Pedophile identifies as 9 year old

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

No, this is just a pedophile making a ridiculous attempt to defend and get away with their actions. He would have still done it even if there was no identity politics, he just would have tried to get out of it a different way.

It won't work because once again the generally accepted credo is "do what though wilt so long as it does no harm to others" and the reason such things as a pedophilia are and will continue be shut down on all fronts is because it crosses the line in the second half of the passage.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

There will always be people trying to use everything against others. There's no escaping that. The only recourse is to deal with those individuals when they come along, not punish the innocent because those individuals exist.

We can't have kids raised by robots because some parents are abusive, we can't remove all knives from society because some people kill with them, we can't prevent people from going on dates because some dates end in rape, we can't... well you get the picture.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What about protecting peoples own rights by stopping their personal stupidity with laws ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: DBCowboy

What about protecting peoples own rights by stopping their personal stupidity with laws ?

Like seatbelt laws and helmet laws?

I'm against those as well.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You mean like seat belt laws?

a reply to: Puppylove

There will always be people trying to use everything against others. There's no escaping that.

How many innocents are worth protecting, 10, 20?

We can't have kids raised by robots because some parents are abusive, we can't remove all knives from society because some people kill with them

With all due respect, Society is already being raised by robots. Maybe if humanity stopped being so robotic we would have a lot more Humanity and Common Sense, you know, that human thing we used to have.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Same. If a person wants to risk their own life it's their own choice. It's not until they are risking others lives that it becomes an issue.

That said, if a person on a motorcycle is hit by a car, and dies, and they weren't wearing a helmet and the autopsy determines the death would most likely not have occurred had the person wore a helmet, it should definitely reduce the blame on the car driver for the rider's death.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

How many innocents are worth persecuting for your protections, 10, 20?

a reply to: Puppylove

Was that another thread, because the last time I looked, we were talking about something completely contrary to what you just brought up.

Think about the innocents, not the perpetrators.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

No you're wanting to persecute every single person who's ever had identity issues and has found a way to live that makes them feel good and comfortable that does nothing to harm others by denying them that right, simply because a few people will try and abuse that privilege to instead harm others, despite that doing so clearly crosses a line that all can see is clearly wrong.

Most people are saying, punish and deal with those who cross the line, don't arbitrarily punish those who do not, simply because those who do exist. There will always be such a line with all things, be it owning a knife, raising children, being married, heck even owning a #ing pillow.

You want to punish the innocent by removing their rights simply because the occasional criminal will attempt to abuse those rights to get away with criminal activity. Which as we've seen so far, isn't working because most people can recognize when that line has been crossed. Which means you're creating a problem where there is none. This guy crossed the line and everyone on both sides of the aisle clearly recognize that. Your entire premise relies on that not being the case which as this thread has shown it clearly is.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'm sorry, I can't talk to you, you're too far left and incoherent for me to comprehend. The problem with the far left right now, is that they aren't willing to see the 'common sense' in anything. If it makes sense to the many then it must be evil and reviled and destroyed.

How the hell can anyone talk to a person who will not, give an inch? You can't. That would take a miracle, and something I don't think we're likely to see anytime soon.

Unless the Gods return and smack people upside the head for being ridiculously stupid.

''''I could like and agree with everything you say and think, but seriously, how honest would that be?'''''

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

I'm too far left? Bwahahahahahhaha. Wow you don't know me too well nor my posting history if you think that. The truth is you simply don't have a counter argument, it's pretty air tight.

a reply to: Puppylove

I've read enough of your posts, dear, that I know.

I'm not here to fight, on the contrary, i'm simply addressing what I think, it's only a discussion, not a battle.

Clearly though, youre the more popular one here. 'bows'.

originally posted by: Indrasweb

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Abysha

So basically, your personal willingness to accommodate trans-ideology stops at transgender?

OK, then at Google, you would be labeled a hateful bigot just like you like to label those of us who don't try to stop you from being what you are but maybe don't want our children to share the locker room with kids who aren't a biological gender match to them.

See at Google, they do have an employee who is a yellow-winged dragonkin and an ornate, expansive building all at the same time, a dual persona or something, and that person gave a lecture on how you should address and interact with both of them because they are all there.

So what do you do? Since you've indicated now that that person does not exist as such, you've outed yourself as a bigot?

I've read through this whole thread and I was most interested reading your back and forth with the above person, who was engaging with you up until this post.

I was actually really looking forward to seeing the reply to this because I think you've hit upon a really interesting point here (in spite of the rather confrontational tone of your reply there) and I was curious what their response would be.

Unfortunately, it would seem the other poster has opted to side-step answering this post. They are still in the thread, they posted a couple of pages after you did. It's a shame because it was an interesting exchange.

I think if you take out the emotional responses to these things and look at it from the point of view of consistency of thinking/belief, self-justification, personal values, societal values etc then there's a very interesting discussion to be had.

I didn't side-step it; I've already answered it before she asked and I've answered variations to that question countless times in threads she's been in.

For this thread, look here: post

It's a pretty clear distinction.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Then you've seen me argue against the far left time and time again, when it's appropriate. I'm against far left extremism, social justice warriors that go too far, and pretty much the entire state the left is in currently. You've seen my many tirades against BLM and how they conduct themselves. You've seen me occasionally defending Trump, you've seen my admonishments of Hillary, you've seen me defend gun rights. I'm pretty all over the place, but generally for the most part consistent, though my views do evolve as I learn.

I'm not really right or left. I'm a person and an individual. Is why I tend to defend both sides of the aisle where I feel they are in the right, and spit on both when they are both wrong.

a reply to: Puppylove

Ok never mind.

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Because it's not as far leftist as you're thinking, and your view is actually on the extremist right in this instance. I'm not arguing far left, you're arguing extremist right.

originally posted by: BotheLumberJack
a reply to: Puppylove


Wait.. I need to understand this...

I'm not really right or left. I'm a person and an individual. Is why I tend to defend both sides of the aisle where I feel they are in the right, and spit on both when they are both wrong.

Are you saying that at any given time you could be for or against left or/and right? How does that work. I mean that's confusing because people that know you would never know what side of the tracks you were operating on?

a reply to: BotheLumberJack

Um changing disappearing posts are confusing I was responding to the iteration even before that.

a reply to: Puppylove

So then what were you angry about when I posted to that other poster?