Popular Liberal radio host admits to distributing child porn.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



KidRock
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/254498

King Kandy
Well that sucks but I think conservative hosts are still way ahead in terms of scandals.

lord xyz
Damn, I wish I saw that broadcast.

Bardock42
Well, at least he is not a hypocrite, like those preachers that suck of phillipino "women".

Symmetric Chaos
I knew it! This just proves that all liberals are Satan's footsoldiers!!!1

lord xyz
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I knew it! This just proves that all liberals are Satan's footsoldiers!!!1 Dude, FOX has already proven that to the loyal American public.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, at least he is not a hypocrite, like those preachers that suck of phillipino "women".

Ha, I guess. He can't be charged with anything? (If it's in the link excuse me, this dial up @ home is sooo slow)

lord xyz
Originally posted by chithappens
Ha, I guess. He can't be charged with anything? (If it's in the link excuse me, this dial up @ home is sooo slow) get broadband!

Schecter
never heard of him.

Robtard
Turns out he's a pedophile, the shit ****. As far as I know though, he wasn't spouting about certain "evils" while secretly engaging in them, like the long list of conservatives Adam has listed, so a hypocrite, he isn't.

Schecter
also he's not in the business of running the country. if we're going to broaden the scope of scrutiny to talk show personalities then we'll need a whole new thread for rush limbaugh's pill-popping bangkok kiddie ****ing fat ass

red g jacks
so hypocrisy is worse than child porn

good 2 know thumb up

Sadako of Girth
The hypocrisy thing worsens cases generally, 'cause the hypocrite uses lying about their position to put off those who would imprison them, which can be help keep them on the streets abusing kids a little longer.

And when you put your trust in a figure who speaks out against nonces, you perhaps even back them and they turn out to be a nonce themselves, its worse as you are likely to be one of the folks suckered in and then you've unwittingly been backing the equivalent of Hitler in your principles..

Which makes folks mad, naturally.

But whether or not this guy was a hypocrite, this guy is still an absolute scum bag.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Schecter
never heard of him.

red g jacks
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The hypocrisy thing worsens cases generally, 'cause the hypocrite uses lying about their position to put off those who would imprison them, which can be help keep them on the streets abusing kids a little longer.

And when you put your trust in a figure who speaks out against nonces, you perhaps even back them and they turn out to be a nonce themselves, its worse as you are likely to be one of the folks suckered in and then you've unwittingly been backing the equivalent of Hitler in your principles..

Which makes folks mad, naturally.

But whether or not this guy was a hypocrite, this guy is still an absolute scum bag. oh i wasn't defending hyprocrisy/fraud.. just wondering why it's some sort of merit to this man that even though he participated in the exploitation of childrape, at least he had the decency not to pretend to condemn it publicly...

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
so hypocrisy is worse than child porn

good 2 know thumb up

Way. I don't even see anything wrong with child porn, really.

red g jacks
got linx?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Way. I don't even see anything wrong with child porn, really. There is wrong in child porn, but those things count for porn in general (or even business in general).

chillmeistergen
Isn't really an objective wrong. If consent is given, I see no problem.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Isn't really an objective wrong. If consent is given, I see no problem.

A child cannot legally give consent in many places. Nor can one simply assume that a child really knows what is going on.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A child cannot legally give consent in many places. Nor can one simply assume that a child really knows what is going on. Nor can one just assume a child doesn't.

But obviously however the laws may be, it doesn't mean they are right or reasonable.

BackFire
Originally posted by Bardock42
Way. I don't even see anything wrong with child porn, really.

Figures.

Bardock42
Originally posted by BackFire
Figures.

Well, at least I am not the one with the extensive collection.


Sorted biographically, I hear.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nor can one just assume a child doesn't.

To me that seems to be a much greater leap. Especially considering that child porn is usually prepubescent so the odds of actually understanding sexuality of any sort or level would have to be limited.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But obviously however the laws may be, it doesn't mean they are right or reasonable.

I didn't say they were.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To me that seems to be a much greater leap. Especially considering that child porn is usually prepubescent so the odds of actually understanding sexuality of any sort or level would have to be limited.



I didn't say they were.

Oh, I agree that it is likely for children under 10 to not have any concept of the idea. That doesn't make childporn wrong, that makes raping children wrong.

BackFire
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, at least I am not the one with the extensive collection.


Sorted biographically, I hear.

You make your own.

And it's alphabetically.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by BackFire
You make your own.

And it's alphabetically.

I've never understood why people do that. Categorical organization is much more useful.

BackFire
It's just my way.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've never understood why people do that. Categorical organization is much more useful. For porn, I agree.

But since we were already talking about Child Porn, in specific, alphabetically would make sense.

BackFire
I actually organize my porn by the name of the pornstar, for the record.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
Way. I don't even see anything wrong with child porn, really.

sick

red g jacks
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nor can one just assume a child doesn't.

But obviously however the laws may be, it doesn't mean they are right or reasonable. so how would you change the laws involved with child porn to be 'right or reasonable?'

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
so how would you change the laws involved with child porn to be 'right or reasonable?'

...I'm an anarchist.


Damn, why did I never think of that excuse before.

red g jacks
thats cool. are you a full time anarchist or is it more of a hobby?

P23
i wanna cut this guys throat with a hunting knife. i hate pedo's with a pashion. and our laws are ****ed up.

Schecter
Originally posted by P23
i wanna cut this guys throat with a hunting knife. i hate pedo's with a pashion. and our laws are ****ed up.


are you a law student by any chance?

anyway, while i dislike pedophiles, i think potential first degree murderers should be kept under closer watch.

Bardock42
Originally posted by red g jacks
thats cool. are you a full time anarchist or is it more of a hobby?

Nah, I am a Sunday Anarchist. You know, when the time's right.

