Prepubescent "Transgender Activist"

[Adrift]

I take it you haven't read up on what the President of the Philippines is doing with their war on drugs, eh?

That has what to do with the price in China?

Also, what the hell is "seriously hypothesizing" supposed to mean? It was an if then statement.

If pushing a metal nail into someones chest to puncture one of their lungs saved their life, would you do it? Stabbing people is wrong, but for some reason it helps?

Just...stop. You're not going to convince any community to offer pedophiles pedophile literature in an attempt to curb them of their appetites. It is insanely idiotic. Any community even thinking about such a thing is no community any mentally healthy individual would want their children growing up in.

Adrift, you don't have the capacity to convert me to your religion. It is not within your power and as the holy spirit doesn't exist, that's the only power you have. So either up your game or don't.

I am under absolutely no illusion that anything I say on this forum will ever "convert you to my religion". If I thought that were possible, I'd like to think it would have happened a long time ago. Unlike a lot of people who come to this forum to fellowship with likeminded individuals, to learn something new, to actually get answers to tough questions, you found this forum, and you remain here because you like to argue with people. You and a few others here have an insatiable need to win conversations. That's about the limits of your end game. You've complained plenty about the regulars you dislike on this forum, how unfair the mods are, how broken the system is, so there's really no reason to think that you stick around except that you like arguing. So, yeah, it's no surprise you're not open to Christianity. You had your mind made up about that before you got here. Still, the fact remains, you need Jesus. The things that you're proposing are despicable, and labeling it "hypothetical" doesn't make it any less wicked.

[Jaecp]

That has what to do with the price in China?

Your hypothetical isn't one. Their current president has bragged about personally killing drug addicts on the street when he was a mayor, he funded extrajudicial kill squads. Legitimately scary stuff

Just...stop. You're not going to convince any community to offer pedophiles pedophile literature in an attempt to curb them of their appetites. It is insanely idiotic. Any community even thinking about such a thing is no community any mentally healthy individual would want their children growing up in.

You are aware that I haven't, right? And have no intention on doing so. That's kind of the beauty of conditional statements. If -> Then. No If, No Then.

You'e also aware that I just described an actual emergency medical technique, too, right?

I am under absolutely no illusion that anything I say on this forum will ever "convert you to my religion".

Well, yeah, I'm under no particular illusions about your skill in rhetoric at this point.

Unlike a lot of people who come to this forum to fellowship with likeminded individuals, to learn something new, to actually get answers to tough questions, you found this forum, and you remain here because you like to argue with people.

Hrmm

Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments?

You've come to the right place!

What, exactly, is the point of a debate forum with only likeminded individuals? Sounds tedious.

You and a few others here have an insatiable need to win conversations.

This isn't actually accurate. I like forums because I want a challenge. Please give me one :-/

[Adrift]

Your hypothetical isn't one. Their current president has bragged about personally killing drug addicts on the street when he was a mayor, he funded extrajudicial kill squads. Legitimately scary stuff

I'm aware of what the current president is doing there. Whatever goofy point you're trying to make doesn't work. In fact, it works against you. What he is doing to addicts is, in fact, insane.

You are aware that I haven't, right? And have no intention on doing so. That's kind of the beauty of conditional statements. If -> Then. No If, No Then.

So are you going to answer Sparko's question? "So you think it is really a bad idea then, in reality, right?" If so, then why even suggest the hypothetical? If not, then why suggest a hypothetical if you don't think it should seriously be implemented in your community? Why am I having to even having to explain this to you? Again, you're not a complete imbecile, so I can only conclude that you're desperately attempting to save face somehow at this point.

You'e also aware that I just described an actual emergency medical technique, too, right?

Yes, I am aware its an actual emergency medical technique. It's not nearly comparable to offering pedophiles pedophile porn or shooting alcoholics in the head to stop them from drinking. Again, whatever point you think you're making, it's not working.

