|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:25:53 GMT -5
I never did, and i never would.. Especially considering i support people with mental illness and pedophilia tendencies on a daily basis. I know youre not that ed up dude There you have it folks. LK supports pedophilia. i work in a rehab facility...
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:26:44 GMT -5
There you have it folks. LK supports pedophilia. i work in a rehab facility... You're the one that said it. I may have some bad views but I'd never support pedophilia like you said you do. You see how disgusting that accusation is? You don't understand why I'd feel the way I felt after being accused of it?
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:31:17 GMT -5
i work in a rehab facility... You're the one that said it. I may have some bad views but I'd never support pedophilia like you said you do. You see how disgusting that accusation is? You don't understand why I'd feel the way I felt after being accused of it? i don't care whether people believe it or not. lol i said exactly what i do for a living... you were arguing your ridiculous point. i'm sure if it were a bit more constructive, people wouldn't think you're nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 23:33:03 GMT -5
Slappy, my friend and colleague....again, you and Kliquid provided a scenario similar to an everything goes environment with no government or laws to speak of. I merely took what you and Kliquid had said and provided you with a hypothetical "worst case scenario" to show you how the potential for things not working out was very great. I'm shocked and appalled by some of the things that you said, but I forgive you. I never said there should be no laws. Your worst case scenario was to call us pedophiles? There wasn't even a scenario. It was just name calling. Nobody said you were a pedophile. Let's make that very clear. We only wanted to WARN YOU that if you wanted to use some of the very disturbing things you said as evidence to support your stance on gun laws, that they could also be construed as the views of a person who might condone sexual acts with children. I simply noticed the double edged sword in your argument. You can't use something in your argument that you see as a positive, yet not acknowledge when your argument also has a flaw in it that could be used for evil. You can't say "this should be a law, but only if everyone pinky swears not to do anything bad with it"...it doesn't work that way. I never did, and i never would.. Especially considering i support people with mental illness and pedophilia tendencies on a daily basis. I know youre not that ed up dude There you have it folks. LK supports pedophilia. Slappy....I'm offended that you would accuse LK of such a horrible act. We know you're just angry, but remember....words hurt.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:33:16 GMT -5
You're the one that said it. I may have some bad views but I'd never support pedophilia like you said you do. You see how disgusting that accusation is? You don't understand why I'd feel the way I felt after being accused of it? i don't care whether people believe it or not. lol i said exactly what i do for a living... you were arguing your ridiculous point. i'm sure if it were a bit more constructive, people wouldn't think you're nuts. I really don't see how either of you came to the conclusion that I'm a pedophile. I clearly said a 10 year old cannot consent. That should be your first hint that I'm not. I don't give a crap if people think I'm nuts. They can think I'm ing loony. Maybe I am. I don't want them thinking I'm a disgusting pedophile.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:34:26 GMT -5
Nobody said you were a pedophile. Let's make that very clear. We only wanted to WARN YOU that if you wanted to use some of the very disturbing things you said as evidence to support your stance on gun laws, that they could also be construed as the views of a person who might condone sexual acts with children. So what exactly about my stance on gun laws can you link to pedophilia?