P23
Originally posted by Schecter
are you a law student by any chance?

anyway, while i dislike pedophiles, i think potential first degree murderers should be kept under closer watch.



dude theres a diffrence between killing someone for nothing and killing some one for the right reasons. are you gona say that if some guy trys picking up your younger sibling you wouldnt shoot the s.o.b?

Schecter
Originally posted by P23
dude theres a diffrence between killing someone for nothing and killing some one for the right reasons. are you gona say that if some guy trys picking up your younger sibling you wouldnt shoot the s.o.b?

you said that you would like to commit premeditated murder on someone whom has not violated you or anyone close to you. so, dont dodge the statement.

Bardock42
Originally posted by P23
dude theres a diffrence between killing someone for nothing and killing some one for the right reasons. are you gona say that if some guy trys picking up your younger sibling you wouldnt shoot the s.o.b? Woah, stop going all Charlie Manson on us, dude.

P23
Originally posted by Schecter
you said that you would like to commit premeditated murder on someone whom has not violated you or anyone close to you. so, dont dodge the statement.




it dosent matter dude. i stick by what i believe in. hell man you know for a fact the justice system is a joke. pedos get the max of 3 years for there shit. if i went and stole a car in chicago id get 10 to 15 for grand theft auto. and if a pedo rapes a kid he gets 3 years wich is a damn joke

Bardock42
Not sure how accurate your numbers are (since you likely got them out of your ass), but the problem with pedophilia is more the public outrage is way stronger than the actual harm done.

Sadako of Girth
What do you think causes that outrage then, Bardock?

Robtard
Girthy, you're talking to a bunch of silly mother****ers who think little children have the experience and foresight to understand what the ramifications of their actions could be... at least in regards to sex.

The odd thing, if a 4, 7, 9 or 12 year old is old enough to fully understand what sex is; what are the dangers and therefore we should do away with these "unreasonable" sex laws, why don't we do away with charging children as minors, when they commit a crime? If a 10 year old steals a car, send him to prison for 1-2 years, little-****er obviously knew better, right?

Sadako of Girth
Ah, thats what I thought.
Cheers.

Excellent analogy.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
What do you think causes that outrage then, Bardock? Some sort of evolutionary urge to protect children...I assume.

P23
in the state of IL a kid who is 16 is considered an adult. but if a kid who's 10 gets molested they may not know what it was and therefore cant consent on what was what

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Girthy, you're talking to a bunch of silly mother****ers who think little children have the experience and foresight to understand what the ramifications of their actions could be... at least in regards to sex.

The odd thing, if a 4, 7, 9 or 12 year old is old enough to fully understand what sex is; what are the dangers and therefore we should do away with these "unreasonable" sex laws, why don't we do away with charging children as minors, when they commit a crime? If a 10 year old steals a car, send him to prison for 1-2 years, little-****er obviously knew better, right?

I'd very much prefer an individual basis than just a weird blanket law.


Besides, those laws would include up to 17 year olds in your country. Isn't that a tad idiotic?

Also, the ideas of castration then feeding the molester the balls and raping him with a rusty spike...just doesn't fit the crime. Sorry, but a 10 year old that gets touche on the pee-pee doesn't have to suffer extensive traumata throughout his live...the action itself really doesn't merit it at all.

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by P23
if a kid who's 10 gets molested they may not know what it was and therefore cant consent on what was what

What if they do know what it is? I think 10 year olds are smarter then we give them credit for. Shit, I knew what sex is and what the possible rammifications of it are when I was 10.

Then again I'm black. So...

Blax_Hydralisk
Originally posted by Bardock42
Besides, those laws would include up to 17 year olds in your country. Isn't that a tad idiotic?


Agreed. If you're too stupid to know what sex is by the time you're 17, you're probably not going to magically understand when you turn 18.


I think that to be qualified to have sex you should take like... a test or something. Like a drivers license. stick out tongue

WrathfulDwarf
With a good lawyer this guy will walk out....place your bets.

chithappens
I really think child molesters get more flak than murderers but I'm not completely sure why. Really it's a lot more...

P23
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
What if they do know what it is? I think 10 year olds are smarter then we give them credit for. Shit, I knew what sex is and what the possible rammifications of it are when I was 10.

Then again I'm black. So...



just because you knew about sex at 10 dosent mean every 10 year old will. my aunt adopted 3 girls who were being molested by there birth parents. now the youngest one whos turning 17 is really screwed up and i mean badly. the middle sister just had a baby and the oldest sister (18) is nuts also. the 17 year old my aunt adopted is so bizzare to where she will think someone is trying to hurt her and she once tried burning my aunts house down. right now my aunt is at court with her trying to give her to the state. now the girl acvts they way she does after her biological parents molested her. alot of kids or adults recover but alot of others dont

Blax_Hydralisk
Fair point. People are different. But I think there's a difference between being forced to doing something, like being molested, and agreeing to do something but not legally agreeing to something.

And I think murder is worse then rape. There are cases when rape victims recover from the expeirence. Dead people don't ever recover from being dead.

Bardock42
Originally posted by P23
just because you knew about sex at 10 dosent mean every 10 year old will. my aunt adopted 3 girls who were being molested by there birth parents. now the youngest one whos turning 17 is really screwed up and i mean badly. the middle sister just had a baby and the oldest sister (18) is nuts also. the 17 year old my aunt adopted is so bizzare to where she will think someone is trying to hurt her and she once tried burning my aunts house down. right now my aunt is at court with her trying to give her to the state. now the girl acvts they way she does after her biological parents molested her. alot of kids or adults recover but alot of others dont
Yes, but just because ONE 10 year old does, it means that one should be allowed.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd very much prefer an individual basis than just a weird blanket law.


Besides, those laws would include up to 17 year olds in your country. Isn't that a tad idiotic?

