[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.
Kitty porn!!!
Fine. Join MarvelGirl and leave to debate something easy like equal rights for women, and leave this debate to those who can handle it without resorting to launching personal invective.
Imhungry, that is just another witless remark that reeks of 7th grade humor.
If you are going to try to be funny, at least be funny.
[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Imhungry, that is just another witless remark that reeks of 7th grade humor.
If you are going to try to be funny, at least be funny.[/quote]
Nope.
I’m entertaining myself. It’s all about ME.
[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Violence necessitates pain.
[/quote]
This is not true, unless you consider someone getting shot in the head, or eviscerated by explosive, to be non-violent crimes. The death would be far too quick for any pain or sensation at all. Being knocked unconscious from behind and killed before you come to would also be a painless but violent act.
In the situation you are now falling back on, referencing ancient Greece, the “right” thing to do at that time was to let older men have their way with you(especially in the case of younger women in arranged marriages). Women had no rights, and would never speak up about any subjects, so there is no collective of knowledge whether or not they were in fact damaged psychologically by these acts, regardless of “dogma.”
With that said, you cannot then infer the unknown thoughts of people in ancient times onto that of a young child of modern day, and insist that you know their psychological reaction to an act.
Also, you say that morals cannot be “objective” because they have changed over time, but has not scientific law also changed over time as the observable universe has become more accessible due to technological increases? Would you then consider that science is non-objective because of this?
Definition of violence for those of you that may be confused…
1)Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2)The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3)Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4)Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5)Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6)Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor
[quote]imhungry wrote:
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!!!
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)[/quote]
I believe the “Organs” he was referring to were the castrated balls.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
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!!!
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)[/quote]
No worries! Sometimes things don’t transfer well through type and I need to remind myself of that. 
[quote]red04 wrote:
Ted Bundy wrote:
Violence necessitates pain.
This is not true, unless you consider someone getting shot in the head, or eviscerated by explosive, to be non-violent crimes. The death would be far too quick for any pain or sensation at all. Being knocked unconscious from behind and killed before you come to would also be a painless but violent act.
In the situation you are now falling back on, referencing ancient Greece, the “right” thing to do at that time was to let older men have their way with you(especially in the case of younger women in arranged marriages). Women had no rights, and would never speak up about any subjects, so there is no collective of knowledge whether or not they were in fact damaged psychologically by these acts, regardless of “dogma.”
With that said, you cannot then infer the unknown thoughts of people in ancient times onto that of a young child of modern day, and insist that you know their psychological reaction to an act.
Also, you say that morals cannot be “objective” because they have changed over time, but has not scientific law also changed over time as the observable universe has become more accessible due to technological increases? Would you then consider that science is non-objective because of this?
[/quote]
About the science thing. No scientific laws have not changed what people beleived were scientific laws changed.
This whole moral argument and what not is interesting. Moral and right do not actually exist but if you think deep enough nothing is true. In the same way a damaged person doesn’t exist. Only our perception of what damaged is. We only see through human perception and wrong is what is different a+a=aa but maybe that is just what the human mind thinks and it is not actually true.
There even may be other universes or anything outside of our universe were laws of physics did not apply time may move backwards in other universe and the only reason time should move foward is because we live in this universe and can not see it any other way. So in truth everything is 100% subjective and distorted by time and place (if these even actually exist or are only our perception?)
Don’t reply to this thinking I am arguing with what anyone said. I am staying out of that. This would just be a complete nonsense cop out argument I just posted because it is interesting and it sort of follows Teds line of thinking. (wasn’t argreeing with anything.
Random question. What is a troll? I always hear this on forums and have no clue.
[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
Random question. What is a troll? I always hear this on forums and have no clue.[/quote]
Yum.
[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Explain how touching a kid in his naughty bits is inherently damaging?
[/quote]
It isn’t, but that depends on the circumstance.
How do you expect the emotionally attached people to take you seriously when you are using the name you have chosen?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ted Bundy wrote:
Explain how touching a kid in his naughty bits is inherently damaging?
It isn’t, but that depends on the circumstance.
How do you expect the emotionally attached people to take you seriously when you are using the name you have chosen?[/quote]
Along with making his first posts revolving around a sensitive subject matter and attempting come off as intellectually superior to anybody else.
[quote]johnconkle wrote:
I don’t support sex offenders, but seriously…
[/quote]
Good point, but seriously… what are we doing cutting their balls out… we should be cutting their fucking throats out.
[quote]red04 wrote:
Ted Bundy wrote:
Violence necessitates pain.
This is not true, unless you consider someone getting shot in the head, or eviscerated by explosive, to be non-violent crimes.
The death would be far too quick for any pain or sensation at all. Being knocked unconscious from behind and killed before you come to would also be a painless but violent act.
In the situation you are now falling back on, referencing ancient Greece, the “right” thing to do at that time was to let older men have their way with you(especially in the case of younger women in arranged marriages).
Women had no rights, and would never speak up about any subjects, so there is no collective of knowledge whether or not they were in fact damaged psychologically by these acts, regardless of “dogma.”
With that said, you cannot then infer the unknown thoughts of people in ancient times onto that of a young child of modern day, and insist that you know their psychological reaction to an act.
Also, you say that morals cannot be “objective” because they have changed over time, but has not scientific law also changed over time as the observable universe has become more accessible due to technological increases?
Would you then consider that science is non-objective because of this?
[/quote]
Our perception of scientific law changes frequently, that doesnt mean the scientifical laws change in themselves, just what we think about them, not what the actually are, unless we dont really understand whats going on, and they do change periodically, and we dont know about it yet, or realize it, then they may change, but that doesnt mean anything, its just rambling, and stuff.
People who seem to want to sound intellectually superior to others and support supposedly higher ideals tend to not understand much about the complex workings of society. Basically, it’s almost impossible to go through life and not adopt the morals and thoughts of the current society.
I understand, ted, what you are saying. The things we see as repulsive are usually that way because of values that are ever fleeting, changing, and fickle. But, since 99.9% of people believe roughly the same as society your argument is purely hypothetical.
You can’t take out societal values. People wouldn’t be able to handle it. It would be almost the same as rejecting the laws of chemistry because the universe is “imposing” them on the elements.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have a feeling that with the average age of a T-Nation member being 27 (I think that’s correct) that many reading this thread don’t really know who the real Ted Bundy was.
“After more than a decade of vigorous denials, he eventually confessed to 30 murders, although the actual total of victims remains unknown. Estimates range from 29 to over 100, the general estimate being 35. Typically, Bundy would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He also engaged in rape and necrophilia.” ~ Wikipedia
Bottom line is you have to be a sick fuck to use this moniker as your screen name, troll or not.
FWIW, he committed two of his three final murders just a few blocks from my house back when I was 17.
[/quote]
I looked it up when I saw his name the first time because I believed it was the name of a serial killer… Pretty fucked up to use his name, as you said.