Topic: FBI attempts to rename statutory rape as rape to further distort the ethical discussion
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #15,104
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fbi-change-definition-rape-time-1929-article-1.988510
Basically, this will change molestation, indecent contact, unlawful sexual knowledge, corruption of a minor, statutory rape etc., into actual, unqualified, rape. Another attempt to demonize pedophiles. The media will now report all cases of adult-child sexual contact as rape, regardless of force.
Your thoughts?
An agency panel voted on Tuesday to change the narrow definition that’s currently in use: “Carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.â€
The new definition, which will more closely match the ones that police departments around the country already use, will remove the word “forcible,†along with several other amendments.
Rape will now include sex attacks by relatives, and include non-traditional penetration.
According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.â€
The new definition, which will more closely match the ones that police departments around the country already use, will remove the word “forcible,†along with several other amendments.
Rape will now include sex attacks by relatives, and include non-traditional penetration.
According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.â€
Basically, this will change molestation, indecent contact, unlawful sexual knowledge, corruption of a minor, statutory rape etc., into actual, unqualified, rape. Another attempt to demonize pedophiles. The media will now report all cases of adult-child sexual contact as rape, regardless of force.
Your thoughts?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #264,936
So handjobs are still fine.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,938
No still means yes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,939
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,940
I guess this is a pedophile ring then?
http://www.naspag.org/
Considering that they "penetrate the vagina with an object" and that children can't consent!
http://www.naspag.org/
Considering that they "penetrate the vagina with an object" and that children can't consent!
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,942
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,948
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
> tragedy
POV violation. lol
I don't know much about it. If it was rape then it was truly a tragedy. If it was the New Rapeâ„¢, then it's only a tragedy to homophobes and Christians.
> tragedy
POV violation. lol
I don't know much about it. If it was rape then it was truly a tragedy. If it was the New Rapeâ„¢, then it's only a tragedy to homophobes and Christians.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,950
@264,940 (A)
Obviously not. You show yourself to have a weak brain if this is the extent of your inductive reasoning. Exaggerating things in this absurd way is intellectually lazy.
Listen, pedo, let me boil it down for. I'll keep it real simple for you, ok? It goes like this: do not fuck children, do not ask children to touch you sexually, do not collect images of other people doing these things to children, and do not make the mistake of thinking that children find you attractive or sexy. Stick to those rules, you'll be fine and needn't worry about ending up in jail. If this is too complex for you, I'll simplify it even further: do not be a sad, pathetic, basement-bound loser who nobody wants to touch of their own volition with a barge-pole, and you'll be fine.
Obviously not. You show yourself to have a weak brain if this is the extent of your inductive reasoning. Exaggerating things in this absurd way is intellectually lazy.
Listen, pedo, let me boil it down for. I'll keep it real simple for you, ok? It goes like this: do not fuck children, do not ask children to touch you sexually, do not collect images of other people doing these things to children, and do not make the mistake of thinking that children find you attractive or sexy. Stick to those rules, you'll be fine and needn't worry about ending up in jail. If this is too complex for you, I'll simplify it even further: do not be a sad, pathetic, basement-bound loser who nobody wants to touch of their own volition with a barge-pole, and you'll be fine.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,951
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,953
@previous (A)
And I like the part where you cry into your pajama jacket and shake with pre-emptive terror over a story about pedophiles being locked up.
And I like the part where you cry into your pajama jacket and shake with pre-emptive terror over a story about pedophiles being locked up.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,955
@previous (E)I'm glad that in this post you took the opportunity that you missed last post to refute my argument. oh wait you didn't lol
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,958
@previous (A)
> I'm glad that in this post you took the opportunity that you missed last post to refute my argument. oh wait you didn't lol
And I'm glad that you're glad, sweetie. Ciao for now, lil pedo.
> I'm glad that in this post you took the opportunity that you missed last post to refute my argument. oh wait you didn't lol
And I'm glad that you're glad, sweetie. Ciao for now, lil pedo.
jump joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,959
@264,950 (E)
Wrong. A pedophile could still end up jailed indefinitely without charges by doing none of those things.
