Will you take this canine to be your lawful wedded... 168 replies

Please wait...

Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#151 12 years ago

Machiavelli's ApprenticeWho told you this? God?

This is what I'm saying exactly - moral rules no longer exist. There is no basis for your statement - or mine - or anybody else's. They aren't "rules" anymore - just opinions.

Look at the 10 commandment - at first glance, the first 4 rules seem unnecessary. But without them, the last six rules, the ones that DO have practical purpose, would have no moral grounding.

Scientific facts. Five year old aren't physically or mentally ready to reproduce and engage in other sexual activities. They might be into exploring their body but that's an other phase.




Draco_2k

A spark of freedom

50 XP

17th August 2005

0 Uploads

1,029 Posts

0 Threads

#152 12 years ago

Locomotor What on Earth are you talking about? Did I miss something? I made an insulting, one word post, directed at you?[/QUOTE] Uh... Yeah.

Locomotor Maybe we should get back to the slippery slope, then. Sure, this doesn't cause anyone harm (I disagree, however). But what's next? It's not as simple as legalizing homosexual marriage, or legalizing beastiality.[/QUOTE] What do you mean: what's next? Considering human sexuality, legalising all that stuff would pretty much close the line of all possible relationships.

[QUOTE=Machiavelli's Apprentice]True, a relativist won't set up an Iranian-style dictatorship. But he will stand by and do nothing if one is created in front of his nose.

Not necessary. You think relativists are half-wit fanatics?

[QUOTE=Machiavelli's Apprentice]Inaction is just as bad as willful participation.

Kind of. Let's just say it's not always true. IMO.

Scientific facts. Five year old aren't physically or mentally ready to reproduce and engage in other sexual activities. They might be into exploring their body but that's an other phase.

1)It doesn't really matter; 2)"Scientists" can be wrong, and, in that case, they are. Let's say, not all scientists think like it - it's just a matter of public aknowledgement.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#153 12 years ago
Draco_2kWhat do you mean: what's next? Considering human sexuality, legalising all that stuff would pretty much close the line of all possible relationships.

Legalizing pedophilia would blow to hell the whole "consent" doctrine. What would come next? I don't know - but it would be something outragous - I'll tell you that.

Not necessary. You think relativists are half-wit fanatics?

Perhaps. I could see someone who accepts pedophilia accepting a dictatorship.

Kind of. Let's just say it's not always true. IMO.

Silence is a sign of consent. What you think of the event is irrelevant unless you are willing to take action about it.

BTW - You're fun to debate with - you get some good rep. ;)

Scientific facts. Five year old aren't physically or mentally ready to reproduce and engage in other sexual activities. They might be into exploring their body but that's an other phase.

But they are still capable of being objects of sexual amusement to a pedophile - so why not let them have sex?




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#154 12 years ago
Originally posted by Draco_2K Uh... Yeah.

Would you mind repeating what I said, if you wouldn't mind doing so? You can PM me if you want. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Machiavelli's Apprentice Legalizing pedophilia would blow to hell the whole "consent" doctrine. What would come next? I don't know - but it would be something outragous - I'll tell you that.

A corpse would probably be next. The progression makes sense. A corpse can give no more consent than can an animal. It can remain passive, therefore signifying that it doesn't mind, I suppose.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#155 12 years ago
A corpse would probably be next. The progression makes sense. A corpse can give no more consent than can an animal. It can remain passive, therefore signifying that it doesn't mind, I suppose.

Necrophilia - of course, I should have thought of that. Having sex with a corpse doesn't "hurt" it - why should it be illegal? ;)




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#156 12 years ago

Exactly MA. Read back a couple of pages for the corpse discussion if you missed it.




Locomotor

in spite of erosion

50 XP

13th May 2004

0 Uploads

3,490 Posts

0 Threads

#157 12 years ago
Originally posted by masked_marsoe Exactly MA.

Sometimes sarcasm can be a little too subtle. ;)




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#158 12 years ago
Sometimes sarcasm can be a little too subtle. ;)

He sure fooled me. ;)




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#159 12 years ago

Obvious subtly aside :p, why shouldn't it be legal?




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#160 12 years ago
Obvious subtly aside :p, why shouldn't it be legal?

My point exactly. Once morality has been swept under the rug - any form of sexual behavior is "acceptable". Heck, under the new system, it is perfectly acceptable for a rich man to bring his HAREM into the first world. Sex slavery is a big industry in Europe right now.