Also, the ideas of castration then feeding the molester the balls and raping him with a rusty spike...just doesn't fit the crime. Sorry, but a 10 year old that gets touche on the pee-pee doesn't have to suffer extensive traumata throughout his live...the action itself really doesn't merit it at all.

And how exactly do you judge that, considering it's fairly simple for an adult to convince a child that they whated it?

When you get into the upper teens, yes, the laws tend to be a bit extreme. The Euros have it a bit more reasonable with the 16 year old consent thing.

Though some people would like that to happen, castration (chemical being an exception), self-cannibalization and rusty spike analrape isn't in the law. Doesn't correct, but some do.

chithappens
Which is why Bardock suggested a case by case basis

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some sort of evolutionary urge to protect children...I assume.

Then we forgive the earlier poster for feeling that way.
Can't ostracize folks for being human.

Sure, Im sure we've all said we'd love to go out and kill someone at some point for some reason or another, and true what Schect says, It'd be perhaps wrong to go out murdering people that haven't done that thing to me directly, but I won't be losing any sleep if a proven nonce should be revenged upon by the families of the victims neither.

Millions of years of evolution and genetics are hard to override at the best of times, let alone when it comes to something as base-level as that.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
And how exactly do you judge that, considering it's fairly simple for an adult to convince a child that they whated it?

When you get into the upper teens, yes, the laws tend to be a bit extreme. The Euros have it a bit more reasonable with the 16 year old consent thing.

Though some people would like that to happen, castration (chemical being an exception), self-cannibalization and rusty spike analrape isn't in the law. Doesn't correct, but some do.

It's hard to judge, I admit that. But that's exactly the reason why it is ridiculous how people flip out when someone mentions child porn or molestation of children. It's in no way related to the crime. Everytime something like that happens you have a judge amount of people that would just love to torture that person (ANOTHER HUMAN BEING). Torture being factually much, much worse than being touched in the vagina.

Same with Rape. It is made much worse and seen as much worse by society. But really. Like Doug Stanhope says, if I got the shit beaten out of me at the moment and the guy would stop and give me the option of getting ****ed in the ass or getting the shit beaten out of me much more...I'd ****ing know what I choose. The victimization that happens is the real problem. The act itself is often less worse than assault...

chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
And how exactly do you judge that, considering it's fairly simple for an adult to convince a child that they whated it?



If you replace 'child' with 'person' (even if we included animals) it could work. Being over 18 doesn't make you less of an idiot. We all know adults who do dumb shit all of the time because they were "convinced."

I see your point but just as you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children.

Personally, I don't give a **** if the child understood. Often times, that is a moot point because they are still trying to convince a child to have sex with them ( I think there is an issue with people who can't get some sex from someone their own age; not including 65 and above here... laughing ), but it is a case by case basis.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Then we forgive the earlier poster for feeling that way.
Can't ostracize folks for being human.

Sure, Im sure we've all said we'd love to go out and kill someone at some point for some reason or another, and true what Schect says, It'd be perhaps wrong to go out murdering people that haven't done that thing to me directly, but I won't be losing any sleep if a proven nonce should be revenged upon by the families of the victims neither.

Millions of years of evolution and genetics are hard to override at the best of times, let alone when it comes to something as base-level as that. Of course. I understand the reasons, but if the irrationality then influences the laws is where I'd draw the line.

Also, nothing wrong with stating that something is ridiculous, even if you understand the reasons why people say it.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd very much prefer an individual basis than just a weird blanket law.

Also, the ideas of castration then feeding the molester the balls and raping him with a rusty spike...just doesn't fit the crime. Sorry, but a 10 year old that gets touche on the pee-pee doesn't have to suffer extensive traumata throughout his live...the action itself really doesn't merit it at all.

No need for all that.... A ironically 'humane' injection will do.
(The irony would be that that humanity would then be wasted on those bereft of it.)

And thats a very confident assertion, your second point.
And how you can make it, is beyond me, given that you've just indicated that you had an understanding of where the public outrage comes from.

Worse than blanket policies, are groups that advocate peodophila, IMO.

Schecter
i dont know, i just think its kinda ****ed up to fantasize about murdering a criminal and claiming sentimental irrationality when the victim of said criminal is of no aquaintance....i find it deeply disturbing in fact.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course. I understand the reasons, but if the irrationality then influences the laws is where I'd draw the line.

Also, nothing wrong with stating that something is ridiculous, even if you understand the reasons why people say it.

I feel your points, I really do. But if an adult man were to ever touch my adolescent daughter, he will probably die by my hand or be near death once the authorities find him.

Didn't say it was rational or humane, but it's true. I don't see myself giving a **** about the justice system at that very moment. If I somehow came across the guy then it's curtains for him.

chithappens
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No need for all that.... A ironically 'humane' injection will do.
(The irony would be that that humanity would then be wasted on those bereft of it.)

And thats a very confident assertion, your second point.
And how you can make it, is beyond me, given that you've just indicated that you had an understanding of where the public outrage comes from.

Worse than blanket policies, are groups that advocate peodophila, IMO.

You seem like a rational person. I'll assume you have disagreed with people before without yelling.

You have never found yourself able to agree to disagree with someone? You might completely understand the logic, but just not agree. I do understand where Bardock is coming from, I just do not completely agree on all points. That's fine, isn't it?

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42


Also, nothing wrong with stating that something is ridiculous, even if you understand the reasons why people say it.

Agreed.

So exercising that right, I think your stance on this issue is ridulous.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No need for all that.... A ironically 'humane' injection will do.
(The irony would be that that humanity would then be wasted on those bereft of it.)

And thats a very confident assertion, your second point.
And how you can make it, is beyond me, given that you've just indicated that you had an understanding of where the public outrage comes from.

Worse than blanket policies, are groups that advocate peodophila, IMO.

