| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:11 IdrA wrote: are animals and little girls made of plastic and air? You can't call an animal a victim without personifying it, and if you do, you will have to explain your cannibalism (else you are being inconsistent). | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
edit: And for the sake of clarity IMO a tangent that begins somewhere in the middle of a twenty-nine page thread, it maybe deserves its own thread so that people can follow it from a fresh start. At this point almost no posts here are going to be informed enough for everybody. Judging by the typical behavior here, I may as well post a response to the OP here, or something on page 10, or 15. etc. But I haven't yet because to some people those will be spam. And to some people my posts here are spam, too, because I've only responded to some small things at the end. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
It's funny because I could lay it out for him in an way he would agree with, but I refuse to make his arguments for him, even when it so perfectly plays into my Socratic method. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:12 HeadBangaa wrote: You can't call an animal a victim without personifying it, and if you do, you will have to explain your cannibalism (else you are being inconsistent). ya.. except not? animals have rights, doesnt mean theyre human. you're not allowed to mistreat or torture animals, various forms of animal abuse are felonies in almost every state. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
if incapable of giving informed consent then rape ive said that before. the argument is in what constitutes being capable of giving informed consent. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Lots of horse fuckers out there. You think you can fuck a horse against its will LOL!! You just refuse to admit that you have an arbitrary line of decency. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
its not a stupid concept, its just implemented poorly in some cases like yours. alot of states have provisions that its legal when you're within a year or 2 of each other, so an 18 year old with a 17 year old isnt illegal("romeo and juliet laws"). that aside, the concept itself is valid. remember high school girls? most of them would jump at the chance to fuck a 30 year old just so they can brag to their friends that older guys like them and cuz he can drive them around in his car. without realizing that its a creepy weirdo whos taking advantage of her cuz hes either a pedophile or too much of a loser to get a girl his own age. shes being manipulated and she is incapable of realizing it, so the law does not give her the ability to consent. an adolescent girl and an adult male is going to be an unfair relationship to the adolescent girl, "true love" or whatever. think dogs are more emotionally and intellectually mature than teenage girls? | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:18 IdrA wrote: the argument is in what constitutes being capable of giving informed consent. Agreed. On November 07 2008 18:29 IdrA wrote: think dogs are more emotionally and intellectually mature than teenage girls? No but I think you are personifying animals. Animals can willfully sex humans, it does happen. They can give the maximum consent they are capable of (which is extremely base), but underrage girls can't. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
the difference between us is there is rationality behind my prejudice. there isnt behind yours. thats why you're making this argument instead of trying to defend your stance. you know your stance is intellectually reprehensible, so you try to move focus away from it. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
What do you see me moving away from? I have not. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
cool, thats what i said 2 pages ago No but I think you are personifying animals. Animals can willfully sex humans, it does happen. They can give the maximum consent they are capable of (which is extremely base), but underrage girls can't. what? the whole idea of statutory rape is that the girls maximum consent is also extremely base. the girl fucking the old guy giving her a car legitly wants to fuck him, she is giving him the full consent and approval she is capable of. however its tainted by the fact that she has immature judgement, making it invalid. how can you argue that a dog is more capable than that? the limitation here, in both circumstances, is the quality of the maximum consent. not what percentage of their faculties theyre using. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:35 HeadBangaa wrote: I am advocating a total lack of prejudice, and trying to show that yours is more based on convention than logic. What do you see me moving away from? I have not. you have always refused to give a justification for how it is fair to deny homosexuals equal rights, you have always focused on perpipheral topics and then tried to link them to gay marriage. moving away from was the wrong term, youve consistantly avoided the real topic. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
But your interpretation is wrong. Informed consent for an animal is necessarily different than informed consent from a human. Both are obviously capable. what? the whole idea of statutory rape is that the girls maximum consent is also extremely base. the girl fucking the old guy giving her a car legitly wants to fuck him, she is giving him the full consent and approval she is capable of. however its tainted by the fact that she has immature judgement, making it invalid. how can you argue that a dog is more capable than that? the limitation here, in both circumstances, is the quality of the maximum consent. not what percentage of their faculties theyre using. Wrong. Our culture does not consider humans to be autonomous until 18. Minors' individualism is not respected. You are arguing that animals are never autonomous, and thus, unable to provide said consent. That is clearly false. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:39 IdrA wrote: you have always refused to give a justification for how it is fair to deny homosexuals equal rights, you have always focused on perpipheral topics and then tried to link them to gay marriage. moving away from was the wrong term, youve consistantly avoided the real topic. Sweet, my turn to copy/paste: On November 07 2008 09:35 HeadBangaa wrote: There are TONS of people out there who fuck their animals and have romantic feelings for them. You just wrote them all off as "immoral". Much in the same way a priest might condemn homosexuality. And then you rape the civil rights of polygamists in one sentence. Which legal sensibilities trump civil rights, buddy? Isn't that the premise of the pro gay marriage platform, that civil rights are to be respected? Legal ramifications empowering otherwise would be defined as institutional bigotry, and it is erroneous to use that as a premise for robbing people of their inherent rights. Though I thank you for being the only person thus far to actually try to engage my argument (and revealing your bigotry in the process). For the record, I don't buy the premise of "all people have the inherent right to marry, regardless of sexuality" and am showing you that I can use this premise to make anybody here a bigot. It's like you forgot how we got on this topic. Are you high? (hook it up, son) | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
