Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
Of course I saw this coming...
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 


pinktricam


Oct 18, 2011, 10:20 PM
Post #1 of 25 (1424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Of course I saw this coming...
Report this Post
Can't Post

It's that "slippery slope" most of you are in denial of:

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

The Greeley Gazette wrote:
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.


blondgecko
Moderator

Oct 19, 2011, 2:20 AM
Post #2 of 25 (1360 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
It's that "slippery slope" most of you are in denial of:

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

The Greeley Gazette wrote:
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Y'know, this post says a lot about you.

It says that you consider child rape to be morally equivalent to consensual sexual activity between loving adults.

It says that to you, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is harmed. All that matters is whether your imaginary friend says it's bad.

It suggests rather strongly that you don't care one whit about protecting innocents - you just care about control.

Honestly, that article is scraping the bottom of the barrel - even for you.


pinktricam


Oct 19, 2011, 2:25 AM
Post #3 of 25 (1357 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [blondgecko] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

You really know little of that which you speak...very little.


blondgecko
Moderator

Oct 19, 2011, 2:43 AM
Post #4 of 25 (1352 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Heh. I love irony. Smile


robbovius


Oct 19, 2011, 5:03 AM
Post #5 of 25 (1333 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8400

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
It's that "slippery slope" most of you are in denial of:

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

The Greeley Gazette wrote:
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.


Jesus thinks you're a jerk.


Partner rrrADAM


Oct 19, 2011, 5:30 AM
Post #6 of 25 (1328 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

So... Mary was 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that either Joseph or God impregnated a 12-13 year old GIRL.

So, would that be Holy Pediphile?


Ask yourself for a moment, Eric... Do you see a problem with a 12 or 13 year old girl being impregnated, especially one who isn't even married? You do don't you, but NOT in that case.


If anything, they should argue it on religious grounds, and cite relevant scripture and history. Oh, wait, RNJ's already do this.


pinktricam


Oct 19, 2011, 6:07 AM
Post #7 of 25 (1325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [robbovius] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?


lena_chita
Moderator

Oct 19, 2011, 7:12 AM
Post #8 of 25 (1317 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5462

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

You have very limited (and predictable) imagination.

Yep, homosexual --> pedophile --> bestiality. The OBVIOUS line of slippery slope progression! how could we not see it coming?!

Just curious, where is group sex orgy on that line? before or after bestiality?


camhead


Oct 19, 2011, 7:49 AM
Post #9 of 25 (1308 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [lena_chita] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Did anyone read the article? Nowhere did it say, "Pedophiles are demanding the right to sleep with kids."

All it says is that groups like the APA are beginning to see pedophilia as an inherent, ingrained, sexual orientation. Some people are simply attracted to kids. Duh.

Although the writer of the article is clearly intending to push buttons and make PTC think that a pedo-march on washington is right aorund the corner, and that within ten years kids are going to be getting fucked left and right, none of his facts or quotes actually indicate that.


Even at the end of the article, where he tries to make the claim that "Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states," it turns out that he's actually just referring to challenges towards laws requiring peds from living near schools.

In other words, show me in that article where Pedophile Rights activists are saying, "let us have sex with kids who can't legally or rationally give consent, NOW!"

Otherwise, STFU.


pinktricam


Oct 19, 2011, 7:54 AM
Post #10 of 25 (1301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947

Re: [lena_chita] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

You have very limited (and predictable) imagination.

Really?

...or maybe you have a very limited perception of tongue in cheek.


chadnsc


Oct 19, 2011, 8:29 AM
Post #11 of 25 (1285 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

I'm very disappointed in you PTC. You've done much better in the past and I feel that as of late your trolls have gotten sloppy.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 19, 2011, 9:41 AM
Post #12 of 25 (1272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [rrrADAM] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
So... Mary was 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that either Joseph or God impregnated a 12-13 year old GIRL.

So, would that be Holy Pediphile?


Ask yourself for a moment, Eric... Do you see a problem with a 12 or 13 year old girl being impregnated, especially one who isn't even married? You do don't you, but NOT in that case.