I fully disagree. Understanding where something comes from does in no way justify it. Yes, I understand where Hitler was coming from, yes, I might understand why he killed millions of people and started a huge ass war, but, it does in no way justify it.

Groups that advocate pedophilia, imo, are much less bad than groups that advocate the public torture of child molesters.


Originally posted by chithappens
I feel your points, I really do. But if an adult man were to ever touch my adolescent daughter, he will probably die by my hand or be near death once the authorities find him.

Didn't say it was rational or humane, but it's true. I don't see myself giving a **** about the justice system at that very moment. If I somehow came across the guy then it's curtains for him.

I also understand that point. And I feel with anyone that has to go through it, but it truely doesn't matter. The law is not there to justify the blind vengeance of the victims. And it shouldn't. Yes, if my girlfriend was raped I'd be outraged, if I caught someone doing it I might kill them, I totally dig the Punisher. But when trying to analyze something objectively, that can't and doesn't matter. I'd not behave reasonable in that moment, and, in the long run, I'd probably be happy that there were people that did keep their cool and would have stopped me and lead the offender to true justice, not bloodthirsty revenge.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by chithappens
You seem like a rational person. I'll assume you have disagreed with people before without yelling.

You have never found yourself able to agree to disagree with someone? You might completely understand the logic, but just not agree. I do understand where Bardock is coming from, I just do not completely agree on all points. That's fine, isn't it?

Fair play. smile

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Agreed.

So exercising that right, I think your stance on this issue is ridulous.

Haha, fair enough. I think I gave my reasons. And I think they are rational. If we disagree then that's alright.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42


Groups that advocate pedophilia, imo, are much less bad than groups that advocate the public torture of child molesters.



Not that I endorse murder groups, but regarding the peodo groups, those groups of adults are big and ugly enough to look after themselves, unlike the kids they prey on.

Im siding with the kids still, Im afraid.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, fair enough. I think I gave my reasons. And I think they are rational. If we disagree then that's alright.

Fair enough. Like wise.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42


I also understand that point. And I feel with anyone that has to go through it, but it truely doesn't matter. The law is not there to justify the blind vengeance of the victims. And it shouldn't. Yes, if my girlfriend was raped I'd be outraged, if I caught someone doing it I might kill them, I totally dig the Punisher. But when trying to analyze something objectively, that can't and doesn't matter. I'd not behave reasonable in that moment, and, in the long run, I'd probably be happy that there were people that did keep their cool and would have stopped me and lead the offender to true justice, not bloodthirsty revenge.

Oh believe me, I would not try to justify it. Like I said, I wouldn't give a ****. It is not a reasonable action and not one I would preach for others to follow, but I could see it happening.

Given time to think it over in hindsight, I would regret it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I fully disagree. Understanding where something comes from does in no way justify it. Yes, I understand where Hitler was coming from, yes, I might understand why he killed millions of people and started a huge ass war, but, it does in no way justify it.


I remember trying to explain that on a college campus... It didn't go to well. People have wars all the time, but yea...

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not that I endorse murder groups, but regarding the peodo groups, those groups of adults are big and ugly enough to look after themselves, unlike the kids they prey on.

Im siding with the kids still, Im afraid.

Oh, but I am siding with the kids. I am siding with the kids that truly want sex, and I am siding with those that don't. Either should be fully supported in their personal choice.

Sadako of Girth
Dude.

You know a lot of kids who want sex from adults...?

Sorry mate. I agree with Robtard.

The projection of adult sexual values onto kids is not cool.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dude.

You know a lot of kids who want sex from adults...?

Sorry mate. I agree with Robtard.

The projection of adult sexual values onto kids is not cool. Nope.

Don't know a lot of people who really want to kill themselves either though. But I am all for their freedom to get it done if they want.

Sadako of Girth
Nope? So what do you base that belief on?

But if they top 'em selves, (providing they like don't drop from a building onto someone else or something) its just themselves they are affecting.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Dude.

You know a lot of kids who want sex from adults...?

Sorry mate. I agree with Robtard.

The projection of adult sexual values onto kids is not cool. But that's what you two are doing. You project the adults view that children can't in any way want to have sex. It's just not true.

I wanted to have sex at least since I was 12. With Movie Stars. Adult Movie Stars.

Why should I be denied that, if given the chance, because adults think that all 12 year olds are asexual idiots?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope? So what do you base that belief on?

But if they top 'em selves, (providing they like don't drop from a building onto someone else or something) its just themselves they are affecting. It's a hypothetical.

If they want they should be allowed to.

That's what I am saying.

Sadako of Girth
So if they want to find out tongue first what the orangey glowey bars taste like on an old electric heater, then they should be able to while you stand by, watch and do nothing...?

Bardock42
Also, I think here's a misunderstanding. I am not saying that Adults should always be allowed to have sex with children.

I am saying children should be able to decide whether they want to have sex.


And someone killing themselves, certainly affects others more than a kid ****ing someone.

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's what you two are doing. You project the adults view that children can't in any way want to have sex. It's just not true.

I wanted to have sex at least since I was 12. With Movie Stars. Adult Movie Stars.

Why should I be denied that, if given the chance, because adults think that all 12 year olds are asexual idiots?

Nope. What I was doing, was remebering what it was like to be 8 and not give a shit about sex.

Prove its not true.

7 yrs old might be though. You speak as if nonces restrict their pron to 12 yrs olds.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
So if they want to find out tongue first what the orangey glowey bars taste like on an old electric heater, then they should be able to while you stand by, watch and do nothing...? If they are able to understand the consequences. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape. But, a randomly chosen line for when someone can consent is contrary to the truth of the nature of consent.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. What I was doing, was remebering what it was like to be 8 and not give a shit about sex.

Prove its not true.

7 yrs old might be though. You speak as if nonces restrict their pron to 12 yrs olds.

No. I speak as if the law INCLUDES 12 year olds.

Which it does.

Sadako of Girth
Point step-stepping.

And you cant name any kids who want sex with adults, and since that that is a fundimental point to your argument, I'll take that as admission. And the Adult as you noted, just now, is still responsible, and ergo Peodo groups can get stuffed.


"If they are able to understand the consequences."
Failed comparison due to the fact that young kids are without the hormone levels to facilitate sexual desire, and they lack the sexual knowledge/memory too. They have literally no knowledge, and therefore lack the understanding.

And even if they theoretically had sex ed, they still just read it, which is a whole lot different from doing things and living with the knowledge that creates knowledge of consequence.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Point step-stepping. What?

chillmeistergen
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A child cannot legally give consent in many places. Nor can one simply assume that a child really knows what is going on.

Obviously I didn't mean in terms of the current legal system, it was a matter of opinion that the current one is flawed.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
If they are able to understand the consequences. Having sex with someone that can't consent is rape. But, a randomly chosen line for when someone can consent is contrary to the truth of the nature of consent.

I do agree to a blanket law of some sort. I could see people just saying that the kid knew what was going on and they wanted the pleasure; therefore....

Maybe 14 years of age as a cut off. Any younger than that and I see too many people trying to take advantage.

Speaking of which, I was on the way to the store and this guy almost ran his car into mine because he was looking at the ass of some teenage girls. He was in this convertible, with the top down, and on the phone. I think that is pitiful and and the girls didn't seem to like it (he was ugly and 40 so go figure). The man didn't even bother to brake this damn car and just kept rolling on until I yelled out the damn window.

It's easy to spot "a predator" LOL

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's hard to judge, I admit that. But that's exactly the reason why it is ridiculous how people flip out when someone mentions child porn or molestation of children. It's in no way related to the crime. Everytime something like that happens you have a judge amount of people that would just love to torture that person (ANOTHER HUMAN BEING). Torture being factually much, much worse than being touched in the vagina.

Same with Rape. It is made much worse and seen as much worse by society. But really. Like Doug Stanhope says, if I got the shit beaten out of me at the moment and the guy would stop and give me the option of getting ****ed in the ass or getting the shit beaten out of me much more...I'd ****ing know what I choose. The victimization that happens is the real problem. The act itself is often less worse than assault...

Exactly, it's hard, nay near impossible to judge so we have laws that say "yes" and "no" at this age to this age

By your rational, a three year old could give consent, but a line has to be drawn.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, it's hard, nay near impossible to judge so we have laws that say "yes" and "no" at this age to this age

By your rational, a three year old could give consent, but a line has to be drawn.

Why does a line have to be drawn?

Sadako of Girth
Originally posted by Bardock42
What?

My point is, that without the frame of reference of extreme heat and tongue, in the heater scenario, that the kid needs to be guided or it will hurt itself.

But if your belief truely is that that kid will be born with full electrical equipment knowledge, then my debating with you is unlikely to be of any use.

And I dont care how much you want sex with 12 yr olds to be legal, I'll never advocate it, which I guess goes back to my point on the uselessness of a debate here guess..

And even as a 12 yr old if you wanted to sex, you might wanna drive too, but you ain't getting a licence.

And with that I shall leave you to it.

Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens
If you replace 'child' with 'person' (even if we included animals) it could work. Being over 18 doesn't make you less of an idiot. We all know adults who do dumb shit all of the time because they were "convinced."

I see your point but just as you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children.

Personally, I don't give a **** if the child understood. Often times, that is a moot point because they are still trying to convince a child to have sex with them ( I think there is an issue with people who can't get some sex from someone their own age; not including 65 and above here... laughing ), but it is a case by case basis.

Yet a line has to be drawn because it would be next to impossible. Someone decided that by 18, you've had enough experience to be aware of your actions, should this be a bit younger? Possible, yet a line has to be drawn.

Sure you can, children are far more inexperienced and not mentally mature as adults in the majority of cases. Should we do away with the adult and minor criminal processes? Because after all, "you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children."

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
My point is, that without the frame of reference of extreme heat and tongue, in the heater scenario, that the kid needs to be guided or it will hurt itself.

I agree.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But if your belief truely is that that kid will be born with full electrical equipment knowledge, then my debating with you is unlikely to be of any use.

Never said that.


Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And I dont care how much you want sex with 12 yr olds to be legal, I'll never advocate it, which I guess goes back to my point on the uselessness of a debate here guess..

That's fair enough. I don't want sex with 12 year olds to be legal. I want everyone (EVERYONE) that really wants sex to have the right to have it.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And even as a 12 yr old if you wanted to sex, you might wanna drive too, but you ain't getting a licence.

I should if I was able to drive.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And with that I shall leave you to it.

Okay.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Yet a line has to be drawn because it would be next to impossible. Someone decided that by 18, you've had enough experience to be aware of your actions, should this be a bit younger? Possible, yet a line has to be drawn.

Sure you can, children are far more inexperienced and not mentally mature as adults in the majority of cases. Should we do away with the adult and minor criminal processes? Because after all, "you can't make mental assumptions across the board for adults, you can't do it for children." A line doesn't actually have to be drawn. It is the governments inability to judge individually, thereby looking for a shortcut. The line is NOT necessary.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why does a line have to be drawn?

Because it would be impossible to judge every single thing on a case to case basis and how do you exactly judge if a certain 3, 6, 9, 12 or 14 is mature enough and in control of his/her actions enough to be aware of what could happen if they **** a 40 year old?

Originally posted by Bardock42
A line doesn't actually have to be drawn. It is the governments inability to judge individually, thereby looking for a shortcut. The line is NOT necessary.

Then show a way where it could reasonably be done? Don't just say "it could".

