Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Strike

Apparently pre-pubescent pedophilia is ok as long as you don't give the victim quaaludes beforehand

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Puts me in mind of the secene from Rudy where O'Hara loses his siuff.  "You just siummed up your entire sorry carrer here"

I don’t get the nuance. Please explain it to a  meek summer school scholar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GutterBoy said:

Well I applaud the effort, and I have a better understanding of why you would think that I defend pedos.  Despite the fact that I am stating right now, that I do not defend pedos, you still think that I do, because I defend people that you think are pedos.

I openly defend trannies.  You think trannies are pedos.  Therefore in your mind, using the TRANSitive property, you think I defend pedos.

Well, there is nothing I can do about that, but let's just be clear, this is all your opinion here, and of course you have the right to your opinion, however misguided that opinion may be.

I like and appreciate this guy's perspective and honesty, even if I don't like drag at all. He acknowledges that this drag stuff is an adult activity for adults and doesn't like being lumped in with the pedos. This ought to obvious to everyone but somehow you just can't see it.

So here we have a drag queen that is not a pedo. "Keep your kids away, this is for adults." Nice message. It's not the drag that makes people a pedo, it's by involving kids in their sex fantasies that make them pedos: The pedos are the ones that target kids, not this guy. He can go to his tranny club and do his tranny things without involving kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

I like and appreciate this guy's perspective and honesty, even if I don't like drag at all. He acknowledges that this drag stuff is an adult thing for adults and doesn't like being lumped in with the pedos. This ought to obvious to everyone but somehow you just can't see it.

So here we have a drag queen that is not a pedo. "Keep your kids away, this is for adults." Nice message. The ones that target kids and want to involve kids ARE pedos.

I agree with you that anyone, including drag queens and trannies, who target children for sexual activity is a pedophile. But there are two caveats to your statement: 

1. There is no reason to believe that drag queens or trannies or homosexuals engage in this type of thing at a greater rate than do heterosexuals. 
 

2. I don’t believe that activity which I personally consider harmless, such as a drag queen reading stories to young children at school, is a threat to those children or in any way pedophilia. So I have to question your use of the word “involve”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Your screen name is half apt.   You have the posterior of a horse well represented.

Hilarious.

The fact that if I get pulled over in my car after a couple drinks might result in charges and punishments equal or worse than if I get caught fondling a ten year old girl is an interesting discussion to have.  The difference in charges and punishment for raping a 11 year old versus a 9 year old isn't that interesting.  90%+ of the country and most State's laws agree and don't make the distinction.  Maybe you can explain why you think it is worth a discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure sex with a 9 vs 11 year old wasn't the nuance some people were referring to.  Lol.  This place is funny.   

Maybe Tim, but not others. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

Tim, I said I agree on your larger point, but for some unknown reason you used an example that was quite extreme (Page and a 13yo), and then keep coming back to it not being rape.   

If only there was a term for it - oh yeah, statutory rape.

You put your foot in your mouth bigly, and are now spinning your wheels a bit.     

Can any of you guys remember what you said on a subject the day before?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Pretty sure sex with a 9 vs 11 year old wasn't the nuance some people were referring to.  Lol.  This place is funny.   

Maybe Tim, but not others. 

Yeah maybe not me either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

Pretty sure sex with a 9 vs 11 year old wasn't the nuance some people were referring to.  Lol.  This place is funny.   

Maybe Tim, but not others. 

12 vs 8?

No?  Ok, 13 vs 7?  Because those are the numbers that were actually being discussed.  You know, as long as the 13 year old has a body of a 20 year old. 

I think now maybe I've illustrated the point well enough you're picking up on it.  There isn't any reason to draw an arbitrary line different than what already exists in your State's law unless you have ulterior motives.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Horseman said:

12 vs 8?

No?  Ok, 13 vs 7?  Because those are the numbers that were actually being discussed.  You know, as long as the 13 year old has a body of a 20 year old. 

I think now maybe I've illustrated the point well enough you're picking up on it.  There isn't any reason to draw an arbitrary line different than what already exists in your State's law unless you have ulterior motives.   