Well, yeah, I'm under no particular illusions about your skill in rhetoric at this point.



Hrmm



What, exactly, is the point of a debate forum with only likeminded individuals? Sounds tedious.



This isn't actually accurate. I like forums because I want a challenge. Please give me one :-/

These are really lame rebuttals man. Really lame. Most of this was already covered in the previous thread, and all of it should have been considered before you even made you're stupid hypothetical. I mean, maybe this all sounds clever in your head, but trust me, you're coming off as a total heel. Seriously. And I have no issues with debate on the forum, that obviously wasn't my point. My point was that when that's the ONLY thing you're here for, it just says a lot about your character, and your motivation for posting.

[Jaecp]

I'm aware of what the current president is doing there. Whatever goofy association you're trying to make is not working.

You... don't see any association between your hypothetical of shooting alcoholics in the head and what is going on in the Philippines with doing the same thing to drug addicts?

So are you going to answer Sparko's question? "So you think it is really a bad idea then, in reality, right?" If so, then why even suggest the hypothetical? If not, then why suggest a hypothetical if you don't think it should seriously be implemented in your community? Why am I having to even having to explain this to you? Again, you're not a complete imbecile, so I can only conclude that you're desperately attempting to save face somehow at this point.

I make arguments concerning the world we live in. I make hypotheticals for the worlds we don't.

Re the bolded part. Why do you think there is a connection there? There isn't one. Hypothetically, what if we banned all languages but X, what would that do to the world? That, in no way, means that I want to ban all other languages. You have your wires crossed.

Yes, I am aware its an actual emergency medical technique. It's not nearly comparable to offering pedophiles pedophile porn or shooting alcoholics in the head to stop them from drinking. Again, whatever point you think you're making, it's not working.

Well aint you a polymath

These are really lame rebuttals man. Really lame. Most of this was already covered in the previous thread, and all of it should have been considered before you even made you're stupid hypothetical. I mean, maybe this all sounds clever in your head, but trust me, you're coming off as a total heel. Seriously. And I have no issues with debate on the forum, that obviously wasn't my point. My point was that when that's the ONLY thing you're here for, it just says a lot about your character, and your motivation for posting.

You've misattributed my motivation, repeatedly. Why not believe me when I tell you what my motivations are? As for these being lame rebuttals? No, they are not lame. You don't have an answer for them. Big difference.

[Adrift]

You... don't see any association between your hypothetical of shooting alcoholics in the head and what is going on in the Philippines with doing the same thing to drug addicts?

Mmm, no. Not really. What he is doing is, in fact, insane. If you suggested that we "hypothetically" started doing the same in the US, people would think that you lost your damn mind. So, I suppose if you brought him up to support my point, then you succeeded, but I don't think that's what you intended.

I make arguments concerning the world we live in. I make hypotheticals for the worlds we don't.

Re the bolded part. Why do you think there is a connection there? There isn't one. Hypothetically, what if we banned all languages but X, what would that do to the world? That, in no way, means that I want to ban all other languages. You have your wires crossed.

Again, you're not a complete imbecile, so clearly you know the reason why people make hypotheticals. Serious hypotheticals (as opposed to just...you know, saying something goofy cause you're just kidding around, or looking to get a rise out of someone), are typically suggested with the idea that they could be worked into the real world. Some hypotheticals, shooting addicts in the head to stop their addiction, drowning children to keep them from crying, giving child porn to a pedophiles in the hopes it will curb pedophilia is SO INSANE that no matter how often you repeat the mantra "it's only a hypothetical, it's only a hypothetical, it's only a hypothetical" will rightly have people looking at you like you are completely deranged. This is obvious stuff Jaecp. I'm not telling you something that only a small cabal of religious nuts on Theologyweb thinks. This is how real world people think of people like you who are so out in left field that you think what you're saying is...normal. It's not. Are you really this out of touch? Really? Put it to a test. Suggest your hypothetical at your next town meeting. Film it and let us know how it goes.

Well aint you a polymath

Huh? Dude, these are really lame burns. Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

You've misattributed my motivation, repeatedly. Why not believe me when I tell you what my motivations are? As for these being lame rebuttals? No, they are not lame. You don't have an answer for them. Big difference.

Oh okay then.

[rogue06]

Weird... I don't think I showered even once at school ever. Also most showers in my country have individual cubicles, so it wouldn't be a problem even so.

I think the girls were like that but not the boys

[rogue06]

Where I went to school, and that was in different parts of the country, they didn't, and to my knowledge still don't, even have shower facilities until high school.

Both the Junior High I went to in Maryland and in Georgia had showers.

[rogue06]

First you support infanticide, then you support offering pedophiles pedophile porn, and now you're lamenting that "US conservatives" aren't allowing their children, very young boys and girls, examine one another naked in public; Prudish for explaining to their small children the differences between sexual genitalia at home, rather than in a public school. No one here is against sex education. That's just something you made up, but there is obviously a place and time, and teaching it to four year olds in public schools by having them disrobe in front of one another isn't it.

You keep using the word "bizarre" totally unaware that you are the one that is bizarre. I guarantee that if you made public all of these slimy and creepy views you express on this forum in public in your home town, you'd be tarred and feathered. There is something very wrong with you. Something very broke. And you think it's normal, liberating even. It's not normal, it's not liberating. It's corrupt.

That reminds me of a Sci-Fi book I read many years ago where the younger brother of the main character cautioned him as he was about to head off to a large cosmopolitan city to be careful not to confuse being a degenerate with being sophisticated.

[seer]

Good idea, let's start calling those who support transgenderism "biology deniers."

but also guilty of rejecting the entire field of science known as biology.

. They are biology deniers

[Starlight]

Prudish for explaining to their small children the differences between sexual genitalia at home, rather than in a public school. No one here is against sex education.

Absolutely they are against informing children. That is why they are against sex education at school, because they are afraid the children will receive information and knowledge, aka education. They would prefer it be done in the home, so that they can turn the information tap almost completely off and only let a few drips through. And because they're so self-centered, they don't even consider other people, so they only think about what a great job they personally would do telling their children about these things, and never consider the fact that most other parents would do a terrible terrible job, and that if it's done in the home and not at school then most parents would be too embarrassed to even mention the topic, and sex education would be wildly uneven and generally lacking and not meet any sort of standards for consistency or quality of information.

I guarantee that if you made public all of these slimy and creepy views you express on this forum in public in your home town, you'd be tarred and feathered.

?
I posted recently in a small local facebook group asking about thoughts on being flexible with the age of abortion to after birth. I got 3 thumbs up, and none of the other emoji responses, and no comments. Not a tar or feather to be seen.

I'm quite sure I could write an entire article on the hypothetical question of "would access to child porn help pedophiles?" and submit it to the local news site, without problem, because they have had lots of articles about pedophiles and the problems our system has been having dealing with them (the government has had to pass special laws to allow indefinite incarceration of an extreme repeat sex offender because he poses such a severe continuous danger to others... in general sentences here for crimes are pretty light (think about 10x shorter than the US) so that's controversial). Normally the comments on the news site are fairly toxic, on par with youtube, but I think on the whole they would be positive about such a thought experiment.

Sex-education likewise has had a few articles over the years discussing the topic. One article a year ago was parents whining that their children had gotten too much education because the teacher had dared allowed the students to submit questions and then answer them, and that parents hadn't been there to put the hands over the ears of their little darlings and save them from education and knowledge. My friends mocked them on facebook.

There is something very wrong with you. Something very broke. And you think it's normal, liberating even. It's not normal, it's not liberating. It's corrupt.

It's just you. You're pretty weird.