Silly goose! It's just testing the waters. If people really cared about pedophiles, then a sports team wouldn't take precedence over the well-being of children.
Wrong. A pedophile could still end up jailed indefinitely without charges by doing none of those things.
Silly goose! It's just testing the waters. If people really cared about pedophiles, then a sports team wouldn't take precedence over the well-being of children.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,960
@264,958 (E)> shitposts
> leaves
In 2 weeks he will be telling how he defeats me in every thread lol
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,961
@previous (A)
HAHAHAHA!! Awww, kid...I've really ruined your evening with this, haven't I? You're gonna obsess over this now, and how I've made a complete mess of you. I almost feel bad for doing it. Anyway, it couldn't be helped, you were just out of your depth. So long little pedo, try not to be so butthurt on an internet forum :))
HAHAHAHA!! Awww, kid...I've really ruined your evening with this, haven't I? You're gonna obsess over this now, and how I've made a complete mess of you. I almost feel bad for doing it. Anyway, it couldn't be helped, you were just out of your depth. So long little pedo, try not to be so butthurt on an internet forum :))
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #264,962
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #264,963
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #264,965
posting quality content in a thread that is obviously of high qualityWadeWilson !L2w8rReEL6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #264,984
@264,950 (E)
@264,951 (A)
@264,955 (A)
@264,958 (E)
@264,960 (A)
@264,961 (E)
@264,962 (A)
I Lol'd at this exchange.
@264,951 (A)
@264,955 (A)
@264,958 (E)
@264,960 (A)
@264,961 (E)
@264,962 (A)
I Lol'd at this exchange.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,076
You are fucking retarded. This has nothing to do with statutory rape at all.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,077
There was a spelling error in their image, so I corrected it.floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,131
I'm okay with these changes. Happy for them, actually. See, none of it has to do with me, i'm not a disgusting and evil pedophile. Even though the OP really had nothing to do with pedophiles per se, (seems like OP is projecting a bit) but if it does help a few extra pedos go to prison for much longer stays, then huzzah! Sounds like a great idea to me. Now if only we could get them to add either execution or to allow for lynchings then we'd be all set.
I've already got my lynching hat on.
I've already got my lynching hat on.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,154
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
It won't change enforcement or the law, it's just the definition used for collecting statistics.
Most states already use a similar definition to this in their statutes.
It won't change enforcement or the law, it's just the definition used for collecting statistics.
Most states already use a similar definition to this in their statutes.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,155
@previous (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
Oh, well that's unfortunate. More pedos (and borderline pedos) should go to jail or be hanged.
Oh, well that's unfortunate. More pedos (and borderline pedos) should go to jail or be hanged.
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,156
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,158
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,159
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,160
I don't think anybody should be hanged.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,162
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,214
@265,076 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
I've pretty convincingly proved that it does. For you to make such a statement you must not only refute my arguments, but provide at least one of your own.
I've pretty convincingly proved that it does. For you to make such a statement you must not only refute my arguments, but provide at least one of your own.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,217
@previous (M)
Why bother? You'd never accept the validity of any argument that doesn't originate from you. I agree with becky, actually. You're pretty wrong.
Why bother? You'd never accept the validity of any argument that doesn't originate from you. I agree with becky, actually. You're pretty wrong.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,221
@265,131 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> i'm not a disgusting and evil pedophile.
Same! I don't know many pedophiles who are disgusting and evil, either.
> OP really had nothing to do with pedophiles per se
Except that it does, and I proved it by reasoned argument.
> projecting
I don't think you know what this term means, because it is certainly not relevant here. Are you trying to claim that I have an irrational detestation of pedophiles and that I am projecting this hatred to the FBI?
> lynching
You are disgusting and evil.
> i'm not a disgusting and evil pedophile.
Same! I don't know many pedophiles who are disgusting and evil, either.