 

The legal age is 18. So how about 17 vs 8? Are those equally bad in your eyes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The legal age is 18. So how about 17 vs 8? Are those equally bad in your eyes? 

Depends on the age and position of the perp. A 19 year old college kid? Yeah, that’s different than a 40 year old teacher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Horseman said:

12 vs 8?

No?  Ok, 13 vs 7?  Because those are the numbers that were actually being discussed.  You know, as long as the 13 year old has a body of a 20 year old. 

I think now maybe I've illustrated the point well enough you're picking up on it.  There isn't any reason to draw an arbitrary line different than what already exists in your State's law unless you have ulterior motives.   

 

And had Tim been attempting to draw a legal line or to have advocated for one instead of making a point about relative revulsion, you may have a point.  Since that was not what he was doing, you don't.

 

If I made the point that an assult on a 100 year-old is more reprehensible to me than an equal,assualt on a 65 year old that is not advocacy for legislation differentiating classes of assault on the elderly, it is a simple observation.    A statement of personal reaction to an event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is it? It’s awful, for sure. It’s illegal and should be. Anyone caught doing it should go to prison for sure. 
But is it rape? The same as forcing somebody to have sex against their will? I’m not going there. You can if you want. 

You guys need to stay on track.  This is Scumschochet's post.  Do not let Tim or his enabler, World Salad George, try to obscure the post under critique (I realize this isn't the only one), by shifting the parameters of hypotheticals.  Above is what the guy posted (and there's more).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

You guys need to stay on track.  This is Scumschochet's post.  Do not let Tim or his enabler, World Salad George, try to obscure the post under critique (I realize this isn't the only one), by shifting the parameters of hypotheticals.  Above is what the guy posted (and there's more).

World Salad.  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

And had Tim been attempting to draw a legal line or to have advocated for one instead of making a point about relative revulsion, you may have a point.  Since that was not what he was doing, you don't.

 

If I made the point that an assult on a 100 year-old is more reprehensible to me than an equal,assualt on a 65 year old that is not advocacy for legislation differentiating classes of assault on the elderly, it is a simple observation.    A statement of personal reaction to an event.

Still entirely unconvincing, Professor.  I know you think you're the brightest bulb here, but that wasn't what Tim was doing as Strike and others pointed out.  See my post above for another example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

Still entirely unconvincing, Professor.  I know you think you're the brightest bulb here, but that wasn't what Tim was doing as Strike and others pointed out.  See my post above for another example.

What specifically did I write that you take objection to? In your mind is there no moral difference between statutory rape and rape? Both are crimes but are they the same? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Horseman said:

 unless you have ulterior motives.   

 

Also want to address this since I am the main target of this thread. 
 

I’ve never in my life had sex with anyone under the age of 21. Nor do I desire to now. All of my comments on this and other related issues are purely theoretical. I have no personal interest. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Real timschochet said:

What specifically did I write that you take objection to? In your mind is there no moral difference between statutory rape and rape? Both are crimes but are they the same? 

I pretty much take objection to everything you post.  For the post above, trying to draw a distinction between forcible rape and drugged sex with a 13 year old is evidence of a depraved mind.  You posted plenty more that is objectionable too.  You don't seem to understand that and you are not remorseful either.  Don't play the "show me what you disagree with" or "show me the post" game with me either.  You've posted sick stuff all over this thread.  Your wingmen aren't doing a good job trying to distract, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Also want to address this since I am the main target of this thread. 
 

I’ve never in my life had sex with anyone under the age of 21. Nor do I desire to now. All of my comments on this and other related issues are purely theoretical. I have no personal interest. 

 

Neither were they purely theoretical.  Polanski actually raped the 13 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

Neither were they purely theoretical.  Polanski actually raped the 13 year old.

Yes he did. My comments about it took place decades afterward, and were in the context of a much larger discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Yes he did. My comments about it took place decades afterward, and were in the context of a much larger discussion. 

No they weren't.  Strike quoted your post and ably commented on your post at the head of this thread.  Stop lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is proof of the slippery slope of immoral degradation. If you think it’s ok for teachers to talk about sex and gender issues with elementary school kids and that a minor should be allowed to get a sex change operation, is it so far out of the realm to think that there are distinctions when it comes to a child being raped? It all stems from the same disgusting mindset. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

Still entirely unconvincing, Professor.  I know you think you're the brightest bulb here, but that wasn't what Tim was doing as Strike and others pointed out.  See my post above for another example.

i have no desire to disabuse you of your notions.  I don't waste time trying to teach clams to play the piano and educating you appears to be as fruitless a task.  As to whether I am the brightest bulb here I have never made such a claim.  I only assert I am magnitudes brighter than you and perhaps a few others, though I have not made a list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Engorgeous George said:

i have no desire to disabuse you of your notions.  I don't waste time trying to teach clams to play the piano and educating you appears to be as fruitless a task.  As to whether I am the brightest buldb here I have never made such a claim.  I only assert I am magnitudes brighter than you and perhaps a few others, though I have not made a list.

Good, can you shut the fock up now?  If you actually speak to people like this in daily life, they're going to think you're a pretentious douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

I pretty much take objection to everything you post.  For the post above, trying to draw a distinction between forcible rape and drugged sex with a 13 year old is evidence of a depraved mind.  You posted plenty more that is objectionable too.  You don't seem to understand that and you are not remorseful either.  Don't play the "show me what you disagree with" or "show me the post" game with me either.  You've posted sick stuff all over this thread.  Your wingmen aren't doing a good job trying to distract, either.

You didn’t answer any of my questions. And I have no interest in trying to distract you. Let me go directly to your point: you are accusing me of claiming that it’s OK what Polanski did. I don’t think it was. Years ago, not fully understanding the situation I wrote that it wasn’t as bad as certain other more reprehensible acts. That was wrong; I regret those statements, and I apologized for them. I don’t apologize, however, for pointing out a moral difference, IN GENERAL, between statutory rape and rape, and for pointing out, IN GENERAL, a moral difference between sex with a young child and sex with an older teenager with the physical attributes of an adult. Everything I just described is wrong, but not equally wrong. IMO. Of course others are free to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is it? It’s awful, for sure. It’s illegal and should be. Anyone caught doing it should go to prison for sure. 
But is it rape? The same as forcing somebody to have sex against their will? I’m not going there. You can if you want. 

I'm putting this back up again for Scumschochet to try to defend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Casual Observer said:

Good, can you shut the fock up now?  If you actually speak to people like this in daily life, they're going to think you're a pretentious douche.

It would be rude of me to not respond when you are the one who sought out engagement with me.  As for whether dullards find me pretentious, I don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Casual Observer said:

I'm putting this back up again for Scumschochet to try to defend.

I have nothing to defend. There is a moral difference between statutory rape and rape, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This is proof of the slippery slope of immoral degradation. If you think it’s ok for teachers to talk about sex and gender issues with elementary school kids and that a minor should be allowed to get a sex change operation, is it so far out of the realm to think that there are distinctions when it comes to a child being raped? It all stems from the same disgusting mindset. 

I hope Tim never stops posting here.  It’s daily affirmation of the existence of morally corrupt people and to always expect the unexpected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Real timschochet said:

You didn’t answer any of my questions. And I have no interest in trying to distract you. Let me go directly to your point: you are accusing me of claiming that it’s OK what Polanski did. I don’t think it was. Years ago, not fully understanding the situation I wrote that it wasn’t as bad as certain other more reprehensible acts. That was wrong; I regret those statements, and I apologized for them. I don’t apologize, however, for pointing out a moral difference, IN GENERAL, between statutory rape and rape, and for pointing out, IN GENERAL, a moral difference between sex with a young child and sex with an older teenager with the physical attributes of an adult. Everything I just described is wrong, but not equally wrong. IMO. Of course others are free to disagree. 

I'm not here to answer your questions.  I started reading the thread and reacted.  Again, since you don't want to accept it, those that would try to make moral distinctions on these varieties of rape, or to try and minimize drugging and raping a 13 year old are viewed as scumbags by me and others.  That's because there is no beneficial discussion to be had on any alleged differences between them.  Backpeddling and trying to explain things away isn't helping.  You look like a disingenuous scumbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

You didn’t answer any of my questions. And I have no interest in trying to distract you. Let me go directly to your point: you are accusing me of claiming that it’s OK what Polanski did. I don’t think it was. Years ago, not fully understanding the situation I wrote that it wasn’t as bad as certain other more reprehensible acts. That was wrong; I regret those statements, and I apologized for them. I don’t apologize, however, for pointing out a moral difference, IN GENERAL, between statutory rape and rape, and for pointing out, IN GENERAL, a moral difference between sex with a young child and sex with an older teenager with the physical attributes of an adult. Everything I just described is wrong, but not equally wrong. IMO. Of course others are free to disagree. 

Why do you think statutory rape is a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

I hope Tim never stops posting here.  It’s daily affirmation of the existence of morally corrupt people and to always expect the unexpected.

One of Dalton's rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Casual Observer said:

I'm not here to answer your questions.  I started reading the thread and reacted.  Again, since you don't want to accept it, those that would try to make moral distinctions on these varieties of rape, or to try and minimize drugging and raping a 13 year old are viewed as scumbags by me and others.  That's because there is no beneficial discussion to be had on any alleged differences between them.  Backpeddling and trying to explain things away isn't helping.  You look like a disingenuous scumbag.

I‘m sure you’re convinced of that. But there has been no backpedaling and no disingenuousness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fireballer said:

Why do you think statutory rape is a crime?

Because it’s wrong to have sex with minors, they lack the maturity to make such decisions. Therefore it’s technically a form of rape, and rightfully should be prohibited by law. 
 

It is not, however, on the same moral level as forcible rape. And I think the law recognizes this as well since the punishment for each is quite different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have nothing to defend. There is a moral difference between statutory rape and rape, IMO. 

You mean you can't defend the comments.  You've been trying to backpedal all day.  You guys are all the same; make some scummy comment, get lambasted and then come back and say "Of course I am totally against _______________.  I was just trying to say __________________."  That's enough of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Because it’s wrong to have sex with minors, they lack the maturity to make such decisions. Therefore it’s technically a form of rape, and rightfully should be prohibited by law. 
 

It is not, however, on the same moral level as forcible rape. And I think the law recognizes this as well since the punishment for each is quite different. 

It’s not shocking that you know why it’s a crime, yet you have continued to bring up “physical attributes of an adult” qualifier of why it’s not as bad.  It’s just more proof that you are morally corrupt.  
And as you previously stated, no one thinks your politics drive your stance on this.  It’s the opposite...your morality draws you to the dark side of liberalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have nothing to defend. There is a moral difference between statutory rape and rape, IMO. 

What is that moral difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

What is that moral difference? 

It’s obvious by his posts that the more like an adult the victim looks, it lessens the severity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

And had Tim been attempting to draw a legal line or to have advocated for one instead of making a point about relative revulsion, you may have a point.  Since that was not what he was doing, you don't.

 

If I made the point that an assult on a 100 year-old is more reprehensible to me than an equal,assualt on a 65 year old that is not advocacy for legislation differentiating classes of assault on the elderly, it is a simple observation.    A statement of personal reaction to an event.

Yes I do. Ulterior motive.

The discussion Tim was having wasn't about "personal reaction".  Don't worry, it's normal to try and frame it differently when you start to loose as I noticed you didn't attempt to explain in your words why raping a 9 year old vs. an 11 year old is a worthy discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

The legal age is 18. So how about 17 vs 8? Are those equally bad in your eyes? 

Try reading California State statute on the issue and you'll see they accounted for 17 year old's and then get back to us.  That's another problem you have, injecting your own belief systems to supersede society when it's not warranted.  Or perhaps you've trying to move the goal posts away from your sick comment about a 13 year old with a 20 year old body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Yes I do. Ulterior motive.

The discussion Tim was having wasn't about "personal reaction".  Don't worry, it's normal to try and frame it differently when you start to loose as I noticed you didn't attempt to explain in your words why raping a 9 year old vs. an 11 year old is a worthy discussion.

That you are not worth my time is not tantamount to me  losing.  As for loosing I am not sure what that is.  Probably a word filter feeding dullards employ.  Are you also a clam desiring piano lessons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×