon a minor against his or her will is pedophilia; two completely different topics.

I don’t think anyone is “overwhelmed” about the sense of right and wrong on this thread. I think having a healthy sense of right and wrong is called morality. And viewing this subject objectively, pedophilia is plain wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law. I can’t believe I even have to write these words and explain this to anyone. [/quote]

What we are supposed to conclude from the above statement is that the very definition and nature of morality is tenuous, and transient.

You contradict yourself by saying that objectively, pedophilia is morally reprehensible. However, you also acknowledge that morality has changed from ancient times until today. By your logic, if there can exist an objective morality, as you assert, then what is morally wrong today would have been morally wrong in ancient times.

We know this is not the case. Morality is inherently a subjective realm. It can never be objectively qualified.

Immoral and moral are themselves so ephemeral and flimsy that the only thing required to change one to the other is time and place.

Randman, using ad hominem will do nothing to further your argument. If you wish to debate, please refrain from personal attacks and stabs at my motives and personal life. It is simply irrelevant. It also constitutes a logical fallacy, ad hominem as I mentioned.

And purely because an idea is unpopular, or dissenting, does not give you ground to assert that that person is a “troll” or the like.

I encourage you to be more respectful of the right’s of others.

59

[quote]danc2469 wrote:

If someone forces you to do something against your will, it will be violent. What don’t you understand about that? What is a 4 year old going to do someone sticks their dick in them? They are going to try to get away. To prevent that, the perp has to FORCIBLY hold them down. VIOLENT
Give him hell Marvelgirl!!!
[/quote]

This is not always true. A person might decline sexual interaction, but not put up any physical resistance if their response is not heeded.

Violence necessitates pain. Pain is not inevitable even if the person is being held down.

It is entirely situational. It would be foolish to assume that all cases of sexual assault are violent.

Such is not the case, and such assumptions create a spurious correlation between violence and rape/sexual assault.

The two sometimes go together, but certainly not always.

60

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
crap that you spewed
[/quote]

The intellectual act with the pro-pedophilia agenda is getting old. Like I said, troll job.