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:36:46 GMT -5
Nobody said you were a pedophile. Let's make that very clear. We only wanted to WARN YOU that if you wanted to use some of the very disturbing things you said as evidence to support your stance on gun laws, that they could also be construed as the views of a person who might condone sexual acts with children. So what exactly about my stance on gun laws can you link to pedophilia? neither of us think you are.. we were comparing your rationale to it.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:38:47 GMT -5
So what exactly about my stance on gun laws can you link to pedophilia? neither of us think you are.. we were comparing your rationale to it. But that doesn't make sense. I want to know how you compare the two. And Lorenzo did say there was a child porn party at my house.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 23:41:31 GMT -5
Nobody said you were a pedophile. Let's make that very clear. We only wanted to WARN YOU that if you wanted to use some of the very disturbing things you said as evidence to support your stance on gun laws, that they could also be construed as the views of a person who might condone sexual acts with children. So what exactly about my stance on gun laws can you link to pedophilia? Your rejection of our laws. Not wanting to follow what is deemed as socially acceptable in our social contract......you came very quickly to Kilquids defense when he tried to make comparisons between the age a person should handle a gun and the age in which they are allowed to consent to have sex. Your views were very troubling and disturbing to me. You can't take a child and cherry pick what you think they are able to handle and just hope you avoid all the bad stuff. When you open Pandora's box, unfortunately, it can become a free for all. Therefor you argument, as well as Kliquid's, was flawed in the fact that if you want children to be able to be allowed to own and purchase guns at such a young age, believing that they would be able to process the responsibility, then you would also have to lower the age of consent to the age you picked, which shockingly and sickeningly, was 10 years old. It disgusted and offended me, but like I said, I'm here to help you and I know we'll get past this.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:41:47 GMT -5
neither of us think you are.. we were comparing your rationale to it. But that doesn't make sense. I want to know how you compare the two. It all started when you tried to defend somebody's right to masturbate on their front law, since you consider that "private property".. you don't seriously believe that, do you?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:43:07 GMT -5
So what exactly about my stance on gun laws can you link to pedophilia? Your rejection of our laws. Not wanting to follow what is deemed as socially acceptable in our social contract......you came very quickly to Kilquids defense when he tried to make comparisons between the age a person should handle a gun and the age in which they are allowed to consent to have sex. Your views were very troubling and disturbing to me. You can't take a child and cherry pick what you think they are able to handle and just hope you avoid all the bad stuff. When you open Pandora's box, unfortunately, it can become a free for all. Therefor you argument, as well as Kliquid's, was flawed in the fact that if you want children to be able to be allowed to own and purchase guns at such a young age, believing that they would be able to process the responsibility, then you would also have to lower the age of consent to the age you picked, which shockingly and sickeningly, was 10 years old. It disgusted and offended me, but like I said, I'm here to help you and I know we'll get past this. I reject laws where there is no victim. Obviously pedophilia has a victim. I never said children should be allowed to own and purchase guns.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 23:43:54 GMT -5
neither of us think you are.. we were comparing your rationale to it. But that doesn't make sense. I want to know how you compare the two. And Lorenzo did say there was a child porn party at my house. Like I said, my friend...you can't have it both ways. You can't state that you think smoking crack and viewing child pornography on the computer should be LEGAL, and then be offended when somebody mistakes you for a person who condones such reprehensible actions. This is why I find your views not only disturbing, but logically flawed. You come on here and say that such horrible things should be legal and then claim to be against them at the same time? I'm worried about you.....
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:45:30 GMT -5
But that doesn't make sense. I want to know how you compare the two. It all started when you tried to defend somebody's right to masturbate on their front law, since you consider that "private property".. you don't seriously believe that, do you? I wouldn't fight for their right to do it, no. Form a home owners association that bans that activity and if a person breaks it, break their lease or whatever and kick them out of your neighborhood. Or even if you joined a community where they set rules and that was against their rules then you can be kicked out of that community.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:46:42 GMT -5
But that doesn't make sense. I want to know how you compare the two. And Lorenzo did say there was a child porn party at my house. Like I said, my friend...you can't have it both ways. You can't state that you think smoking crack and viewing child pornography on the computer should be LEGAL, and then be offended when somebody mistakes you for a person who condones such reprehensible actions. This is why I find your views not only disturbing, but logically flawed. You come on here and say that such horrible things should be legal and then claim to be against them at the same time? I'm worried about you..... Why can't I be against something but not want to ban it? I think smoking is wrong and terrible but I wouldn't ban it. I don't like Justin Bieber's music but I wouldn't ban it. If viewing child porn was legal like you say I want it to be then the person looking at it wouldn't be punished like I said they should be.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:46:42 GMT -5