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Because it would be impossible to judge every single thing on a case to case basis and how do you exactly judge if a certain 3, 6, 9, 12 or 14 is mature enough and in control of his/her actions enough to be aware of what could happen if they **** a 40 year old?



Then show a way where it could reasonably be done? Don't just say "it could".

You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.

Sadako of Girth
Ya had to reel back me in didntcha. wink

Originally posted by Bardock42

Never said that

Well you kinda did by analogy when you said that a little kid could have knowledge of and therefore deserving of sexual consequence. My argument was that they dont.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well you kinda did by analogy when you said that a little kid could have knowledge of and therefore deserving of sexual consequence. My argument was that they dont.

Some do, some don't.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
A line doesn't actually have to be drawn. It is the governments inability to judge individually, thereby looking for a shortcut. The line is NOT necessary. If it's not drawn, it's not a line.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
If it's not drawn, it's not a line.

STFU, debbie.


Oh, sorry, xyz.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
STFU, debbie.


Oh, sorry, xyz. That's just mean.

WrathfulDwarf
The guy is still an a-hole....throw him jail.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.

Have them pay? Should we also have them pay for judging when they break laws? That's the point, if you do away with the laws, there will be many cases where a 6 year old suddenly wanted to **** an adult, because children are easily swayed by adults.

Nothing is being taken away, there's just an age limit, like smoking, drinking, driving and voting.

Edit: Where is this child going to get the money to pay for this judging?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Have them pay? Should we also have them pay for judging when they break laws? That's the point, if you do away with the laws, there will be many cases where a 6 year old suddenly wanted to **** an adult, because children are easily swayed by adults.

Nothing is being taken away, there's just an age limit, like smoking, drinking, driving and voting. We have them pay to obtain a driver's license, don't we?

And yes, that is taking away. That's just a fact. If you do not allow someone to smoke until they are 16 you do take away their freedom to smoke before that. Please, lets not argue about that, it's just true.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42
You could have them pay for the judging. There also wouldn't actually be that many cases of children who want to **** an adult. I don't see how it is unreasonable. Afterall you are taking away some pretty fundamental freedom. You should take the time to actually judge if it is reasonable.

Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.

What do you do in that case?

I guess what I mean is that there is normally a set up. It's not just, "hey kid! would you like to ****?"

I lost my virginity at 13 to a experinced 16 year old girl. I could say she lured me in so I understand the blurred line but are you saying there is not a guideline to follow at all?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
We have them pay to obtain a driver's license, don't we?

And yes, that is taking away. That's just a fact. If you do not allow someone to smoke until they are 16 you do take away their freedom to smoke before that. Please, lets not argue about that, it's just true.

In most cases the parents pay, but to the point, you can't obtain a licence to drive until you're 16 and not 3, 7 or 12.

Because society realizes that with age comes awareness and with awareness comes responsibility. IF we allowed children to do whatever they wanted, you know, because of "freedom", we'd be extinct or still living in caves.

So, where is this 3, 7 or 11 year old going to get the money to pay for a judge to delcare him/her responsible enough to **** a 19 year old? Because if they do't have the money, while others do, that would be elitest and denying freedom, no?

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.



I remenber that episode. Quite good. Too bad Family Guy kill it.

I also get your point. Pretty disturbing indeed.

Bardock42
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.

What do you do in that case?

Would probably be rape.




Originally posted by chithappens
I lost my virginity at 13 to a experinced 16 year old girl. I could say she lured me in so I understand the blurred line but are you saying there is not a guideline to follow at all?

Not a blind guideline. Yes.


I'd be quite alright with a line...13 or 14 for example. But the possibility for anyone below to obtain a free pass. Similar to a drivers licence for example. At private expense.

red g jacks
i feel statuatory rape laws need to be reformed. however age of consent is a necessary element if we are to place minors in the care of their adult gaurdians for however many years. if they can't provide for themselves, give me one good reason they should be given the authority to make their own decisions.

can't have freedom without responsibility.

that said, a 19 year old shouldn't get in trouble for ****ing a 17 year old. some things should be changed.

however the fact that prepubescent child porn is illegal is not one of those things. and don't kid yourselves that's the biggest market right there, not 13, not 14, not 15... don't believe me check out 4chan sometime. in fact i'm pretty sure sex with a young teen doesnt even count as pedophilia.. though it is still a crime.

but fine, if we're gonna throw morality to the wind and say to hell with it let the little kids get ****ed, then i say the rest of us should be given the right to murder pedos. give me one good reason why not.

chithappens
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I remenber that episode. Quite good. Too bad Family Guy kill it.

I also get your point. Pretty disturbing indeed.

Funny enough, I first found out about the episode watching Family Guy and saw the two-part episode about a week ago on BET.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
In most cases the parents pay, but to the point, you can't obtain a licence to drive until you're 16 and not 3, 7 or 12.

True. I don't agree with that either.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because society realizes that with age comes awareness and with awareness comes responsibility. IF we allowed children to do whatever they wanted, you know, because of "freedom", we'd be extinct or still living in caves.

It just doesn't come at the same time for everyone. Some are aware with 12 some with 16...some maybe never. And my argument was never to allow children to do whatever they want.

I get really annoyed that whenever I try to debate this topic the arguments against it are just a huge amount of Straw Men.

Originally posted by Robtard
So, where is this 3, 7 or 11 year old going to get the money to pay for a judge to delcare him/her responsible enough to **** a 19 year old? Because he they do't have the money, while others do, that would be elitest and denying freedom, no?

Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.

And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.

chithappens
Originally posted by Bardock42


Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.

And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.

Ironically, it's not much different than today's system rolling on floor laughing

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
True. I don't agree with that either.

It just doesn't come at the same time for everyone. Some are aware with 12 some with 16...some maybe never. And my argument was never to allow children to do whatever they want.

I get really annoyed that whenever I try to debate this topic the arguments against it are just a huge amount of Straw Men.

Sucks for them then. I assume the person they intent to **** or their parents would either give that money..or tough luck.

And yes, it will be denying freedom on the grounds of money, BUT, less freedom than the system before. Therefore being better.

Of course you don't.

Well yes, some mature earlier correct, but there isn't a reasonble scenario where every single person could be judged on a single case by case basis. So you know, we have laws.

Why not then, let children do whatever they want? Why stop the "freedom" train at sex?

So we'd have pederast paying for the right to **** little kids.

That's rather elitest, considering it's a freedom they'd have when a bit older.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Of course you don't.

Yeah.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, some mature earlier correct, but there isn't a reasonble scenario where every single person could be judged on a single case by case basis. So you know, we have laws.

You wouldn't have to judge every single one. Probably just very few actually.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why not then, let children do whatever they want? Why stop the "freedom" train at sex?

Because it doesn't even include sex. That's your interpretation of my opinion. Not in any way related to what I actually said.

Originally posted by Robtard
So we'd have pederast paying for the right to **** little kids.

Not exactly.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's rather elitest, considering it's a freedom they'd have when a bit older.

I am just saying that's one possible way. I actually think the public should pay for it if they already feel the need to take away freedom of people.

chithappens
Originally posted by chithappens
Has you seen the episode of 'Different Strokes' where the bike store manager lures the two boys in the back to molest them? He offers them bikes, gives them cookies, puts girlie magazines up front, gives them alcohol and makes them take pictures before trying to touch them.

What do you do in that case?


I feel like I should expand what I mean here.

Bardock is stating that some young children understand what sex is, it's pleasures, etc. Now, what about how they came about the information? Learning about it at school or learning about it from an uncle who wants your body seem synonymous as presented so far.

So let's say a young girl finds out about sex from her predatory uncle but has consensual sex with some other adult man. How is that understood?

Also, on a very general level, I don't know many people who don't have some sort of emotion after they have sex. The first person you have sex with is a person you tend to remember and it might have adverse affects on how you handle situations later. Now others see sex as just something to do and don't think much of it, but it is rare one is numb to sex as they first experience sex. If anything, you become drawn to the act of sex, the person or sometimes both.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah.

You wouldn't have to judge every single one. Probably just very few actually.

Because it doesn't even include sex. That's your interpretation of my opinion. Not in any way related to what I actually said.

Not exactly.

I am just saying that's one possible way. I actually think the public should pay for it if they already feel the need to take away freedom of people.

How do you know how many? Considering if pedophilia where to be made legal on a case-to-case basis, you'd probably have a lot more. See NAMBLA as an example.

We're talking about sex here, as per the topic. So, what did you actually say then, if I'm misinterpreting you?

No, it would be conceivable in your "pay for the rights" scenario.

No thanks, I'd rather not have that extra tax.

Robtard
Originally posted by chithappens

Bardock is stating that some young children understand what sex is, it's pleasures, etc. Now, what about how they came about the information? Learning about it at school or learning about it from an uncle who wants your body seem synonymous as presented so far.


Yes, sex is pleasurable, as is taking some drugs. Do you think a little kid is mature enough to understand the ramifications of those actions though?

Edit: Aware of diseases, possible pregancies etc.?

chithappens
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, sex is pleasurable, as is taking some drugs. Do you think a little kid is mature enough to understand the ramifications of those actions though?

Edit: Aware of diseases, possible pregancies etc.?

Obviously some are, but I'm not going to make the exception to the rule the basis for my moral ground

chithappens
Originally posted by red g jacks
i feel statuatory rape laws need to be reformed. however age of consent is a necessary element if we are to place minors in the care of their adult gaurdians for however many years. if they can't provide for themselves, give me one good reason they should be given the authority to make their own decisions.

can't have freedom without responsibility.

that said, a 19 year old shouldn't get in trouble for ****ing a 17 year old. some things should be changed.

however the fact that prepubescent child porn is illegal is not one of those things. and don't kid yourselves that's the biggest market right there, not 13, not 14, not 15... don't believe me check out 4chan sometime. in fact i'm pretty sure sex with a young teen doesnt even count as pedophilia.. though it is still a crime.


Agree with this, I thought KMC was weird until I went to 4chan one day...

Oh and there was a 17 year old boy who went to jail for getting head from a 15 year old girl

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
How do you know how many? Considering if pedophilia where to be made legal on a case-to-case basis, you'd probably have a lot more. See NAMBLA as an example.

I don't know how many. And it shouldn't matter. The fact is if it is many then the law gets more unjust. If it is few than my solution is feasable. Either way, my side wins.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about sex here, as per the topic. So, what did you actually say then, if I'm misinterpreting you?

I said that a child that understands the consequences and is able to make an informed decision should have the chance to do so. Same for really everything. Now, I am not saying that there are actually any 6 year olds that could. I actually quite doubt that, I am just speaking that hypothetically there could be even young children that are able to give informed consent and as a second point I am saying that 16 is ****ing idiotic as line.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it would be conceivable in your "pay for the rights" scenario.

Actually no. Since I never said whoever pays enough can be declared eligible. I said that there should be a process that can decide whether someone is ready and that might or might not be privately financed. So, very different from "pedo buys himself a boy, dur, dur".


Originally posted by Robtard
No thanks, I'd rather not have that extra tax.

Me neither. But I also don't want my government to oppress other people for me. I sure we could cut some taxes if we let negros work on our fields again. Just...don't want that.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know how many. And it shouldn't matter. The fact is if it is many then the law gets more unjust. If it is few than my solution is feasible. Either way, my side wins.

I said that a child that understands the consequences and is able to make an informed decision should have the chance to do so. Same for really everything. Now, I am not saying that there are actually any 6 year olds that could. I actually quite doubt that, I am just speaking that hypothetically there could be even young children that are able to give informed consent and as a second point I am saying that 16 is ****ing idiotic as line.

Actually no. Since I never said whoever pays enough can be declared eligible. I said that there should be a process that can decide whether someone is ready and that might or might not be privately financed. So, very different from "pedo buys himself a boy, dur, dur".

Me neither. But I also don't want my government to oppress other people for me. I sure we could cut some taxes if we let negros work on our fields again. Just...don't want that.

Arbitrarily call a win, I like that.

Then it has to be on a case to case basis for everyone, which isn't a feasible task. 16 is a decent line, as the average person at 16 has had the life experiences to judge things by themselves. Then again, why just stop at sex?

And I'm telling you, a pederast could get (convince) a child to love them and want to **** them. All they'd need is to have the child tested (or whatever you're thinking) and then they'd have themselves a 11 (or younger/older) year old partner, legally. Why is that a stretch?

If people had the freedom to do whatever they wanted, which it seems is what you're all about, we'd be extinct.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Arbitrarily call a win, I like that.

You know I wasn't actually serious. I am just saying either way would give a good reason for my argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then it has to be on a case to case basis for everyone, which isn't a feasible task. 16 is a decent line, as the average person at 16 has had the life experiences to judge things by themselves. Then again, why just stop at sex?

We aren't stopping at sex. We include alcohol, cigarettes, driving, ability to make contracts, getting elected, etc.

And 16 is pretty late. You can be sure that by 16 you stopped a significant amount of ready people from having sex.

Originally posted by Robtard
And I'm telling you, a pederast could get (convince) a child to love them and want to **** them. All they'd need is to have the child tested (or whatever you're thinking) and then they'd have themselves a 11 (or younger/older) year old partner, legally. Why is that a stretch?

Because then the test would have failed. If it is a brainwashed child, it shouldn't be able to pass such a test and therefore not get ****ed by the pederast.

Originally posted by Robtard
If people had the freedom to do whatever they wanted, which it seems is what you're all about, we'd be extinct.

Blanket statements. I like it.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
You know I wasn't actually serious. I am just saying either way would give a good reason for my argument.

We aren't stopping at sex. We include alcohol, cigarettes, driving, ability to make contracts, getting elected, etc.

And 16 is pretty late. You can be sure that by 16 you stopped a significant amount of ready people from having sex.

Because then the test would have failed. If it is a brainwashed child, it shouldn't be able to pass such a test and therefore not get ****ed by the pederast.

Blanket statements. I like it.

I know.

Which would make that task of yours even the more impossible. So your scenario looks good (to some) on paper only, but isn't feasble, similar to Communism, you pinko.

They can have sex at 16, just not with an adult (in some areas).

And how do you prove that? You need to understand that (majority of)children look up to adults and are easily impressionable as fact.

Well, it is odd, you're the "freedom for all" guy, but you limit the freedoms.

Bardock42
Funny thing you'd mention communism.


How do I limit the freedoms beyond facts of life?

As for the rest...do you need a reply or can we just call it quits?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because then the test would have failed. If it is a brainwashed child, it shouldn't be able to pass such a test and therefore not get ****ed by the pederast. I think this is what David Cameron wants...probably just appealing to young voters, stupid tory lying bastard. But hey, we can always vote against him.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Funny thing you'd mention communism.

How do I limit the freedoms beyond facts of life?

As for the rest...do you need a reply or can we just call it quits?

It was a joke, but the analogy was correct, as your idea isn't feasible in the real world.

Well, I guess you don't since you did stand on the cigarettes, voting, driving etc. Then again, you're against killing, should we have the freedom to kill anyone for any reason, as long as we're all subject to that freedom?

I actually grow tired of having to argue against pedophilia on this board every time some asshat pops-off with something along the lines of "a 6 year old is old enough to be responsible about sex."

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
It was a joke, but the analogy was correct, as your idea isn't feasible in the real world.

Well, I guess you don't since you did stand on the cigarettes, voting, driving etc. Then again, you're against killing, should we have the freedom to kill anyone for any reason, as long as we're all subject to that freedom?

I actually grow tired of having to argue against pedophilia on this board every time some asshat pops-off with something along the lines of "a 6 year old is old enough to be responsible about sex." I subscribe to the Non-Aggression Principle as basis for moral and legal judgement.

Hahaha, cause that happens on a regular basis.

BackFire
To those saying that they want to kill the guy, that's retarded.

Keep in mind, the guy didn't actually DO anything. He looked at some pictures - images that someone else took. You want to commit murder for looking at images now. You are a far worse person than he is.

lord xyz
Originally posted by BackFire
To those saying that they want to kill the guy, that's retarded.

Keep in mind, the guy didn't actually DO anything. He looked at some pictures - images that someone else took. You want to commit murder for looking at images now. You are a far worse person than he is. thumb up

Schecter
Originally posted by BackFire
To those saying that they want to kill the guy, that's retarded.

Keep in mind, the guy didn't actually DO anything. He looked at some pictures - images that someone else took. You want to commit murder for looking at images now. You are a far worse person than he is.

thaaaaaaaank you

chithappens
Who said that?

Sadako of Girth
I believe it was P23.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
Well, I guess you don't since you did stand on the cigarettes, voting, driving etc. Then again, you're against killing, should we have the freedom to kill anyone for any reason, as long as we're all subject to that freedom?

Only if they pay. Limited term license to kill for a few hundred bucks.

The best part is that the wealthy are not favored in any way . . . oh shit!

Originally posted by Robtard
I actually grow tired of having to argue against pedophilia on this board every time some asshat pops-off with something along the lines of "a 6 year old is old enough to be responsible about sex."

What's so intrinsically wrong with pedophilia? If it leads to hurting children sure but on its own there's no reason to care.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.