Pedophile identifies as 9 year old

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As long as they don't hurt anyone why care? this pos in the op hurt folk.
Why do you care if trangender folk change their sex and identify as the opposite sex? how does that harm you why care so much.
If no one is hurt live and let live.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's not hypocrisy though, most people with these beliefs follow the "do what thou wilt so long it does no harm to others credo" the apparent hypocrisy only exists because for some reason you all keep stopping at the "do what thou wilt..." part of the credo and completely forgetting the most important half "... so long as it does no harm to others." which prevents this kind of behavior from being acceptable.

Someone wants to call themselves a helicopter, fine, up until they try to take off with a passenger jumping off a sky scraper to their deaths. See the line is pretty clear, and there's no hypocrisy when people are unwilling to cross that line.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DBCowboy

There are people who live as littles, live as animals, sex is only part of it.

No, that is a fetish.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yet they want people to be forced to accept a man who feels like a woman into a woman's room. Which is already crossing that line. So hypocrisy.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Blimey sounds like you need a safe place.
I suggest getting over it and worry about things that actually effect you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Interesting thread, Young choir boys are often valued because they sing better before their balls drop.
its reminiscent of the old Who album Quadraphenia (which came out while I was still reading Horten hears a who)..

The story follows a young mod named Jimmy and his search for self-worth and importance, set in London and Brighton in 1965.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Bah people have bathed, pooed and shared bathrooms and living quarters with the opposite sex in various cultures throughout the world with no issues various times throughout history. You're full of crap. Refusing to accept western prudishness as the law of the land is not crossing a line. If that person rapes a woman, then yeah that's crossing a line and is illegal for very good reason, but well men have been doing that without pretending to be women, and without it being acceptable to be in the bathroom of women. Your whole issue is made up.

People need to stop punishing innocent people for the actions of criminals. Some parents rape their children, so should children be raised by robots because some parents are rapists?

a reply to: Puppylove

Bang on .
I ask this to the people bothered about the bathroom situation.
Can you tell me when it has caused a problem?.
How many trans folk have you met in a bathroom?.

originally posted by: Puppylove


People need to stop punishing innocent people for the actions of criminals. Some parents rape their children, so should children be raised by robots because some parents are rapists?

Exactly. That would be like not allowing anyone to have guns because criminals use them to kill. Unfair! ( that's my Trump Twitter impression for the day)

Oh and to make something clear feeling a bit uncomfortable and being truly harmed are two different things. It is impossible in life to not ever make another human uncomfortable, trying to make things to prevent discomfort law is a fool's errand. One person's discomfort is another persons comfort. Either one person will be discomforted or the other.

The line on discomfort is when it is actually physically intrusive and a personal attack on the person specifically and not simply as a result of coexisting in the same proximity.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Oh and to make something clear feeling a bit uncomfortable and being truly harmed are two different things. It is impossible in life to not ever make another human uncomfortable, trying to make things to prevent discomfort law is a fool's errand. One person's discomfort is another persons comfort. Either one person will be discomforted or the other.

The line on discomfort is when it is actually physically intrusive and a personal attack on the person specifically and not simply as a result of coexisting in the same proximity.

This is a very good argument against people who wish to silence or censor others simply because they are
"offended".

a reply to: kaylaluv

Just making sure, you actually support gun rights and ownership then?

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: kaylaluv

Just making sure, you actually support gun rights and ownership then?

Yep. I am against banning guns.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Almost. The second part of it makes it a bit sketchy. Here's an example of where it gets sketchy.

We have a black man and a member of the kkk in full robes on a bus. So far, the discomfort rule hasn't been broken. It's perhaps being a bit pushed, but still technically not broken.

Now two scenarios. One the kkk member has told the black person or just said it out loud making sure he could hear it, "Things were better when "derogatory term for black people" were in the back of the bus where they belonged."

Or to turn it around if the black person confronts the KKK member who has said and done nothing, "We don't want your kind on this bus, your ass better get off at the next stop if you know what's good for you."

In both cases it's no longer discomfort by proximity, it's purposeful harassment. Things start getting murky there.

There's a time and place for such speech and actions. Cross those boundaries at one's own peril.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'd still call it free speech.



Free speech, true free speech, is not polite or nice speech.

But this is a topic for another time, another thread.

a reply to: face23785

If he truly identified as a 9 year old he wouldn't want sex.

He would be out playing and riding a bike.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There's a line between free speech and harassment, but it's a fine hard to define line, and yes a topic for another thread.

This is what happens when life choices that are clearly mental illness, are applauded and supported, somebody always tries to test the next level down of utter stupidity and depravity, to see if they will get support too.
Reminds me of that article floated within the last few years to see if people would soften against reciprocal agreeable pedophilia.
Oh and they didn't, it was condemned on all fronts, but they tried.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33


I employ a simple test to issues like this.

"Does it infringe upon the rights of an individual?"

If so, then it should not be allowed.

If not, then who cares?

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Puppylove

Bang on

.
I ask this to the people bothered about the bathroom situation.
Can you tell me when it has caused a problem?.
How many trans folk have you met in a bathroom?.

The point is, there are people who will lie their way through anything, and use it as an excuse to further lie and damage lives because they're mentally ill and don't care what they say to get what they want in order to damage the innocent based purely on a law that makes no # sense to the many. In other words, 'new skoo'l liberalisticterminolgy, there are very bad people in our society who would use this against everybody else. And it's those people who are a threat, not your average everyday citizen.

Surely, you can see the bigger picture here no?