J
JeanLukPigheart
Guest
^^^And I get it, I'm confusing you because you keep adding your own opinion to your foundation arguements and can't seperate it from the discussion. Yes, it's an opinionated discussion, but notice I continuously seperate my opinions for the theories being discussed and make note when I do.
No, you don't separate it. You act as if you do to "win" a debate. It's not a formal debate, it's a discussion.
I already "won" the debate, but I'm not debating you.
I'm discussing the points with you, 'cause they are worth discussing it.
So you just said if a dog owner puts peanut butter on their crotch when the dog licks it off he's being "traumatized" while saying scientists should have final say on age of consent...so that 50 year old who preys on lil 16-18 year old girls who know nothing of the world isn't bad because scientists say that's fine, but someone better go save that dog?
LOL, look at the paragraph above, where you boldly claim that you don't throw in your personal opinion and you accuse me of doing that to make some............"point"?!. FACEPALM
If a tree falls on an imaginary kitten, how many kittens get hurt? LOL
Do you see me using that kind of "logic"? No, right?
Yes, if you put the peanut butter on your balls and let your wife lick it off, then nobody will say a thing.............but why-oh-why will the police arrest you, when you do the same in public. Hmmmmmm, HMMMMMMM????
Yes, that dog will be traumatized. The same would happen if you would've done it to your little child.
Guess what. When you teach your child to "hate niggers" and you give it a gun and say it's "ok to kill them monkeys", MAYBE, just MAYBE it will be ok with shooting Blacks after a while? What do you think?
Was that kid traumatized, or am I making this up.
What about teaching the dog to bite Blacks.
Again, you are incapable of "switching the switch".
Here, try again:
I'm that "clueless 18 year old guy, who doesn't know anything about the world" (see, how you try to introduce emotion and value systems into the equation, which make the 18 year old seem like not being able to give his consent or understand the action; cudos for trying - cut that off, Mr.Rational ),
but I know enough about the world to realize that Stacey Dash's 40+ year old ass is delicious.
I tell my other friends the story of Stacey Dash having sex with me and we high five each other 'till our hands bleed. LOL
End of the story (Deranged arrives and pats me on the back saying "You, kid, are a Jedi now!").
Now Richard Branson, the old albino-ass looking billionaire (see, how I try to make it more appealing by pointing out, that he may be old, but can take care of a potential mother of his children - sneake JeanLukePigheart ) goes out with Deranged's 18 year old sister.
The whole neighborhood talks to Deranged and tells him how "unnatural" this liaison seems and how he should shoot that mofu for touching this precious little angel who likes Miley Cirus' records and sings in the choir on Sundays (see what I did there?). LOL
Now if we stop that childish shit of "not trying to introduce personal opinion" into the equation, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCE?
Again, not what you and I think, what is the OBJECTIVE difference? I don't see it.
Now if we ask 1000 women and men, 990 will probably say, that Stacey Dash looks a million times better than Richard Branson.
Is THAT our "moral compass" in that situation?
Is GENDER INEQUALITY all of a sudden our "moral compass"?
Or are we, as potential "judges" told by the law to look at the age of consent and determine the psychological "adulthood" of the young guy and the girl.
We may say, by (SOCIETAL!) "moral standards" both actions are "wrong", but how many more (including WOMEN!) will say, that ****ing Stacey Dash deserves a "lifetime achievement award", while ****ing Richard Branson "is wrong, just wrong!".
See, cut off your opinion from that. AGE OF CONSENT.
And quit throwing religion at me, i have said nothing of it other than I'M NOT RELIGIOUS(making me think you're confusing me with another poster), the only thing worse than an extreme religious freak is an exteme atheist. Cause they're the only people on earth who think they got more answers than the religious coo coos. Quit indirectly throwing darts at dudes who aren't even responding. I get it, you think religion is worse than men f**king each other and pedos who stay within the lines of the judicial system. But nothings worse than a dog dry humping your leg and you allowing him to finish, lol.
I am accused of doing something I don't, AGAIN.
You are being childish, selectively.
You didn't (for a second) think there "oh, you are right, neither Christians, nor Mormons have the say here, we should act as if we have no association to a "sect" which dictates our lives and thinking..........I get what you mean.........so you are saying, we should behave like ATHEISTS here?"
No, because atheism is the lack of belief in a God.
It is not the position of not believing in moral standards, which is the discussion here. LOL
See what you did there? LOL
You REPEATEDLY accused me (while you REALLY do it, again, here) of introducing my own opinion into the
discussion. I do not. You do.
Being an atheist also doesn't make you a scientist, so that point is quite retarded as well. LMAO
But yeah, the evil atheists should STFU, because "they know more". No, we should read the Bible and ask invisible ghost how to build airplanes or on which side of the street to drive, 'cause we always did that. Sounds rational. lol