[Bill the Cat]

Absolutely they are against informing children. That is why they are against sex education at school, because they are afraid the children will receive information and knowledge, aka education. They would prefer it be done in the home, so that they can turn the information tap almost completely off and only let a few drips through. And because they're so self-centered, they don't even consider other people, so they only think about what a great job they personally would do telling their children about these things, and never consider the fact that most other parents would do a terrible terrible job, and that if it's done in the home and not at school then most parents would be too embarrassed to even mention the topic, and sex education would be wildly uneven and generally lacking and not meet any sort of standards for consistency or quality of information.

You're an idiot. My kids learned at the appropriate time from me and my wife and they are doing great. Healthy adults who know what sex is and what it isn't.

[Adrift]

Absolutely they are against informing children. That is why they are against sex education at school, because they are afraid the children will receive information and knowledge, aka education. They would prefer it be done in the home, so that they can turn the information tap almost completely off and only let a few drips through. And because they're so self-centered, they don't even consider other people, so they only think about what a great job they personally would do telling their children about these things, and never consider the fact that most other parents would do a terrible terrible job, and that if it's done in the home and not at school then most parents would be too embarrassed to even mention the topic, and sex education would be wildly uneven and generally lacking and not meet any sort of standards for consistency or quality of information.

?
I posted recently in a small local facebook group asking about thoughts on being flexible with the age of abortion to after birth. I got 3 thumbs up, and none of the other emoji responses, and no comments. Not a tar or feather to be seen.

I'm quite sure I could write an entire article on the hypothetical question of "would access to child porn help pedophiles?" and submit it to the local news site, without problem, because they have had lots of articles about pedophiles and the problems our system has been having dealing with them (the government has had to pass special laws to allow indefinite incarceration of an extreme repeat sex offender because he poses such a severe continuous danger to others... in general sentences here for crimes are pretty light (think about 10x shorter than the US) so that's controversial). Normally the comments on the news site are fairly toxic, on par with youtube, but I think on the whole they would be positive about such a thought experiment.

Sex-education likewise has had a few articles over the years discussing the topic. One article a year ago was parents whining that their children had gotten too much education because the teacher had dared allowed the students to submit questions and then answer them, and that parents hadn't been there to put the hands over the ears of their little darlings and save them from education and knowledge. My friends mocked them on facebook.

It's just you. You're pretty weird.

You are absolutely and completely deluded. Seriously. You live in your own personal lala-land.

[rogue06]

You are absolutely and completely deluded. Seriously. You live in your own personal lala-land toxic swamp.

FIFY n/c

[Starlight]

You are absolutely and completely deluded. Seriously. You live in your own personal lala-land.

That describes you well.

[Sea of red]

I'm aware of what the current president is doing there. Whatever goofy point you're trying to make doesn't work. In fact, it works against you. What he is doing to addicts is, in fact, insane.



So are you going to answer Sparko's question? "So you think it is really a bad idea then, in reality, right?" If so, then why even suggest the hypothetical? If not, then why suggest a hypothetical if you don't think it should seriously be implemented in your community? Why am I having to even having to explain this to you? Again, you're not a complete imbecile, so I can only conclude that you're desperately attempting to save face somehow at this point.



Yes, I am aware its an actual emergency medical technique. It's not nearly comparable to offering pedophiles pedophile porn or shooting alcoholics in the head to stop them from drinking. Again, whatever point you think you're making, it's not working.



These are really lame rebuttals man. Really lame. Most of this was already covered in the previous thread, and all of it should have been considered before you even made you're stupid hypothetical. I mean, maybe this all sounds clever in your head, but trust me, you're coming off as a total heel. Seriously. And I have no issues with debate on the forum, that obviously wasn't my point. My point was that when that's the ONLY thing you're here for, it just says a lot about your character, and your motivation for posting.

Didn't you say you wish you could reach through the computer screen to punch him in the mouth? I can't believe you didn't get thrown off the forum for that.

And he's a tiger tank anyways, so you'd eat your teeth.