whats clearly false about it? | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
2. headbanga says, if you give marriage to gays, you should also give it to animal lovers and polygamists, because if we move the arbitrary line at all, we may as well get rid of the line. actually because of the way he writes I can't be sure what he means, where he's being ironic or sarcastic, etc. without finding all of his posts in this thread. i have no idea what he's saying. 3. idra he does bring up pedo arguments: you think statutory rape should be legal? theres nothing that says the underage girl doesnt want it or isnt enjoying it, just that she is not considered to have the emotional/mental maturity to legally say 'yes'. the animal is in the same position. further discussion of this line of thought is not permitted btw (so and so is uncomfortable with it). says he doesn't see what's wrong with polygamy necessarily. i think he's theoretically right, though polygamy in practice always seems to go hand in hand with screwed up religion, underage marriage, religious leaders changing who is married to who, and (for whatever reason) the children are scarred psychologically with all the tensions in the household or bad parenting or who knows why, but polygamy is bad for the kids generally, so you could talk about whether polygamists should be allowed to be raising kids--but marriage withot kids i don't see why not. 4. headbanga was right when he said this Statutory rape is a stupid concept. My first serious girlfriend was 15 and I was 16. When I was 18, a cop came to her house for something irrelevant, and he off-handed asked us our ages. He threatened me legally because I was older and said it doesn't matter that we'd been together for years. Yes, we were legal for 1.5 years, illegal for .8 years, and then legal for another 1 year. Statutory rape doesn't make sense as a law; it's the trainwreck result of codifying what should be common sense, because certain people in society have none, so all of us must suffer for it a little. As a law it draws an nonsensical hard line. however, it seemed to veer the discussion severely off-topic. the debate is not going to be about an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex. that's a completely seperate issue. what would be a good example here, when we are comparing statitory rape to animal "love", would be the most extreme examples--not ones that blur the boundry between legal and illegal. so you may think the law is stupid in some cases, but surely you don't think an 18 year old should be allowed to have sex with a 10 year old. that's the point he is trying to talk about, so bringing up your (right) objections to the poor statitory rape laws is distracting. headbanga you may ultimately be right but you're making it very difficult here to discuss the real disagreements. logic chopping is not the way to come to an agreement, you are only going to make everyone stop reading and/or stop posting when you make shit this complicated that's not even on topic. entire books have been written on each of the eight issues you are bringing up on just this one page here. so i don't blame idra for not living up to your standards of debate. there's way too much to discuss here. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On November 07 2008 18:44 IdrA wrote: animals never approach that, so yes they never gain the necessary faculties to give consent in this context. Animals require objectively less consent to engage with sex in (ahem, with eachother that is, andso in general). Humans have moral codes, social obligations, and string attached, all of which cause human-sex to be more heavily considered. It is inappropriate to impose a human's standards for sex. The lack of higher faculties is what is so base. Animal sex is base, human sex isn't (or at least, we've conditioned ourselves to ritualize to the point where it is significantly non-base). | ||
|
Suggestion Box
China115 Posts
| ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
On November 07 2008 07:57 aRod wrote: The reason for homosexual behavior is quite clear as I've already stated. There may not be a genetic reason, but simply a developmental reason. However it is more likely a developmental reason correlating with certain genetic disposition like most conditions. No, the reason for homosexual behavior is not as clear cut as you make it out to be. There have been studies regarding the size of the hypothalamus in homosexuals, similar sequences in the long arm of the X chromosome in gay brothers, regions in chromosome 7 of interest etc etc. But nothing is as conclusive about this subject as in, say, eye colour in humans, especially in regards to genetics. So to state that something is factual GENETICALLY (like this moron -_- does), despite science not pinpointing a clear genetic reason behind homosexuality as of yet, is plain ridiculous. Even his other posts were stupid but this one took it to whole other level which needed some sort of a response. I mean, it was almost as if he was trying to practice his shitty law skills. Idra nowhere said or implied that Murk typing his opinion on this forum would hurt anyone, but -_- assumed so and then crafted some awful response to something which wasn't even claimed, adding in tidbits of law (which he probably learned yesterday) and other bs he just made up. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
GSL
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
BSL
Ret vs TerrOr
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Shine vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