> OP really had nothing to do with pedophiles per se
Except that it does, and I proved it by reasoned argument.
> projecting
I don't think you know what this term means, because it is certainly not relevant here. Are you trying to claim that I have an irrational detestation of pedophiles and that I am projecting this hatred to the FBI?
> lynching
You are disgusting and evil.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,223
Anonymous M triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,225
@265,217 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> You'd never accept the validity of any argument that doesn't originate from you.
Now this is projecting.
> I agree with becky, actually. You're pretty wrong.
She didn't post any rational argument either, just uninformed opinion.
> You'd never accept the validity of any argument that doesn't originate from you.
Now this is projecting.
> I agree with becky, actually. You're pretty wrong.
She didn't post any rational argument either, just uninformed opinion.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,226
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,232
@265,221 (M)
Uh, is this just a weird troll or what? Statutory rape is a completely separate criminal offense, classified differently by the FBI, handled differently criminally. Age was not mentioned at all, and this has nothing to do with any of the other offenses you threw out there.
You should have complained when legislators started redefining rape decades ago, not when that fact is just now being acknowledged in the crime statistics. Again, this doesn't impact enforcement at all, it's just classification.
Uh, is this just a weird troll or what? Statutory rape is a completely separate criminal offense, classified differently by the FBI, handled differently criminally. Age was not mentioned at all, and this has nothing to do with any of the other offenses you threw out there.
You should have complained when legislators started redefining rape decades ago, not when that fact is just now being acknowledged in the crime statistics. Again, this doesn't impact enforcement at all, it's just classification.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,233
@265,221 (M)
No, that you're a pedophile projecting your gross pedo feelings onto anything that you feel is against pedos.
Pedos do this a lot, it's like seeing a kid and wanting to bang it. It's a sickness, you want everything to be about sex with a child -even when it's about reaching consensus on the definition of rape. Sure, maybe child rape is implied, but this certainly isn't the anti-pedo attack you claim it is.
Which is too bad, we need more justifications to remove rights from pedos. Don't you agree?
No, that you're a pedophile projecting your gross pedo feelings onto anything that you feel is against pedos.
Pedos do this a lot, it's like seeing a kid and wanting to bang it. It's a sickness, you want everything to be about sex with a child -even when it's about reaching consensus on the definition of rape. Sure, maybe child rape is implied, but this certainly isn't the anti-pedo attack you claim it is.
Which is too bad, we need more justifications to remove rights from pedos. Don't you agree?
cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,234
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
It's why self-identified pedos are banned on wikipedia. I don't think all pedos are like that, but the, uh, "special" ones who fancy themselves activists and call themselves pedosexuals and all that--they see pedo shit in everything.
It's why self-identified pedos are banned on wikipedia. I don't think all pedos are like that, but the, uh, "special" ones who fancy themselves activists and call themselves pedosexuals and all that--they see pedo shit in everything.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,239
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,245
@265,234 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
This is true, i'll give you that. Not all pedos are the same. Some can be quite smart.
This is true, i'll give you that. Not all pedos are the same. Some can be quite smart.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,247
@265,232 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
> eisegesis
I never said it impacted enforcement. I am just complaining that people who did not rape anyone will be described as rapists.
> eisegesis
I never said it impacted enforcement. I am just complaining that people who did not rape anyone will be described as rapists.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,248
@265,233 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> No, that you're a pedophile projecting your gross pedo feelings onto anything that you feel is against pedos.
That's not what projection means, lol. Paranoia would be a better term for what you're describing.
> Pedos do this a lot, it's like seeing a man and wanting to bang it. It's a sickness, you want everything to be about sex with a man -even when it's about reaching consensus on the definition of rape. Sure, maybe man rape is implied, but this certainly isn't the anti-homo attack you claim it is.
> Which is too bad, we need more justifications to remove rights from homos. Don't you agree?
Sure is 20th century in here
> No, that you're a pedophile projecting your gross pedo feelings onto anything that you feel is against pedos.
That's not what projection means, lol. Paranoia would be a better term for what you're describing.
