Secrets to Will Smith and Jada Pinkett happy marriage
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
never say never because things are changing.
Yeah, before you know it we'll start seeing people having sex with holes in the wall, or people having sex with the tail pipes of trucks, or people digging holes in the ground so they can f*ck the Earth. Yep, this whole gay sex can-o-worms is going to make everyone go insane with their sex drives... which reminds me, where's my dog? :rolleyes: Alvaro
Eat right.
Exercise.
Die anyway.Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Yeah, before you know it we'll start seeing people having sex with holes in the wall, or people having sex with the tail pipes of trucks, or people digging holes in the ground so they can f*ck the Earth. Yep, this whole gay sex can-o-worms is going to make everyone go insane with their sex drives... which reminds me, where's my dog?
Only time will tell, there are plenty of people out there who have sex with animals. It may be hard for you to accept but its true and it may very well become an accepted form of sex by a large number of people. I certainly hope I am wrong but you see it as impossible or whatever and that is just not true.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
leckey wrote:
Free speech needs to be protected even when you don't agree.
Freedom of expression. However child porn is illegal and for good reasons. Do you defend child porn, even if it is computer generated and no real children were filmed?
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
However child porn is illegal and for good reasons. Do you defend child porn, even if it is computer generated and no real children were filmed?
It's odd when the hypothetical ethics experiment becomes actually plausable, isn't it? Obviously, involving children in sexual acts is illegal due to it's general immorality in our society, not to mention the demonstrable mental carnage it causes in the exploited kids. You won't find many (or any at all...) outside NAMBLA that'd argue that sex with kids should be legal, much less considered moral. NAMBLA's continued existence is a perfect example of how very necessary life sentences are in our legal system. Wanting to have sex with kids isn't something someone just does for the hell of it - it's a life long, uncontrollable dysfunction. And it warrants removal from the general population, as far as I'm concerned. But if there is no child involved in the animated porn flic, even though it presents a fiction of such a thing, is it still immoral? And should it be illegal as well? I'd argue that it is immoral using the standards I've got for morality. Genuinely wanting something to happen is, in my mind, equivalent to taking action to make it happen. And I mean genuinely wanting it to happen, not just shouting out "I'm gonna kill you!" in a fit of anger. But being immoral isn't necessarily an indication that something should also be illegal. I'd consider it immoral to cheat on a spouse, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal, for instance. However, with child porn, and with pedophilia being what we know it is today, I can only see a direct link between the want to produce and consume child porn and the persistent, uncontrollable need to carry out the act in real life. I'd say that animated child porn like this should be illegal not because it's immoral to want to have sex with children, but because the want to produce and consume it is directly linked with carrying it out. It's illegality serves not as a means to punish an immoral thought, but as a means to remove the pedophile from society at large. I flatly dismiss arguments that claim that animated child porn could be an alternate form of release for pedophiles. That's 100% nonsense. If such an argument held water, we'd already have seen the end of breeding due to the vast amounts of regular porn on the net. How do you feel about porn regarding other highly immoral events like fake-rape porn, or fake snuff
-
"Look, I need to have sex with somebody" :laugh: Nothing like making the other person feel like you're really committed to them and will do anything in the world for them. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I reckon a step closer to making his wife feel like a Queen would be to say "Had I been single I would have liked to have had sex with that person but I'm not going to because I'm yours". Kinda easier and less painful than talking to Bruce and Demi for hours.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Nothing like making the other person feel like you're really committed to them and will do anything in the world for them. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I reckon a step closer to making his wife feel like a Queen would be to say "Had I been single I would have liked to have had sex with that person but I'm not going to because I'm yours". Kinda easier and less painful than talking to Bruce and Demi for hours.
:laugh::laugh:
John Carson
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
However child porn is illegal and for good reasons. Do you defend child porn, even if it is computer generated and no real children were filmed?
It's odd when the hypothetical ethics experiment becomes actually plausable, isn't it? Obviously, involving children in sexual acts is illegal due to it's general immorality in our society, not to mention the demonstrable mental carnage it causes in the exploited kids. You won't find many (or any at all...) outside NAMBLA that'd argue that sex with kids should be legal, much less considered moral. NAMBLA's continued existence is a perfect example of how very necessary life sentences are in our legal system. Wanting to have sex with kids isn't something someone just does for the hell of it - it's a life long, uncontrollable dysfunction. And it warrants removal from the general population, as far as I'm concerned. But if there is no child involved in the animated porn flic, even though it presents a fiction of such a thing, is it still immoral? And should it be illegal as well? I'd argue that it is immoral using the standards I've got for morality. Genuinely wanting something to happen is, in my mind, equivalent to taking action to make it happen. And I mean genuinely wanting it to happen, not just shouting out "I'm gonna kill you!" in a fit of anger. But being immoral isn't necessarily an indication that something should also be illegal. I'd consider it immoral to cheat on a spouse, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal, for instance. However, with child porn, and with pedophilia being what we know it is today, I can only see a direct link between the want to produce and consume child porn and the persistent, uncontrollable need to carry out the act in real life. I'd say that animated child porn like this should be illegal not because it's immoral to want to have sex with children, but because the want to produce and consume it is directly linked with carrying it out. It's illegality serves not as a means to punish an immoral thought, but as a means to remove the pedophile from society at large. I flatly dismiss arguments that claim that animated child porn could be an alternate form of release for pedophiles. That's 100% nonsense. If such an argument held water, we'd already have seen the end of breeding due to the vast amounts of regular porn on the net. How do you feel about porn regarding other highly immoral events like fake-rape porn, or fake snuff
Russell Morris wrote:
How do you feel about porn regarding other highly immoral events like fake-rape porn, or fake snuff films? Is there a slippery slope for them?
I don't really know, I think child porn or bestiality is more offensive.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Barring the reasons, what would you say if and when it does happen? Will you believe that the cause was due to this acceptance in the here and now or just how nature intended it to be?
It's very simple: it will never be accepted. Just because people have spent thousands of years persecuting, demonizing, or rejecting sex between people of the same gender doesn't mean that in a thousand years we will be accepting sex between humans and animals. It's just another slippery slope fallacy. Alvaro
Eat right.
Exercise.
Die anyway.I hope you're right. But humor me, worst case scenario it does happen? Don't tell me you can't accept it because it's impossible. It's not. If it is, there would be zero people doing it. So what would you say if the impossible happened? What would you blame it on?
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Possibly true too, but your way, according to those of us who also don't agree with your so-called "leftists", is also extreme. If I was made emperor of the world, I'd be what's best for it.
Not unless you consider how this country governed itself for the first 200 years or so to have been 'extreme'. If local communities still maintained their original power to define moral standards at the local level without the courts attacking them on bogus freedom of speech or separation of church and state charges, these sorts of excercises in pushing the moral envelope would never escape the depraved minds of their creators.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
See, but then you're saying that America has to be Christian and cannot condone other religions which goes against the Constitution. I still believe that there can be a happy medium between your philosophy and leftists that is not what centerist currently is.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
"Look, I need to have sex with somebody" :laugh: Nothing like making the other person feel like you're really committed to them and will do anything in the world for them. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I reckon a step closer to making his wife feel like a Queen would be to say "Had I been single I would have liked to have had sex with that person but I'm not going to because I'm yours". Kinda easier and less painful than talking to Bruce and Demi for hours.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Russell Morris wrote:
How do you feel about porn regarding other highly immoral events like fake-rape porn, or fake snuff films? Is there a slippery slope for them?
I don't really know, I think child porn or bestiality is more offensive.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
Captain See Sharp wrote:
I don't really know, I think child porn or bestiality is more offensive.
I'd personally put deriving sexual pleasure from brutal deaths at the top of my list of offensive porn. But that's not really the point - is the offensiveness of the porn causal for its illegalization, or is it simply correlational?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
See, but then you're saying that America has to be Christian and cannot condone other religions which goes against the Constitution. I still believe that there can be a happy medium between your philosophy and leftists that is not what centerist currently is.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
but then you're saying that America has to be Christian
No, you're saying it can be Christian.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
which goes against the Constitution
Only against modern extremist interpretations of the constitution.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I still believe that there can be a happy medium between your philosophy and leftists that is not what centerist currently is.
It isn't possible. Jeffersonian principles are first and foremost predicated upon making people independent of centrlized political systems. Leftist principles are predicated upon making them dependent upon centralized political systems. There is no happy medium. You have to be all of one or all of the other. You cannot be both dependent and independent at the same time.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
right up there with this [^] and this [^]
If you cant make a good movie make an offensive movie, nothing new in that, just people looking to make a buck out of something shit
System.IO.Path.IsPathRooted() does not behave as I would expect
Josh Gray wrote:
nothing new in that, just people looking to make a buck out of something sh*t
But always has an eirie way of predicting future public behavior. There is clearly a vicious cycle/positive feedback loop of some kind going on between the arts and real life.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
but then you're saying that America has to be Christian
No, you're saying it can be Christian.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
which goes against the Constitution
Only against modern extremist interpretations of the constitution.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I still believe that there can be a happy medium between your philosophy and leftists that is not what centerist currently is.
It isn't possible. Jeffersonian principles are first and foremost predicated upon making people independent of centrlized political systems. Leftist principles are predicated upon making them dependent upon centralized political systems. There is no happy medium. You have to be all of one or all of the other. You cannot be both dependent and independent at the same time.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, you're saying it can be Christian.
Actually, you're saying that, while the federal government has no such right, a community should be able to force -- or restrict -- its membership to white, Christian, straight...whatever they want. Maybe that would have worked in the more homogenous and less integrated society of 200 years ago, but not now, and not for the foreseeable future.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It isn't possible. Jeffersonian principles are first and foremost predicated upon making people independent of centrlized political systems. Leftist principles are predicated upon making them dependent upon centralized political systems. There is no happy medium. You have to be all of one or all of the other. You cannot be both dependent and independent at the same time.
That's absurd. Of course it's possible. We are dependent upon centralized government for defense, for example, but independent of it for worship. The areas in which we are or are not dependent are mutable, and arrived at by consensus. Your assertion that "there is no happy medium" only serves to mark you as an extremist.
-
I hope you're right. But humor me, worst case scenario it does happen? Don't tell me you can't accept it because it's impossible. It's not. If it is, there would be zero people doing it. So what would you say if the impossible happened? What would you blame it on?
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
So what would you say if the impossible happened? What would you blame it on?
1. Animals have evolved to the point where they can clearly express to humans their explicity desire to have sex with them, not just anything they can hump. 2. Humanity has gone insane. Alvaro
Eat right.
Exercise.
Die anyway. -
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
So what would you say if the impossible happened? What would you blame it on?
1. Animals have evolved to the point where they can clearly express to humans their explicity desire to have sex with them, not just anything they can hump. 2. Humanity has gone insane. Alvaro
Eat right.
Exercise.
Die anyway.