If anything, they should argue it on religious grounds, and cite relevant scripture and history. Oh, wait, RNJ's already do this.

Big deal, Muhammad married a 9 year old.


petsfed


Oct 19, 2011, 10:02 AM
Post #13 of 25 (1266 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 8585

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

On the one hand, I agree that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is challenging the notion of "deviant" sexual preference. On the other hand, rape is rape, whether its man-on-woman, man-on-horse, woman-on-child, etc.

I don't see why adults attracted to children should be any different from any other fetishist that (due to natural, human, or federal laws) can never practice their peculiar perversion. Provided that modes of sexual release that don't violate those laws still actually provide release, then there's no harm done. Hell, there are rape fetishists who can get by by imagining that their entirely consensual encounter was nothing of the sort. I would wager that there are a great many non-practicing pedophiles than we really recognize (or admit), who get by via fantasy scenarios with legal, consenting partners.

Sure its creepy, but the point is that there are legal, non-exploitative, rationally-consenting outlets for these people already. The critical difference between two women marrying and between a 35 year old man and an 8 year old girl marrying is that in the former case, both members can sign the marriage license and it becomes a binding agreement. In the latter case, no matter how much that 8 year old professes her love and willingness to marry, in the eyes of the law she is incapable of consenting to that agreement.

This is also why inter-species marriage (eg man-horse) can not exist without a massive overhaul of contract law.


lena_chita
Moderator

Oct 19, 2011, 10:14 AM
Post #14 of 25 (1261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 5462

Re: [camhead] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Did anyone read the article? Nowhere did it say, "Pedophiles are demanding the right to sleep with kids."

All it says is that groups like the APA are beginning to see pedophilia as an inherent, ingrained, sexual orientation. Some people are simply attracted to kids. Duh.

Although the writer of the article is clearly intending to push buttons and make PTC think that a pedo-march on washington is right aorund the corner, and that within ten years kids are going to be getting fucked left and right, none of his facts or quotes actually indicate that.


Even at the end of the article, where he tries to make the claim that "Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states," it turns out that he's actually just referring to challenges towards laws requiring peds from living near schools.

In other words, show me in that article where Pedophile Rights activists are saying, "let us have sex with kids who can't legally or rationally give consent, NOW!"

Otherwise, STFU.

Yeah, I did read it. It just seemed like too much trouble to make a reasoned response to such nonsense. You did it well though.


Partner rrrADAM


Oct 19, 2011, 11:29 AM
Post #15 of 25 (1247 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17543

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
So... Mary was 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that either Joseph or God impregnated a 12-13 year old GIRL.

So, would that be Holy Pediphile?


Ask yourself for a moment, Eric... Do you see a problem with a 12 or 13 year old girl being impregnated, especially one who isn't even married? You do don't you, but NOT in that case.


If anything, they should argue it on religious grounds, and cite relevant scripture and history. Oh, wait, RNJ's already do this.

Big deal, Muhammad married a 9 year old.

True, but he didn't consumate it until much later.


Partner macherry


Oct 19, 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #16 of 25 (1240 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15774

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?


oh for fuck sakes


Partner macherry


Oct 19, 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #17 of 25 (1239 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15774

Re: [lena_chita] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
camhead wrote:
Did anyone read the article? Nowhere did it say, "Pedophiles are demanding the right to sleep with kids."

All it says is that groups like the APA are beginning to see pedophilia as an inherent, ingrained, sexual orientation. Some people are simply attracted to kids. Duh.

Although the writer of the article is clearly intending to push buttons and make PTC think that a pedo-march on washington is right aorund the corner, and that within ten years kids are going to be getting fucked left and right, none of his facts or quotes actually indicate that.


Even at the end of the article, where he tries to make the claim that "Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states," it turns out that he's actually just referring to challenges towards laws requiring peds from living near schools.

In other words, show me in that article where Pedophile Rights activists are saying, "let us have sex with kids who can't legally or rationally give consent, NOW!"

Otherwise, STFU.

Yeah, I did read it. It just seemed like too much trouble to make a reasoned response to such nonsense. You did it well though.

+1


iknowfear


Oct 19, 2011, 12:19 PM
Post #18 of 25 (1230 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2004
Posts: 633

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

But of course!

SEX WITH DUCKS!


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 19, 2011, 12:29 PM
Post #19 of 25 (1227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [rrrADAM] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

rrrADAM wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
rrrADAM wrote:
So... Mary was 13-14 when she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that either Joseph or God impregnated a 12-13 year old GIRL.

So, would that be Holy Pediphile?


Ask yourself for a moment, Eric... Do you see a problem with a 12 or 13 year old girl being impregnated, especially one who isn't even married? You do don't you, but NOT in that case.


If anything, they should argue it on religious grounds, and cite relevant scripture and history. Oh, wait, RNJ's already do this.

Big deal, Muhammad married a 9 year old.

True, but he didn't consumate it until much later.
Per wikipedia, and we know it is never wrong, Aisha was betrothed at 6 or 7 and the marriage consummated at 9 or 10.


Rufsen


Oct 19, 2011, 12:34 PM
Post #20 of 25 (1224 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2008
Posts: 126

Re: [pinktricam] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyLGrbKokI


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 19, 2011, 12:54 PM
Post #21 of 25 (1216 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [macherry] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
lena_chita wrote:
camhead wrote:
Did anyone read the article? Nowhere did it say, "Pedophiles are demanding the right to sleep with kids."

All it says is that groups like the APA are beginning to see pedophilia as an inherent, ingrained, sexual orientation. Some people are simply attracted to kids. Duh.

Although the writer of the article is clearly intending to push buttons and make PTC think that a pedo-march on washington is right aorund the corner, and that within ten years kids are going to be getting fucked left and right, none of his facts or quotes actually indicate that.


Even at the end of the article, where he tries to make the claim that "Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states," it turns out that he's actually just referring to challenges towards laws requiring peds from living near schools.

In other words, show me in that article where Pedophile Rights activists are saying, "let us have sex with kids who can't legally or rationally give consent, NOW!"

Otherwise, STFU.

Yeah, I did read it. It just seemed like too much trouble to make a reasoned response to such nonsense. You did it well though.

+1

Cammie nailed it.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Oct 19, 2011, 1:03 PM
Post #22 of 25 (1209 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [iknowfear] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

But of course!

SEX WITH DUCKS!

hew, I was afraid out was that song about anal pleasures of a large tropical drupe.


robbovius


Oct 19, 2011, 1:51 PM
Post #23 of 25 (1200 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8400

Re: [iknowfear] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

iknowfear wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

But of course!

SEX WITH DUCKS!

this party just took a turn for the douche.


dr_feelgood


Oct 30, 2011, 10:00 AM
Post #24 of 25 (1037 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 25627

Re: [blondgecko] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

blondgecko wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
It's that "slippery slope" most of you are in denial of:

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

The Greeley Gazette wrote:
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Y'know, this post says a lot about you.

It says that you consider child rape to be morally equivalent to consensual sexual activity between loving adults.

It says that to you, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is harmed. All that matters is whether your imaginary friend says it's bad.

It suggests rather strongly that you don't care one whit about protecting innocents - you just care about control.

Honestly, that article is scraping the bottom of the barrel - even for you.
Pinky being pinky.


superchuffer


Oct 31, 2011, 7:09 AM
Post #25 of 25 (1004 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2011
Posts: 294

Re: [lena_chita] Of course I saw this coming... [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

lena_chita wrote:
pinktricam wrote:
What next?

Wait for it...

Beastiality? Legalized beastiality?!?

You have very limited (and predictable) imagination.

Yep, homosexual --> pedophile --> bestiality. The OBVIOUS line of slippery slope progression! how could we not see it coming?!

Just curious, where is group sex orgy on that line? before or after bestiality?

homosexual --> pedophile --> bestiality....

..... Permadraws!


Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook