Popular Liberal radio host admits to distributing child porn.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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."

Hahaha, cause that happens on a regular basis.

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.

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.

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

Who said that?

I believe it was P23.

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.