> Pedos do this a lot, it's like seeing a man and wanting to bang it. It's a sickness, you want everything to be about sex with a man -even when it's about reaching consensus on the definition of rape. Sure, maybe man rape is implied, but this certainly isn't the anti-homo attack you claim it is.
> Which is too bad, we need more justifications to remove rights from homos. Don't you agree?
Sure is 20th century in here
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,251
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,252
@265,234 (cccuuunnttt !CaTLdYmooc)
They're banned because it's one of the few areas left for people to discriminate in, so people do so with fervor.
They're banned because it's one of the few areas left for people to discriminate in, so people do so with fervor.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,253
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,254
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,255
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,256
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,257
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 14 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,258
@265,255 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
People have "legitimate" reasons for hating blacks, jews and gays. Do you defend them too?
People have "legitimate" reasons for hating blacks, jews and gays. Do you defend them too?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,259
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,260
@265,254 (M)
Semantics, semantics, semantics, but at the end of the day pedos are still sick fucks. :')
Semantics, semantics, semantics, but at the end of the day pedos are still sick fucks. :')
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,261
@265,257 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
You have proved me wrong with your rational argument. oh wait you're just posting ad hominems and uninformed opinion LOL
You have proved me wrong with your rational argument. oh wait you're just posting ad hominems and uninformed opinion LOL
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,262
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,265
@265,261 (M)
I don't have to prove anything, the atate has lawyers for that. You can hopefully argue your point to a jury one day and maybe change some minds.
I don't have to prove anything, the atate has lawyers for that. You can hopefully argue your point to a jury one day and maybe change some minds.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,267
@265,259 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
Has the FBI defined "butchery"? Then no, by my logic, they are not.
Has the FBI defined "butchery"? Then no, by my logic, they are not.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,269
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,270
@265,260 (N)
A definition is all about semantics. This is a bad definition.
> but at the end of the day pedos are still sick fucks.
Good argument! Ban homosexuality! THey are sick fucks who eat da poo poo!
A definition is all about semantics. This is a bad definition.
> but at the end of the day pedos are still sick fucks.
Good argument! Ban homosexuality! THey are sick fucks who eat da poo poo!
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,271
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,272
@265,265 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> I can't have to prove anything, I can just use the state's monopoly of force to kidnap or kill you if you disagree with me.
fix'd
You are disgusting and evil.
> I can't have to prove anything, I can just use the state's monopoly of force to kidnap or kill you if you disagree with me.
fix'd
You are disgusting and evil.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,274
Anonymous M triple-posted this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,276
@265,271 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
Thank you for proving this with rational argument. loljk just say the same thing over and over without proof, people will start to believe it
Thank you for proving this with rational argument. loljk just say the same thing over and over without proof, people will start to believe it
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,278
@265,272 (M)
Taking Pedosoff the street anyway possible? Yeah, i'm cool with that.
@265,274 (M)
More like a reinforcement of yours
Taking Pedosoff the street anyway possible? Yeah, i'm cool with that.
@265,274 (M)
More like a reinforcement of yours
(Edited 1 minute later.)
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,280
@265,276 (M)
That's just it, people agree with me and i don't have to say anything at all. Y'all are the ones trying to "prove" something. Good luck with that.
That's just it, people agree with me and i don't have to say anything at all. Y'all are the ones trying to "prove" something. Good luck with that.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,281
@265,278 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Taking Pedosoff the street anyway possible? Yeah, i'm cool with that.
Then you are disgusting and evil!
> More like a reinforcement of yours
No, I was right, my assessment withstood your poor and not well thought out refutation.
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
lol are you a Baptist? You are using the shittiest creationist arguments here.
> Taking Pedosoff the street anyway possible? Yeah, i'm cool with that.
Then you are disgusting and evil!
> More like a reinforcement of yours
No, I was right, my assessment withstood your poor and not well thought out refutation.