It all started when you tried to defend somebody's right to masturbate on their front law, since you consider that "private property".. you don't seriously believe that, do you? I wouldn't fight for their right to do it, no. Form a home owners association that bans that activity and if a person breaks it, break their lease or whatever and kick them out of your neighborhood. Or even if you joined a community where they set rules and that was against their rules then you can be kicked out of that community. dude, you're stretching it now. it's against the law for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:48:34 GMT -5
I wouldn't fight for their right to do it, no. Form a home owners association that bans that activity and if a person breaks it, break their lease or whatever and kick them out of your neighborhood. Or even if you joined a community where they set rules and that was against their rules then you can be kicked out of that community. dude, you're stretching it now. it's against the law for a reason. Don't give me the "it's against the law for a reason" cop out. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. I guess that's ok because it was legal. Since everything that is legal is ok.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:52:21 GMT -5
dude, you're stretching it now. it's against the law for a reason. Don't give me the "it's against the law for a reason" cop out. Slavery was legal. Segregation was legal. I guess that's ok because it was legal. Since everything that is legal is ok. Masturbating on your front lawn is an act of public indecency. Slavery and segregation are crimes with victims.. however sometimes segregation is for the right reasons. not just based on race.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 18, 2013 23:52:26 GMT -5
Like I said, my friend...you can't have it both ways. You can't state that you think smoking crack and viewing child pornography on the computer should be LEGAL, and then be offended when somebody mistakes you for a person who condones such reprehensible actions. This is why I find your views not only disturbing, but logically flawed. You come on here and say that such horrible things should be legal and then claim to be against them at the same time? I'm worried about you..... Why can't I be against something but not want to ban it? I think smoking is wrong and terrible but I wouldn't ban it. I don't like Justin Bieber's music but I wouldn't ban it. Being against something and wanting it banned or to be illegal are two different things. I don't like yellow shirts....that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal or banned for all, I just choose not to wear one. In the situation of smoking crack, or any drug a person does not personally have a prescription for, I believe that the use of these drugs by people for merely recreational personal use should be ILLEGAL. This is why I also supported the soda size ban and making fast food portions smaller. I think sometimes we need to steer people in the direction of making good, sound, healthy decisions. And if that means making sodas and fast food portions smaller or making the legal punishments harsher, then that is what should be done if it makes our society healthier as a whole. You would never smoke crack. You would never look at child pornography or molest a child....but Slappy, not everyone shares your views. There are sick people out there, and by taking the stance of "I won't do it but I'm not against YOU doing it".....it's scary and offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Apr 18, 2013 23:54:19 GMT -5
Why can't I be against something but not want to ban it? I think smoking is wrong and terrible but I wouldn't ban it. I don't like Justin Bieber's music but I wouldn't ban it. Being against something and wanting it banned or to be illegal are two different things. I don't like yellow shirts....that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal or banned for all, I just choose not to wear one. In the situation of smoking crack, or any drug a person does not personally have a prescription for, I believe that the use of these drugs by people for merely recreational personal use should be ILLEGAL. This is why I also supported the soda size ban and making fast food portions smaller. I think sometimes we need to steer people in the direction of making good, sound, healthy decisions. And if that means making sodas and fast food portions smaller or making the legal punishments harsher, then that is what should be done if it makes our society healthier as a whole. You would never smoke crack. You would never look at child pornography or molest a child....but Slappy, not everyone shares your views. There are sick people out there, and by taking the stance of "I won't do it but I'm not against YOU doing it".....it's scary and offensive. exactly. some people need the law more than others.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 18, 2013 23:54:29 GMT -5
Why can't I be against something but not want to ban it? I think smoking is wrong and terrible but I wouldn't ban it. I don't like Justin Bieber's music but I wouldn't ban it. Being against something and wanting it banned or to be illegal are two different things. I don't like yellow shirts....that doesn't mean I think they should be illegal or banned for all, I just choose not to wear one. In the situation of smoking crack, or any drug a person does not personally have a prescription for, I believe that the use of these drugs by people for merely recreational personal use should be ILLEGAL. This is why I also supported the soda size ban and making fast food portions smaller. I think sometimes we need to steer people in the direction of making good, sound, healthy decisions. And if that means making sodas and fast food portions smaller or making the legal punishments harsher, then that is what should be done if it makes our society healthier as a whole. You would never smoke crack. You would never look at child pornography or molest a child....but Slappy, not everyone shares your views. There are sick people out there, and by taking the stance of "I won't do it but I'm not against YOU doing it".....it's scary and offensive. What's scary and offensive is you thinking people cannot make choices for themselves so they have to have mommy government take control of what they eat and drink. If you feel pop sizes and portion sizes should be smaller. That's fine. Fight for that. But don't fight for government to mandate it.
|
|