Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Beer w/Straw, Sep 21, 2018.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That's one specific question to one specific poster. Is that what "multiple" means?
What do you think?
We don't know and we're scared.
Is that a good answer?
you respond to this but refuse to say why being against child sex makes my disgusting. why? did you get needlessly defensive when asked why you were doing that?
again with the equating of child porn and homosexuality
somethings are obvious like water being wet.
not at all.
Again, I'm talking about the attitude toward questioning.
What are you scared of?
I think you're trying too hard to find something to fight about.
I'm not defending myself. I was saying that you were being disgusting.
A different case:
Joe: "I don't understand why Kate is saying the things she is. I mean, I know she was raped, and that was horrible for her, but the things she's saying now aren't even true. Maybe she needs to talk to someone."
Al: "Joe, why are you defending rape?"
Al is being disgusting. He is intentionally misinterpreting Joe to get a really good slam in. I am sure Al would just say "I am just asking a question! Why won't Joe answer why he's defending rape?" but of course his real motivation is to hurt Joe.
We pass laws based on both facts and opinions. I'm sure that some laws are almost entirely informed by facts, but often it comes down to the legislators' opinions.
As I said, you're working too hard at nitpicking and misunderstanding. Try to understand what people are saying.
How is that nitpicking? Lawmaking isn't a science. Kind of an important distinction there.
Because you fail to address what we are discussing and attempt to trivialise it by referring to child pornography as being mere "pictures".
Similar facts had already been posted and you refused to acknowledge them. So what is so different this time?
I have highlighted the important bit.
That was your response to a doctor sexually assaulting and raping babies and children, when I pointed out the idiocy of your "is it really an assault" line of argument.
And it was been answered over and over and over again. You have refused to accept a single answer. What I linked, is no different to what I and others have been saying repeatedly.
I mean, for any grown arsed man to ask why child pornography should be illegal, really, what's the deal sideshowbob?
What name did I call you, exactly?
You have spent the better part of nearly what? A dozen or so pages trying to rationalise sexual assault and sexual violence and rape against women and children. I have stuck to the facts. Consistently.
You have stuck to 'why should it be illegal?' when it comes to child pornography. You have queried if it is really assault if a woman is sexually assaulted when she is unconscious or incapable of consenting, etc..
I haven't called you any names. If pointing out your arguments is calling you names, perhaps you should rethink what you are doing here.
You do realise it was sideshowbob who queried if real harm happens when a child is raped right?
I was quoting his post in response to my sarcastically pointing out the obscene nature of his arguments at the start of this thread when it comes to sexual violence against women and children - ie, his if they don't know it's happening, is it really assault..
Now compare all that to questioning why it is illegal to rape a woman who is unconscious or sexually molest children and babies because they do not know it's happening, since ya know, according to sideshowbob, if you don't know it's happening, then it should not be illegal...
He makes his statement pretty clear:
To which sideshowbob responds with:
Do you really think he was questioning?
Or are we going to try to make more excuses for what he has argued in this thread?
Being raped for one thing.
How does that apply to this topic?
And I pointed out that that was not my response at all. My response was that I am only talking about cases in which the "victim" never has any knowledge of the incident. In any other case, I have no argument with you.
And I have pointed out repeatedly that I have asked no such question about child pornography in general. Why do you keep lying about it?
I have asked only about situations in which no child was involved in the making.
That's a lie.
Now you're nitpicking about nitpicking.
It can, yes.
Compare storing dynamite in one's city garage. It's illegal for a reason.
which again is still equating the two as equal.
Separate names with a comma.