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
lol are you a Baptist? You are using the shittiest creationist arguments here.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,282
@previous (M)
Creationist argument? What are you even reading? My point is that 99% of people agree with the idea that sex with children is inherently bad. So i don't have to convince them of shit, thay already agree.
You on the other hand have a lot of convincing to do if you want the majority of people on your side. Wanna test my theory? Go to a mall and ask 100 people, i bet 99 of them punch you in the mouth.
It's just... People really don't want their kids being rapes by pedos is all. Is that so hard to understand?
Creationist argument? What are you even reading? My point is that 99% of people agree with the idea that sex with children is inherently bad. So i don't have to convince them of shit, thay already agree.
You on the other hand have a lot of convincing to do if you want the majority of people on your side. Wanna test my theory? Go to a mall and ask 100 people, i bet 99 of them punch you in the mouth.
It's just... People really don't want their kids being rapes by pedos is all. Is that so hard to understand?
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,283
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
I've never understood how pedos can ignore the parents in this whole argument. Who the fuck would want their kid getting it on with some creepy middle-aged man?
I've never understood how pedos can ignore the parents in this whole argument. Who the fuck would want their kid getting it on with some creepy middle-aged man?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,284
@previous (N)
No shit. My kids are my property, and if you fuck with my property -or claim to have a right to fuck with my proprty, then we have a big problem.
In texas we can shoot people for that. And do. We actually execute tons of people.
No shit. My kids are my property, and if you fuck with my property -or claim to have a right to fuck with my proprty, then we have a big problem.
In texas we can shoot people for that. And do. We actually execute tons of people.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,290
@265,282 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Creationist argument? What are you even reading? My point is that 99% of people agree with the idea that sex with children is inherently bad. So i don't have to convince them of shit, thay already agree.
Who needs facts - just have faith! 4 billion creationists couldn't be wrong!
> You on the other hand have a lot of convincing to do if you want the majority of people on your side. Wanna test my theory? Go to a mall and ask 100 people, i bet 99 of them punch you in the mouth.
Truth is determined by violence. - floorboard
> It's just... People really don't want their kids being rapes by pedos is all. Is that so hard to understand?
Kids are not property.
> Creationist argument? What are you even reading? My point is that 99% of people agree with the idea that sex with children is inherently bad. So i don't have to convince them of shit, thay already agree.
Who needs facts - just have faith! 4 billion creationists couldn't be wrong!
> You on the other hand have a lot of convincing to do if you want the majority of people on your side. Wanna test my theory? Go to a mall and ask 100 people, i bet 99 of them punch you in the mouth.
Truth is determined by violence. - floorboard
> It's just... People really don't want their kids being rapes by pedos is all. Is that so hard to understand?
Kids are not property.
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,291
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,293
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,294
@265,290 (M)
Didn't say they were right, i said they disagree with you and you need to convonce them.
Truth is determined by violence - floorboard. (i like this quote, it's so historically accurate.)
Indeed my children are my property. Until they are 18 they belong to me. I am responsible for them, care for them, house them, and own them. Problem?
Didn't say they were right, i said they disagree with you and you need to convonce them.
Truth is determined by violence - floorboard. (i like this quote, it's so historically accurate.)
Indeed my children are my property. Until they are 18 they belong to me. I am responsible for them, care for them, house them, and own them. Problem?
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,296
@265,291 (M)
Parents are guardians of their children. Of course they're going to be protective of them.
Parents are guardians of their children. Of course they're going to be protective of them.
Anonymous M replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,356
Anonymous M double-posted this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,357
@265,294 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
I would not like to be your child.
Children are not slaves - you do not own them - they are not porperty.
I would not like to be your child.
Children are not slaves - you do not own them - they are not porperty.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,358
@265,294 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
Parents that need to use violence to teach their children are merely too stupid and impatient to do so in a civilized manner.
Parents that need to use violence to teach their children are merely too stupid and impatient to do so in a civilized manner.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,359
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,362
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,363
@265,294 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Indeed my children are my property. Until they are 18 they belong to me. I am responsible for them, care for them, house them, and own them.
Untrue. You have a responsibility of care but this does not imply ownership. Indeed, such an implication would logically resolve into some sort of legally accepted and condoned slavery. I'm sorry that you're laboring under this misapprehension, but that's exactly what it is. Hopefully you'll take this as a learning experience. Likely you'll troll. Such is life on 2011's Minichan.
> Indeed my children are my property. Until they are 18 they belong to me. I am responsible for them, care for them, house them, and own them.
Untrue. You have a responsibility of care but this does not imply ownership. Indeed, such an implication would logically resolve into some sort of legally accepted and condoned slavery. I'm sorry that you're laboring under this misapprehension, but that's exactly what it is. Hopefully you'll take this as a learning experience. Likely you'll troll. Such is life on 2011's Minichan.
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,364
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,365
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,366
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,388
@265,357 (M)
@265,363 (L)
I didn't say they are slaves, i'm only implying ownership. here's something, I created them, me and some broad I hooked up with, right? From our bodies sprang this being, and that being belongs to us. I recognize that there are "laws" and "rules" which I must consent to, because jail, but fuck you and your laws and opinion. They belong to us, and we will decode what's best for them. Not you, and not anyone else.
If I want to spank my child for misbehaving: fuck you. Mind your business.
If I want to protect them from deviant sexual predators: fuck you. Mind your business.
If I want to indoctrinate them into some religious or political or socio-economical construct: fuck you, Do with your own kids what you want.
But watch out. There are laws and there are rule, so, you have to be careful and try to do the best job that you can to protect the thing that you love in life the most.
Oh yeah, and fuck you.
@265,363 (L)
I didn't say they are slaves, i'm only implying ownership. here's something, I created them, me and some broad I hooked up with, right? From our bodies sprang this being, and that being belongs to us. I recognize that there are "laws" and "rules" which I must consent to, because jail, but fuck you and your laws and opinion. They belong to us, and we will decode what's best for them. Not you, and not anyone else.
If I want to spank my child for misbehaving: fuck you. Mind your business.
If I want to protect them from deviant sexual predators: fuck you. Mind your business.
If I want to indoctrinate them into some religious or political or socio-economical construct: fuck you, Do with your own kids what you want.
But watch out. There are laws and there are rule, so, you have to be careful and try to do the best job that you can to protect the thing that you love in life the most.
Oh yeah, and fuck you.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,395
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
You sound angry. I would assume daddy issues, but I'm not a psychologist.
You sound angry. I would assume daddy issues, but I'm not a psychologist.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,396
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,402
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #265,405
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
well, really you shouldn't do either. I'm not claiming to advocate spanking children, but if I did, then I would.
Don't get me wrong, but also don't say that children don't belong to their parents. (I don't know if you are kook. I don't know if you are)
well, really you shouldn't do either. I'm not claiming to advocate spanking children, but if I did, then I would.
Don't get me wrong, but also don't say that children don't belong to their parents. (I don't know if you are kook. I don't know if you are)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,578
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> also don't say that children don't belong to their parents
I said that their parents don't own them. This purposeful misconception of my argument is typical of you.
> also don't say that children don't belong to their parents
I said that their parents don't own them. This purposeful misconception of my argument is typical of you.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,630
@previous (L)
Not a misconception, the reality is that parents do own their kids, but also abide by laws preventing mistreatment of their children. Of course parents can, and do ignore those laws sometimes and do as they please. Sure the state can step in and the parents can be stopped, we live in a society with rules and all that. But, the bond between parent and child is such that ownership of that life is a given. Children belong to their parents.
You're just refusing to aknowledge the validity of paternal instincts and individual feelings. Just try to steal a child from their parents, it's one of the worst crimes people fear the most and the sense of loss is extraordinary.
Children are parent's most precious belonging.
Not a misconception, the reality is that parents do own their kids, but also abide by laws preventing mistreatment of their children. Of course parents can, and do ignore those laws sometimes and do as they please. Sure the state can step in and the parents can be stopped, we live in a society with rules and all that. But, the bond between parent and child is such that ownership of that life is a given. Children belong to their parents.
You're just refusing to aknowledge the validity of paternal instincts and individual feelings. Just try to steal a child from their parents, it's one of the worst crimes people fear the most and the sense of loss is extraordinary.
Children are parent's most precious belonging.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,676
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
> the reality is that parents do own their kids
No. They have a duty of care until the child is of age. That is not ownership, it is a duty. Children are not objects, they are people.
> the reality is that parents do own their kids
No. They have a duty of care until the child is of age. That is not ownership, it is a duty. Children are not objects, they are people.
!hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,682
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,870
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,872
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,888
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,891
@previous (E)
maybe, but i doubt it's existence. Hope not, i mean that'd suck, right? but no, I don't believe in it.
maybe, but i doubt it's existence. Hope not, i mean that'd suck, right? but no, I don't believe in it.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,895
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> maybe, but i doubt it's existence. Hope not, i mean that'd suck, right? but no, I don't believe in it.
You would be well advised to take Pascal's Wager you absolutely sickening fucking vermin cunt.
> maybe, but i doubt it's existence. Hope not, i mean that'd suck, right? but no, I don't believe in it.
You would be well advised to take Pascal's Wager you absolutely sickening fucking vermin cunt.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,896
@previous (E)
> pascal's wager
lol'd
you think faith means believing it "just in case?" God wouldn't accept that as actual faith, it's a bastardization of faith. It's blasphemy. Lol, believe in god just in case he's real, that's rich, bud.
It's the absolute weakest argument for faith there is.
> pascal's wager
lol'd
you think faith means believing it "just in case?" God wouldn't accept that as actual faith, it's a bastardization of faith. It's blasphemy. Lol, believe in god just in case he's real, that's rich, bud.
It's the absolute weakest argument for faith there is.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,898
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> >pascal's wager
> lol'd
> you think faith means believing it "just in case?" God wouldn't accept that as actual faith, it's a bastardization of faith. It's blasphemy. Lol, believe in god just in case he's real, that's rich, bud.
You are Hell-bound, and you make me want to vomit. You thoroughly disgusting waste of fucking flesh and blood, you absolute shit, you redundant animal, YOU FUCKING ANIMAL.
> >pascal's wager
> lol'd
> you think faith means believing it "just in case?" God wouldn't accept that as actual faith, it's a bastardization of faith. It's blasphemy. Lol, believe in god just in case he's real, that's rich, bud.
You are Hell-bound, and you make me want to vomit. You thoroughly disgusting waste of fucking flesh and blood, you absolute shit, you redundant animal, YOU FUCKING ANIMAL.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,902
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,912
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
LOL at the cunt spending half an hour editing, re-editing and honing his 'argument' on religious issues to a guy who could give less of a fuck and has been trolling the fuck out of his ass from the beginning.
LOL at the cunt spending half an hour editing, re-editing and honing his 'argument' on religious issues to a guy who could give less of a fuck and has been trolling the fuck out of his ass from the beginning.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #265,915
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,101
what happened to my thread? stay on topic please
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,188
@265,682 (!hbZVTk6JYc)
They don't belong to anybody. They are human beings and as such have inalienable rights. See UNCRC Articles 4, 5, 6.2, 8.2, 11, 13, 16, 19, 23.1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37.
This does not mean that parents do not have a duty of care. This does not mean that parents do not want to protect their children. This means that parents do not own their children. Children are not objects to be owned.
They don't belong to anybody. They are human beings and as such have inalienable rights. See UNCRC Articles 4, 5, 6.2, 8.2, 11, 13, 16, 19, 23.1, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37.
This does not mean that parents do not have a duty of care. This does not mean that parents do not want to protect their children. This means that parents do not own their children. Children are not objects to be owned.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,211
@previous (L)
> Says the law
i already said the law doesn't matter. But if anything these laws are in place becuase there is so much implied ownership of ones children that the law tries to limit that entitlement.
> Says the law
i already said the law doesn't matter. But if anything these laws are in place becuase there is so much implied ownership of ones children that the law tries to limit that entitlement.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,212
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> i already said the law doesn't matter
You can say that all you like, but you'd be very wrong.
> if anything these laws are in place becuase there is so much implied ownership of ones children that the law tries to limit that entitlement
Are you one of those people who can't admit when they've been bested and become very sore losers? It would be nice if you told me now.
> i already said the law doesn't matter
You can say that all you like, but you'd be very wrong.
> if anything these laws are in place becuase there is so much implied ownership of ones children that the law tries to limit that entitlement
Are you one of those people who can't admit when they've been bested and become very sore losers? It would be nice if you told me now.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,216
@previous (L)
So then i should follow every law, even those i find morally objectionable? Well heil hitler to you too, L.
Oh? Lol, you see this as a contest? Ppfffhh, i hope you're winning, lol.
So then i should follow every law, even those i find morally objectionable? Well heil hitler to you too, L.
Oh? Lol, you see this as a contest? Ppfffhh, i hope you're winning, lol.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,219
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
> Oh? Lol, you see this as a contest? Ppfffhh, i hope you're winning, lol.
I saw it, and every other thread that isn't a shitpost, as a debate in which one party tries to convince the other that they are correct. However, that clearly isn't going to happen now if you're not capable of doing that. I'm sorry that you're a complete prat and would rather troll like a child might.
> Oh? Lol, you see this as a contest? Ppfffhh, i hope you're winning, lol.
I saw it, and every other thread that isn't a shitpost, as a debate in which one party tries to convince the other that they are correct. However, that clearly isn't going to happen now if you're not capable of doing that. I'm sorry that you're a complete prat and would rather troll like a child might.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,224
@previous (L)
Oh, so if someone has an opinion that differs from yours then they are a trolling prat child that needs a master debater to argue them into submission?
Lol'd.
Oh, so if someone has an opinion that differs from yours then they are a trolling prat child that needs a master debater to argue them into submission?
Lol'd.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,228
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
No, but if someone is a dipshit troll who trolls then they're a trolling prat child that ought to just grow up before they completely destroy the forum community they're leeching from.
No, but if someone is a dipshit troll who trolls then they're a trolling prat child that ought to just grow up before they completely destroy the forum community they're leeching from.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,234
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,238
@previous (squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc)
Can you please just be a little serious, stop acting like a 14 year old and then we can continue on the debate? I was enjoying this until you became a poor sport.
Can you please just be a little serious, stop acting like a 14 year old and then we can continue on the debate? I was enjoying this until you became a poor sport.
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,239
111 get
dw !AIy/L67q.s joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,240
Anonymous R replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,241
hamfist !!mZuNK1i+C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,245
Wow this thread turned out to be quite the pedo-magnet
Anonymous Q replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,483
I enjoy the hypocrisy of the mods here. Posting valid, yet controversial, opinions will result in ban after ban, but pathetic, sustained, shit-tier trolling as practiced by floorboard is allowed to destroy thread after thread.
squeegee !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,490
@previous (Q)
You dislike my controversial, valid opinions therefor i am trolling. Your opinions are retarded, but you don't see me calling you a troll.
Tl;dr: everyone who disagrees with my opinions is a troll! I am self important and must be right -at all costs!
You dislike my controversial, valid opinions therefor i am trolling. Your opinions are retarded, but you don't see me calling you a troll.
Tl;dr: everyone who disagrees with my opinions is a troll! I am self important and must be right -at all costs!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
misterbones !LcHrgT2NWY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #266,504
@266,483 (Q)
I enjoy the fact I've been away from minichan for just under a year and there's still foolish shits like you who think people care that you don't like how the board is run. It's a god domning webiste, go find another one if you don't like it.
I enjoy the fact I've been away from minichan for just under a year and there's still foolish shits like you who think people care that you don't like how the board is run. It's a god domning webiste, go find another one if you don't like it.