What's new
By:

So gay!!!

Hopper said:
Well, Chem, let me play devil's advocate here (I won't be able to do it well, but I'll try) and try to argue as a NAMBLA member might (recall that NAMBLA had the support of gay rights groups until they were faced with the loss of a lot of cash and prestige if they didn't disassociate themselves from NAMBLA):

Your use of the term "rape" is merely indicative of a bigoted, persecutorial attitude that is a "construct" of a sexually repressive society. Ancient greeks, and many other historical cultures, did not impose prejudical restraints on adult/child sexual activity, precisely because they were not narrow-minded bigots. We are NOT advocating "rape" of children. All of our interactions with children are strictly consensual. They don't object. In fact, as is natural and to be expected, they like, or more accurately, LOVE receiving our attentions and affections.
Click to expand...

Hopper, I get what you're trying to say, and that's a good Devil's Advocate case you made. The only real solid answer I can put forth now is that, arbitrary as it is, current modern law/societal paradigms in the US (as opposed to law/paradigms from a country 6,000 miles away and 2,000+ years ago) draw a line in the sand marking "adult" and "child," (i.e. 18 years old). If you happen to fall under the purview of "child" then your decisions aren't informed.

Changing either law or social paradigm, as the preceding 26 pages of this thread can attest to, is not easy to accomplish (but obviously it can be done). Until either paradigm is shifted, then we have to consider adult/child relations to be rape, regardless of how consensual the contract is between the boy/old man. If changing the paradigm wrt NAMBLA is accomplished, then we will have to live with our decisions and subsequent consequences (existential moment of the day, brought to you by chemdude1232 :P).

It used to be that homosexuality was illegal and considered immoral - we've altered our perception in both cases (to a more limited extent in the "immoral" portion, but still), so now we can do nothing but sit back and let it unfold.
 
By the way, Bum, I find your misquoted signature to be completely disgusting. Would ya mind changin it, eh? Thanks!
 
Hopper said:
By the way, Bum, I find your misquoted signature to be completely disgusting. Would ya mind changin it, eh? Thanks!
Click to expand...

That's actually a direct quote. I will not be silenced or have my constitutional rights trampled by a half-wit like you.
 
Hopper said:
This appears to be just another display of fallacious "all-or-nothing" reasoning, if that's what you mean. The argument is not designed to persuade "irrational" people, but rather presumably rational people, such as judges.
Click to expand...

Except, as you noted, there is no scientific consensus on the genetic causes of homosexuality, so it's an argument you can't bring before a judge.

As for "all-or-nothing", while you can read that int6o almost anything you choose, that's seldom what I write.

TheItinerantSon said:
i ... would eat you.
Click to expand...

Another quote for the signature of Raspberry Delight?

Raspberry Delight said:
That's actually a direct quote. I will not be silenced or have my constitutional rights trampled by a half-wit like you.
Click to expand...

It's not really a proper quote without the ellipses between the last word and the question mark, and there is no valid reason to put the question mark in parentheses. It is a Hopper-type quote. Of course, I know you don't mind imitating the way Hopper does things.

Seriously, outside of an initial laugh, I don't care at all about the quote.
 
Always be on your toes for perverts! Think of the children!





nambla.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top