If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com) divider line 534
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7478 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-26 03:35:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

 

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.

If we are referring to the protestors sitting abreast the walkway- 1) they should have kept moving. I know it takes a little work to keep pumping those legs, but at least you're not intentionally blocking a route, no matter how easy you believe it is to just go arround you 2) they are seated abreast for maximum inconvenience so there is intent to obstruct a walkway. Otherwise, wouln't have been more fun just to sit in a circle and having staring contests when things got boring. They also had the option of sitting side by side along the direction of the path rather than perpendicular to it. Again indicates conspiracy to obstruct 3) they had the option to stand up an ...


The cops easily stepped over them several times before they were sprayed. Surely they were such an impassable obstacle.

The point of a protest is civil disobedience. They were being peaceful with their protest, and were attacked for it. I also doubt any of them wanted to be "famous", but people like you always feel the need to ascribe that to anyone who ends up in the news for any reason.
 
2012-08-26 03:37:13 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.

I love how people think that chidren and teenagers are completely naive, stupid, and helpless until they reach a magic number and suddenly magically become filled with wisdom, knowledge, and responsibility (for most things, they're still stupid baby children for alcohol and smoking until another magic number). You and your ilk are so concerned about the plights of near-adults that you can't see them as anything but frightened six-year-olds who need constant protection.

Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.


I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.
 
2012-08-26 03:42:50 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?


My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?
 
2012-08-26 03:44:04 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.


Please tell me how you rationalize a 56 year old man arranging a meeting with a 17 year old child for sex at a public toilet.

The man is a child molester.
 
2012-08-26 03:45:36 PM  

TV's Vinnie: randomjsa: While it may be true that what you describe has happened, the majority... the VAST majority... as in over 98%... of people getting dragged away in hand cuffs were the result of the protesters themselves following the age old idea of provoke a response, get a response, whine about the response. These events turn in to problems because the people who showed up at them came to create problems. They're not there to simply stand in an orderly fashion holding signs and following the rules, they're there to create as much chaos and trouble as they can, and then whine like small children when somebody tells them they can't.

[www.dtvusaforum.com image 300x300]
Please. Do go on.........


Is randomjsa going off on his Tienanmen Square rant again?
 
2012-08-26 03:45:44 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: gimmegimme: Lee Jackson Beauregard: clowncar on fire: Protest signs are a valid form of free speech unless you include any of Carlin's seven deadly words, pictures of guns and hang nooses, or out and out promises of threat.

[i860.photobucket.com image 236x300]

Shoot. I skipped that part of his stupidity. What about protestors who bring ACTUAL GUNS and other weapons in addition to simply bringing signs?

Look at all of these assholes who were undoubtedly pepper sprayed:

 

They weren't pepper sprayed because they weren't being purposefully antagonistic towards the police. They didn't hurl bags of poop or bottles, and they obeyed police orders.

How could the Irvine victims throw poop with their arms locked together?

I was responding to the photos of the teabaggers you posted, along with your comment about them not being pepper sprayed.

The Irvine protestors didn't throw poop, however they did block a walkway that students were trying to use and they were causing a safety hazard, and they did not comply with several requests to move from the walkway.

They were there on a day with no classes, and anyone who needed to get to the buildings could take three steps to the side and walk past on the grass.

If we are referring to the protestors sitting abreast the walkway- 1) they should have kept moving. I know it takes a little work to keep pumping those legs, but at least you're not intentionally blocking a route, no matter how easy you believe it is to just go arround you 2) they are seated abreast for maximum inconvenience so there is intent to obstruct a walkway. Otherwise, wouln't have been more fun just to sit in a circle and having staring contests when things got boring. They also had the option of sitting side by side along the direction of the path rather than perpendicular to it. Again indicates conspiracy to obstruct 3) they had the opt ...


I've got a couple of teens. it becomes blantantly obvious when they have a real cause and when they've degenerated into just making a pain in the ass of themselves. Until you live under the same roof with teens (other than as room mates), you probably wouldn't know this.

The difference is my kids are smart enough to go sulk elsewhere when they know they've crossed that line.

/never hit them
//seldom have to raise my voice with them
///have not even considered the pepper spray option after they turned 5
 
2012-08-26 03:45:58 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?


It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?
 
2012-08-26 03:47:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: The point of a protest is civil disobedience.


No, the point of a protest is the point they are trying to make. Civil disobedience is a method to make a point, but it is never the point itself.

It is possible to make a point without being difficult. Look at the Tea Party folks pictured above, they are carrying placards and making a point with which many may not agree, but we can respect they way the peacefully make their point.

Contrast that with the OWS, who may indeed have a valid point - assuming we could figure out what it is- but no one respects them because they dilute their message with their lawbreaking.
 
2012-08-26 03:48:42 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?


How can the victim of a sex crime be charged?
 
2012-08-26 03:49:08 PM  

feckingmorons: Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?


I agree. Our tax dollars pay for that public toilet. You want to bugger a child, you better do it at the Red Roof Inn.
 
2012-08-26 03:49:37 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished. The ostensibly responsible adult, in this case a disgusting pervert elected representative, who preys on children on the internet would be the one charged with a crime if Minnesota had laws that the majority of states have regarding child predation.

The laws you cite are exactly the reason old men should not be meeting boys for sex, the children are not able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, they can't drink responsibly, they can't fully grasp the dangers of tobacco use, and they don't realize the danger of meeting perverts in the park for anonymous sex.

The guy is a child molester, the fact that the state's laws don't recognize that is unfortunate, but it is no less true.

I love how people think that chidren and teenagers are completely naive, stupid, and helpless until they reach a magic number and suddenly magically become filled with wisdom, knowledge, and responsibility (for most things, they're still stupid baby children for alcohol and smoking until another magic number). You and your ilk are so concerned about the plights of near-adults that you can't see them as anything but frightened six-year-olds who need constant protection.

Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.


Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.
 
2012-08-26 03:50:27 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?

My decision would be not to have sex with children. As I stated above most states have laws that involve something akin to the 'five year rule' so as to allow for behavior consistent with our current social mores.

Won't you agree that it is wrong for 56 year old men to solicit 17 year old boys to meet for sex at a public toilet? What adults do in the privacy of their home is one thing, emailing kids for roadside sodomy is never proper. Do you not agree?

It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

That 17-year-old can be charged as an adult in many places. You know that, right?

How can the victim of a sex crime be charged?


I meant with murder and stuff.

I'm not an expert regarding age of consent laws. Couldn't a 17-year-old be charged in some places if they do it with a 15-year-old? Again, wouldn't they have to get an app for that?
 
2012-08-26 03:50:55 PM  

gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.


I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?
 
2012-08-26 03:52:41 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?


Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?
 
2012-08-26 03:52:53 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


The state leaders you mention are the ones making the laws that allow them to meet children at the side of the road for anonymous sex.

You are dodging the question. Do you think it is OK that a 56 year old man was having sex with a 17 year old child?
 
2012-08-26 03:54:01 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

Please tell me how you rationalize a 56 year old man arranging a meeting with a 17 year old child for sex at a public toilet.

The man is a child molester.


What's there to "rationalize"? Two consenting males of age in the eyes of the law agreed to meet and have sex. One was older than the other.

You look at it and see only a filthy old man "preying" on a poor defenseless child. Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?
 
2012-08-26 03:55:50 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?

Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?


What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.
 
2012-08-26 03:57:15 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?


Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.
 
2012-08-26 04:01:05 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: We agree that the

We agree that you are an apologist for a child molester. Is that what you were trying to say?

If the 17 year old were having an assignation with an 18, or even a 20 year old that could be understood, but to suggest that there was not implied or even explicit coercion by a man more than three times as old as the child is simply absurd. The guy is a predator in my opinion.

Wouldn't your decision depend on the municipality?


I'd consider the (56?) year old a predator in Texas (where it's legal) but I also agree there is a difference between a creeper like him and a babyfarker (it's awwwwright!) molesting 5 year olds. I just think a man like him should be ostracized as a creepy fark.

OF course Feckingmorons is a farking moran, so who knows?
 
2012-08-26 04:01:27 PM  

feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.


That's an open ended assertion.
 
2012-08-26 04:04:38 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: It sounds like what you're saying is that you would consult an app to ensure that you are acting in accordance with the law of the municipality in which you and the prospective partner are located.

I simply wouldn't have sex with children. I wouldn't arrange assignations online. I wouldn't sodomize people in a public toilet.

None of this would be a problem for me. Then again I'm not a pervert state representative.

You do realize most people can restrict themselves to sex with their spouse, do you not?

Well, that statement is factually incorrect. Do you live in Pleasantville?

What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.


As Gordon Ramsay would say, "Are you taking the piss?" I'll be really bummed if you've been trolling this whole time. There's infidelity all over the place. And are you aware of the average age people lose their virginity and how many partners they have in an average lifetime? (Sadly, I'm bringing that average down for everyone.)

Link

But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in Orlando, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

Theories vary about why more people appear to be cheating. Among older people, a host of newer drugs and treatments are making it easier to be sexual, and in some cases unfaithful - Viagra and other remedies for erectile dysfunction, estrogen and testosterone supplements to maintain women's sex drive and vaginal health, even advances like better hip replacements.
 
2012-08-26 04:05:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: So he's old enough to legally have sex but still young enough to be punished for it.

The child wouldn't be punished....

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together ...

Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


18 is the line drawn, but not rule without exception. Some states allow sexual relations between younger similar aged partners -with parental consent oddly enough- others allow exceptions as low as 16 if married with parental consent. Others place a 5 year age restriction between the partners, still others tend to recognise a couple in a viable relationship and won't prosecute the first one to turn 18. The magic number of 18 is a place to start as that is the delegated age of being an adult.

Would I freak out if my 16 yr were messing with a senior in highschool? Probably, but not because of the age difference. If she were having sexual relations with anyone older than that? Why yes, age would factor would come into consideration as this person is now an adult and has the option of seeking out other like minded adults. You hit that magic mark of being 25% older, and I going to start to wonder what kind of head case you really are.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:03 PM  

thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.


The assertion also doesn't account for people who don't HAVE spouses.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:16 PM  
I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:21 PM  

thamike: feckingmorons: I assert that most people are monogamous.

That's an open ended assertion.


Read the Psychology Today article that shows it. Psychology Today should be objective enough for Fark.
 
2012-08-26 04:06:37 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.


I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.


No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.
 
2012-08-26 04:08:59 PM  

Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.


The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.
 
2012-08-26 04:14:47 PM  

feckingmorons: Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.

The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.


And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.
 
2012-08-26 04:15:28 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?


You make little sense. 17 year olds are children until they reach the age of majority. Adults should not have sex with children. Do you not agree with that?

Gibbons are monogamous.
Gibbons (family: Hylobatidae ) are among the standard bearers
of social monogamy in primates. Since the brief,
pioneering study of a wild, white-handed gibbon
population (H. lar) by Carpenter (1940) in the late
1930s, there has been little doubt that the basic social
unit of the genus is the 'monogamous family' (Kleiman,
1981; Leighton, 1987).


Do you just make everything up to fit your worldview so you can champion the NAMBLA cause?
 
2012-08-26 04:15:38 PM  

feckingmorons: Bonzo_1116: I just skimmed the first page of this thread and the last...I love that it went from a discussion of first amendment rights and jail processing protocols to a conversation about roadside buttsex with creepy old men.

I should look again a few hours from now to see if the thread has moved on to pruno recipes.

The perverted creepy Democrat legislators were brought up by the leftists suggesting that GOP politicians would be arrested for soliciting sex on the side of the road. They brought it up and refuse to say how they stand on 56 year old men having sex with children. The apologists dance around the question but will never say, as I most assuredly will, adults should not have sex with children.


That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.
 
2012-08-26 04:17:26 PM  

gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.


The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.
 
2012-08-26 04:17:31 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.

I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.

No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.


We became "enlightened" when we became a society that expected the babby daddy to stick around and care for their offspring. The contract of marriage made it easier to define when babby daddy or babby momma was straying.

I think there are actully monogamous critters out there such as swans and the like.
 
2012-08-26 04:19:12 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.


So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?
 
2012-08-26 04:20:18 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

You make little sense. 17 year olds are children until they reach the age of majority. Adults should not have sex with children. Do you not agree with that?

Gibbons are monogamous. Gibbons (family: Hylobatidae ) are among the standard bearers
of social monogamy in primates. Since the brief,
pioneering study of a wild, white-handed gibbon
population (H. lar) by Carpenter (1940) in the late
1930s, there has been little doubt that the basic social
unit of the genus is the 'monogamous family' (Kleiman,
1981; Leighton, 1987).

Do you just make everything up to fit your worldview so you can champion the NAMBLA cause?


They're "children" until 18, then they're "half-children" until 21. Maybe we could do something to make it simpler, like make 21 the age of adulthood and making it illegal for anyone over 21 to be anywhere near anyone under 21 for any reason? Would that help your rabid moral outrage?

Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?
 
2012-08-26 04:20:36 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this.

I think those magic ages assigned is society drawing the line. I'm sure there is some statistical data out there that supports someone's opinion that girls are ready for sex when they turn 13 but most people agree (accept the teenagers of course) that 18 is the magic number. Being physically ready does not make you financially, psychologically, socially ready, etc. Social contract has decided by 18, most of those pieces that make you a viable adult should have to come together by then.

Physically an animal or human is ready to reproduce the moment their bodies have finished growing and prepping the sexual organs. Humans added a whole laundry list of other things to worry about besides propagating the species.

I agree that children and young teens should not be having sex, but when they reach 16 and above one would hope that they do have a modicum of adult knowledge from school, parents, and peers. To treat a 17-year-old the same as a 6-year-old makes no sense. As for "they have no maturity at that age", there are adults with the mental maturity of children and children and teens with the mental maturity of adults. Lumping everyone into one broad box has always been problematic no matter the reason.

If you feel that the ages of consent are wrong and make "children" vulnerable to "sexual predators", take it up with the State leaders and have them stricken. I still think it's stupid for "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" to be the reasoning applied to those of age to know about and consent to sex.


Fun fact: A lot of Red states and "values voters" strongholds have lower ages of consent than the evil, liberal California.

My opinion is that the line blurs from about 17 to 26, some kids are ready to handle the responsibility of being sexually active in high school, most still can't handle it when they're out of college. I also have a broader and more varied definition of "predator" since the man who stalks lonely widows to be sugar mamas is just as much a predator as the one who cruises craigslist for 14 year old pussy, the difference is the impact on the victim.

But this is irrelevant. While there are some open homosexuals and some democrats who engage in public hookups, they are mostly people who are closeted, repressed, don't want to get caught by using normal channels (nightclubs, gay bars, less anonymous dating sites and listings) and "outed" and such people tend to be Republicans. You can always find exceptions, but the rule is pretty solid that most of the cruising will be Republicans.

Unsurprisingly this slightly illegal activity (you can't have sex in a public restroom) will be mostly-ignored while a certain other slightly illegal activity (being loud and liberal too close to a building full of oh-so-sensitive Republicans) will be instigated, cracked-down upon, and stomped.
 
2012-08-26 04:23:30 PM  

clowncar on fire: Keizer_Ghidorah: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: . Is the man's age the only reason you're outraged?

Yes. Had he met another dirty old man or woman at the rest stop of consensual sex he would not be a child molester. He would be too cheap to get a room, but at least he wouldn't be preying on children.

I thought 17-year-olds were teenagers. Do they lose that distinction when it comes to your moral outrage?

feckingmorons: What statistics do you have to back that up. I assert that most people are monogamous. You seem to believe otherwise.

No other ape is monogamous. Humans, being apes, would not normally be either. And no, we wew not "enlightened" or anything by intleligence or our creation or religion.

We became "enlightened" when we became a society that expected the babby daddy to stick around and care for their offspring. The contract of marriage made it easier to define when babby daddy or babby momma was straying.

I think there are actully monogamous critters out there such as swans and the like.


Funny, communal animals where non-monogamous sex is rampant also learned that. Lions, chimps, gorillas, wolves, all stick together and care for the young, males and females. Humans did the same in their various groups and tribes before the idea of marriage was created.
 
2012-08-26 04:23:48 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.


No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.
 
2012-08-26 04:24:37 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: gimmegimme: And the fecking moron refuses to acknowledge that a 17-year-old is not a child.

The apologist for rest stop child molesters does not seem to understand the plain meaning of the word child. Anyone not yet having reached the age of majority is a child.

So it's your assertion that George Zimmerman, resident of Florida, killed a child?


Yes, it is stipulated that he did. If it was criminal is to be decided by the Court.
 
2012-08-26 04:26:38 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.


Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

newhealthadvances.com
 
2012-08-26 04:30:01 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?


So you are in favor of adult males having sex with minors because we are Great Apes, and people have had multiple sex partners since before recorded history (which is odd because if it is before it was recorded how do you know)?

I wonder how the parents of the boy feel about the Great Apes theory.
 
2012-08-26 04:31:14 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.


I think that many of those 17-year-olds would feel insulted that you keep comparing them to two-year-olds.

He broke a law against sex in public restrooms. He did not break any laws regarding "child rape". You can keep crowing and gnashing all you want about how teenagers are exactly like toddlers, all it's doing is making you look more and more unhinged.
 
2012-08-26 04:34:28 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: Gibbons are lesser apes and pretty far from the great apes of which we are. And if humans were truly monogamous, then why is there so much sex with multiple partners which has been hapening since before recorded history?

So you are in favor of adult males having sex with minors because we are Great Apes, and people have had multiple sex partners since before recorded history (which is odd because if it is before it was recorded how do you know)?

I wonder how the parents of the boy feel about the Great Apes theory.


Wow, that was a really idiotic chain of connections you just made. That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.

Seriously,all you're doing is repeating "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" over and over, either ignoring or demonizing everything people are trying to discuss with you.
 
2012-08-26 04:35:24 PM  

gimmegimme: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.

Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

[newhealthadvances.com image 325x244]


Is there a reason you stand up for 56 year old men who have sex with minors. My position is the norm, most people think it is disgusting, even most people in his district, heck even the Democratic (DFL) governor finds it outrageous
"I think it's just something that goes beyond the morals of Minnesotans - to solicit on Craigslist sex with a minor and do it in a public area, publicly owned area, as a state legislator, and come back to the parking lot with his clothes disheveled," Dayton told reporters at the Capitol. "It's not about whether it's a same-sex or a heterosexual act. It would be the same if it were the same circumstances involving a heterosexual individual."


You seem like the odd man out supporting a pervert. 

You still won't state unequivocally if you think Gauthier's behavior is acceptable or not. Which is it, yes or no?
 
2012-08-26 04:37:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.


No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?
 
2012-08-26 04:38:15 PM  
GOPers, you are the biggest enemy of this nation.
 
2012-08-26 04:40:38 PM  

TheBigJerk: Keizer_Ghidorah: Your constant foaming at the mouth with calling the man every horrible word you can think of only shows that you can't think rationally about this...

...Fun fact: A lot of Red states and "values voters" strongholds have lower ages of consent than the evil, liberal California.

My opinion is that the line blurs from about 17 to 26, some kids are ready to handle the responsibility of being sexually active in high school, most still can't handle it when they're out of college. I also have a broader and more varied definition of "predator" since the man who stalks lonely widows to be sugar mamas is just as much a predator as the one who cruises craigslist for 14 year old pussy, the difference is the impact on the victim.

But this is irrelevant. While there are some open homosexuals and some democrats who engage in public hookups, they are mostly people who are closeted, repressed, don't want to get caught by using normal channels (nightclubs, gay bars, less anonymous dating sites and listings) and "outed" and such people tend to be Republicans. You can always find exceptions, but the rule is pretty solid that most of the cruising will be Republicans.

Unsurprisingly this slightly illegal activity (you can't have sex in a public restroom) will be mostly-ignored while a certain other slightly illegal activity (being loud and liberal too close to a building full of oh-so-sensitive Republicans) will be instigated, cracked-down upon, and stomped.

And rightly so as this is a republican convention and is attended by republicans. But the same could be said about who will be out cruising for johns at the DNC.

You are also missing the demand for increase in skin traffic as a result of the influx of support staff, news staff, ... and protesters. Maybe all those protestors are out soliciting gay sex and not the visiting necessarily the republicans. Hmmmm.

Correlation/causation yada, yada, yada

 
2012-08-26 04:40:54 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: That particular discussion was about monogamy, not on-the-cusp teenagers having sex with men where it's legal.


That particular discussion was of your making because you are wont to dance around the subject and will not admit that it is wrong for 56 year old men to have sex with 17 year old boys. I've provided evidence that the majority of humans are monogamous, you won't address facts that do not support your argument so you have avoided discussing the peer reviewed article to which I linked.

Even if we were to stipulate that monomagy is not the norm, we can't leap to the conclusion that meeting boys at rest stops after soliciting them for no strings attached sex is normal. It is a disgusting perversion. Adults shouldn't have sex with minors.
 
2012-08-26 04:43:55 PM  

feckingmorons: gimmegimme: feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: That was mentioned because of prostitution. You were the one who brought up two consenting of-age people meeting somewhere for a romp and claimed they're equal.

No, it was mentioned because the suggestion was made that there would be increased searching for illicit homosexual liasons on Craig's List because of the RNC in Tampa. Read if for yourself.

The person who posted it obviously didn't know it was a Democrat pervert that was meeting children at rest stops. Then the attempt to sway the argument by saying meeting seventeen year old boys for deviant sex at public restrooms was OK because there were no criminal charges filed.

Adults having sex with children, be they two or seventeen, is improper, immoral, and amazingly not a crime in at least one state. Perhaps the legislator knew that. I wonder how he voted on any bills to make it illegal for old men to have sex with minors.

Is there a reason you are so morally outraged about human biology? Would you like to talk it out?

[newhealthadvances.com image 325x244]

Is there a reason you stand up for 56 year old men who have sex with minors. My position is the norm, most people think it is disgusting, even most people in his district, heck even the Democratic (DFL) governor finds it outrageous "I think it's just something that goes beyond the morals of Minnesotans - to solicit on Craigslist sex with a minor and do it in a public area, publicly owned area, as a state legislator, and come back to the parking lot with his clothes disheveled," Dayton told reporters at the Capitol. "It's not about whether it's a same-sex or a heterosexual act. It would be the same if it were the same circumstances involving a heterosexual individual."

You seem like the odd man out supporting a pervert. 

You still won't state unequivocally if you think Gauthier's behavior is acceptable or not. Which is it, yes or no?


I have already presented you with a great deal of information and you have not answered my question. You also seem to live in a fantasy world in which the law = morality and people are always monogamous and always have been and people are virgins until their wedding nights. The previous commenters are correct. You seem insane and unhinged because you refuse to acknowledge a difference between Bristol Palin and the baby Bristol Palin gave birth to. (Trigooliack? Shiat. Something like that.)
 
2012-08-26 04:47:20 PM  

feckingmorons: Keizer_Ghidorah: He broke a law against sex in public restrooms.

No he didn't. The sex act took place in a wooded area. Do you know anything about the case or do you stick up for every child molester?

If you were a parent would you want your 2 year old or 17 year old to be sexually abused by a 56 year old man? Or would you prefer old perverts stay away from your kids?


Okay, a public place. Calm your ass down. Same difference.

There you keep going with "abuse", "molester", "pervert", etc. Thropw in as many words as possible to show your righteous hatred, like you're doing your best to convince yourself how right you are. Anyway, to the question: my 2-year-old? Well, since it's a toddler and stupid, I wouldn't let people have sex with it. My 17-year-old, who would hopefully be intelligent and educated by then? If it's horny and finds someone to have fun with, and it's legal, here's a condom/diaphram and a "Be careful".
 
2012-08-26 04:49:18 PM  

buckler: machoprogrammer: Every bit of public land should be a "free speech zone". The fact they set up protest areas is just disgusting. As long as the protestor is not violating a law by protesting (i.e. disrupting traffic by standing in the middle of the street), they have every right to protest on any public owned land for any reason they want.

Did anyone ever go to court to protest Bush the Lesser's "Free Speech Zones" during his campaign and tenure?


Not that I am aware, but they should have.
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report