So, whose forum is this, anyway?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:09 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  [quote='Hobbitgirl' pid='334893' dateline='1373129535']

I am not a hypocrite. If you look through the threads from my posts, you will see that I am a very tolerante and accepting person. Moreso than a LOT of you.

When in the flying fuck did he say you were not a quality member?
Ato have you lost the ability to have any compassion? That was uncalled for, Hobbit is your friend, that was cold and mean. She was stating how this all makes her feel.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
06-07-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:20 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(06-07-2013 10:36 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  No, you cannot defend your stance. I have constantly been comparing the ban on porn to pedophilia. You constantly come back at me with the stupid legal crap. I said put an age verification on it then in a sub-forum. Here, how about this. Hypothetically speaking. You make a porn only section with an age verification on it.

Now tell me why you don't want porn in here, but you want to allow pedophiles to remain. We aren't talking about how these two are conducting themselves. We are talking about image. PR as you said.


The simple fact that we allow free speech is a positive, and the fact that we are disagreeing with them and offering up counterpoints will show the onlooker that we do not accept their views, we merely allow their views to be shared.

However, as for the porn (which I was fully willing to let go, but now I must bring it back up to address you), it is something that Seth and the admins need to figure out themselves, I do not speak for them. However, it is seen as a negative considering that Seth has an attitude towards tolerance and Free Speech, but not pornography. I never said that porn SHOULD NOT be on here, all I said was that it was illegal, and the proper measures to enact it is up for the mods to decide.

Quote:Can you finally get the picture I'm trying to paint for you?
I saw the picture, it was just wrong, in my opinion.

Quote:Pedophilia is not a normal sexual orientation and cannot be compared to actual normal attractions. It is a disorder. In fact, that very reason alone should knock off pedophilia as a sexual orientation. It should be considered a handicap like any other disorder. Except that this particular handicap has a shit ton of possible legal issues surrounding it.

Notice how I said "Sexual preference." And so did the forum rules. I didn't say it was an orientation.
Quote:Let me ask you something... if someone is retarded, do you consider them to have normal intelligence like the rest of albeit not as smart as most? What about someone that suffers from clinical depression. Do you say they experience regular emotions like the rest of us, just that they experience more anger and sadness than most? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you classify those people as having a disorder... a handicap. Now if you're going to argue that being attracted to children is not a handicap or disorder, then that's an entirely different debate.

This is getting boring...

Like it or not, pedophilia is a sexual preference. No matter how many times you repeat that it isn't.

Pedophiles sexually prefer children.

Therefore, pedophiles have a sexual preference.

People with any sexual preference are allowed on this forum, even sexual preference towards children.

They are not, however, allowed to act on them.

Okay, misread the "preference" thing, but still my point stands. If it's a disorder of the brain, you need to reject those terms.

Retarded person has a brain.

Brains give us intelligence.

Therefore, retarded person is of normal intelligence.

That just doesn't work. Physical handicap aside:

Rapists sexually prefer forced sex.

Therefore, rapists have a preference for a sexual method.

This can go on and on like this. Rather than do that, we classify these people as having disorders. We classify them as handicap. This is why I don't think pedophiles should fall under the same free speech umbrella as the rest of us. They have a disorder that causes this preference. They aren't just exercising their right to discuss pedophilia... they ARE pedophiles.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:28 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:20 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Like it or not, pedophilia is a sexual preference. No matter how many times you repeat that it isn't.

Pedophiles sexually prefer children.

Therefore, pedophiles have a sexual preference.

People with any sexual preference are allowed on this forum, even sexual preference towards children.

They are not, however, allowed to act on them.

Anybody else here sexually aroused by snuff films? Not the real deal of course which would be illegal but the pretend ones. There seems to be a lot of prejudice against us even though we can't help ourselves and would never ever ever make a real one. ... Oops, wrong forum, I'll start a new thread in Health and Psychology.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
06-07-2013, 11:29 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  No sir. By definition, that is ONE of the points.

Read the bold.
handicap /hand·i·cap/ (han´dĭ-kap) any physical or mental defect, congenital or acquired, preventing or restricting a person from participating in normal life or limiting their capacity to work.

Homosexuals cannot live a normal life. A "normal" life means they can reproduce. They can't. I'm speaking strictly in terms of biology.

Strictly speaking they can reproduce, so long as they're fertile. That relies on your definition of "normal"; you've said it's just your personal view, so yeah, that's fine, but it is only an opinion regarding semantics. And the conclusion of your definitions is to classify it as a "defect" - at least you acknowledge that the connotations of that label make it a terrible one to use.

I can hardly say I'm any less pedantic at times - but it's still true Big Grin.

(06-07-2013 11:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Other than that technicality, there is nothing else about them that's not normal. This is why this theory is controversial. People hear words like "not normal" or "handicap" and they get a bad impression. Kind of like when people hear words like "pedophile."

Okay.

(06-07-2013 11:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  I did not ever insult the pedophiles. If I did, that was never my intent. I made my feelings clear to them. Also, I'm perfectly fine with what you are saying here.

That's good, and I wasn't saying you had. That was my approximation of the extreme view (not that I necessarily think anyone here went that far).

(06-07-2013 11:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  But I'm going to expect consistency in the future if cases like this arise. Again, this sets a precedent and the gates open up for similar people to come in.

Okay. Personally I'd say 'free speech' extends up to the point of threats, so that's where I'd draw the line; but any given statement is inevitably open to some degree of interpretation. And of course what constitutes a threat (where my gut definition, however useful/useless that is, would be something like, "statements indicating the potential for causing harm") is likewise hilariously debatable.

(06-07-2013 11:11 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  I honestly wonder what your guys' reaction would have been if these were not pedophiles, rather people who confessed to fantasizing about roasting babies and eating them like chicken. I can't take your word for it now so don't bother saying you would have acted the same. Neither you nor I know that because it didn't happen.

Well, we joke about that all the time!

I do know what you mean. I would have acted the same (so there Tongue). It depends, like the case in question, on how likely I think they are to actually do it. The advice is the same: talk to a therapist and perhaps find a support group. Alcoholics can stay dry their whole lives with the right support.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Homosexuals cannot live a normal life. A "normal" life means they can reproduce. They can't.

Actually, they are biologically still capable of having a baby...

Well yes of course. In a very not normal fashion. Well, actually they can. They just have to go "eww" while doing it. Technicalities lol.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:30 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(06-07-2013 11:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Actually, they are biologically still capable of having a baby...

Well yes of course. In a very not normal fashion. Well, actually they can. They just have to go "eww" while doing it. Technicalities lol.

No...
With modern technology they can just rent a womb and let the doctors take care of the icky parts.

Oh, and do you blame gay people? Have you seen a vagina...? eww...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:28 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Anybody else here sexually aroused by snuff films? Not the real deal of course which would be illegal but the pretend ones. There seems to be a lot of prejudice against us even though we can't help ourselves and would never ever ever make a real one. ... Oops, wrong forum, I'll start a new thread in Health and Psychology.

Y'know, I hate to be cliche, but just because I think you should be able to say something doesn't mean I agree with it or even think you should say it.

(04-07-2013 06:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But even if it got me off I wouldn't go around introducing myself as "I'm cjlr and I love the idea of raping people". Because that's just stupid.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
06-07-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:31 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(06-07-2013 11:30 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Well yes of course. In a very not normal fashion. Well, actually they can. They just have to go "eww" while doing it. Technicalities lol.

No...
With modern technology they can just rent a womb and let the doctors take care of the icky parts.

No no, I exclude technology from "normal" in this case. As in they normally can't reproduce without such help. But as I pointed out, I remembered that they can even do that because nothing is stopping them from actual intercourse with the opposite sex other than the "ewww" factor.

But then even that could be considered not normal. It wouldn't be normal for me to have sex with another man when I'm not attracted to him. So it's not normal for them to have sex with a gender they aren't attracted to for the sole purpose of reproducing.

By the way, I'm glad we have now digressed from pedophilia to focusing on gay activities.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:31 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(06-07-2013 11:30 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Well yes of course. In a very not normal fashion. Well, actually they can. They just have to go "eww" while doing it. Technicalities lol.

No...
With modern technology they can just rent a womb and let the doctors take care of the icky parts.

Oh, and do you blame gay people? Have you seen a vagina...? eww...

Do you blame me for preferring the vagina? I see my own penis every day. eww...

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2013, 11:39 AM
RE: So, whose forum is this, anyway?
(06-07-2013 11:34 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  No no, I exclude technology from "normal" in this case. As in they normally can't reproduce without such help. But as I pointed out, I remembered that they can even do that because nothing is stopping them from actual intercourse with the opposite sex other than the "ewww" factor.

But then even that could be considered not normal. It wouldn't be normal for me to have sex with another man when I'm not attracted to him. So it's not normal for them to have sex with a gender they aren't attracted to for the sole purpose of reproducing.

By the way, I'm glad we have now digressed from pedophilia to focusing on gay activities.

You do realize that the "sex is purely procreative" viewpoint is rather challenged by the frequency of same-sex interaction among countless animal species, yes?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: