OmSigDAVID: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:
Beautiful rock formations result from terrible natural disasters that wiped out entire civilisations. Why is it unacceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to children, and yet acceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to entire civilisations?

Come back when you've decided to join the human race.

What does that even mean?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
agrote wrote:
Beautiful rock formations result from terrible natural disasters that wiped out entire civilisations. Why is it unacceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to children, and yet acceptable to admire that which results from serious harm to entire civilisations?

Come back when you've decided to join the human race.

What does that even mean?

It means, that in my opinion, you are the most absurd wanker ever to come down the pike. You are a first-class dipweed. Your attempts to bait folks are now painfully transparent.

Finally, your ridiculously inept "arguments" make OmSigDavid seem postively coherent, sane, and rational.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

It means, that in my opinion, you are the most absurd wanker ever to come down the pike.

What pike?

Quote:

You are a first-class dipweed.

I don't know what that is.

Quote:

Your attempts to bait folks are now painfully transparent.

Are they? Not to me. What am I baiting them with... and what for?

Quote:

Finally, your ridiculously inept "arguments" make OmSigDavid seem postively coherent, sane, and rational.

Describe one of my arguments, and explain where it goes wrong. I bet you can't. You're all talk.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Quote:
Your attempts to bait folks are now painfully transparent.

Are they? Not to me. What am I baiting them with... and what for?

...

Describe one of my arguments, and explain where it goes wrong. I bet you can't.

Bwahahahaha!

agrote wrote:

You're all talk.

It's a frikken Internet message board. Of course it's all talk.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:

Quote:
Your attempts to bait folks are now painfully transparent.

Are they? Not to me. What am I baiting them with... and what for?

...

Describe one of my arguments, and explain where it goes wrong. I bet you can't.

Bwahahahaha!

See, you can't.

Quote:

agrote wrote:
You're all talk.

It's a frikken Internet message board. Of course it's all talk.

You know what I mean. All you're capable of doing is saying that my arguments are bad. You're not capable of actually pointing out their flaws, or providing counterarguments to them. You're all talk.

0 Replies

I've made my case on the other thread. Then you come here and start up with all the same justifications, crazy comparisons, and turning the thread around to child pornography.

Here's a sample of how wrong you are: how are the actions of a person different from the actions of a volcano?

See? You'll compare a volcano to a child molester.

Like I said; come back when you're ready to join the human race, 'cause you ain't there yet.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Here's a sample of how wrong you are: how are the actions of a person different from the actions of a volcano?

See? You'll compare a volcano to a child molester.

I never made that comparison. I didn't compare a volcano with a person. I compared an event with another event: the event of a child being abused on camera with the event of a natural disaster wiping out a huge number of people. These distinct events are similar in at least one respect: they are both terrible.

It is okay for us to admire what results from the terrible event of a natural disaster. We can admire the ruins of Pompeii without being glad that so many people suffered in the process of their creation.

Why is it wrong to admire what results from the terrible event of filmed child abuse? Why can't we admire photographs of sex with children without being glad that children suffered in the process of their creation?

Child abuse and natural disaster are obviously different. But which of their differences makes it the case that we can admire what results from the former, but we can't admire what results from the latter?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Then you come here and start up with all the same justifications, crazy comparisons, and turning the thread around to child pornography.

Why are you lying? Vikkor turned this thread around to child pornography.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

I never made that comparison. I didn't compare a volcano with a person. I compared an event with another event: the event of a child being abused on camera with the event of a natural disaster wiping out a huge number of people. These distinct events are similar in at least one respect: they are both terrible.

The fact that you want to discuss the morality of an event caused by siesmic activity to an event caused by a human being demonstrates how completely unsuited you are to any type of debate or discussion.

You fail. Miserably. Every time you make a post. Please stop embarrasing yourself.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why are you lying? Vikkor turned this thread around to child pornography.

Actually, you made an attack on OmsigDavid regarding his views, and I made a comparison between David and Your views. You then defended yourself, which you have always done (Just like David), in the same way that David does. Mind you, you changed your mind on the peripheries, which I don't think David has ever done.

Quote:

Why do you insist on seeing things in black and white?

Because it's black and white that you haven't changed your mind on the main subject at hand - you keep stating it.

Agrote wrote:

I still think it is okay to view child porn where no harm is done full stop

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:
I never made that comparison. I didn't compare a volcano with a person. I compared an event with another event: the event of a child being abused on camera with the event of a natural disaster wiping out a huge number of people. These distinct events are similar in at least one respect: they are both terrible.

The fact that you want to discuss the morality of an event caused by siesmic activity to an event caused by a human being demonstrates how completely unsuited you are to any type of debate or discussion.

You fail. Miserably. Every time you make a post. Please stop embarrasing yourself.

I'm not talking about the morality of events. I'm talking about the morality of admiring that which results from a terrible event.

This is a simple case of me asking a difficult question, and you avoiding answering it. I don't know what you think I'm failing at, but you are failing to address any of the points I make.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Why are you lying? Vikkor turned this thread around to child pornography.

Actually, you made an attack on OmsigDavid regarding his views, and I made a comparison between David and Your views. You then defended yourself, which you have always done (Just like David), in the same way that David does. Mind you, you changed your mind on the peripheries, which I don't think David has ever done.

Right. You started talking about my views on child porn, not me. Which is fine, I'm just wondering why DrewDad told a blatant lie about this.

Quote:

Quote:
Why do you insist on seeing things in black and white?
Because it's black and white that you haven't changed your mind on the main subject at hand - you keep stating it.

Agrote wrote:
I still think it is okay to view child porn where no harm is done full stop

The main subject at hand was whether it is wrong to view child porn. I thought it wasn't, and now I think it usually (if not always) is.

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

the morality of admiring that which results from a terrible event.

The morality of admiring something would strongly depend on the morality of that which you are admiring.

This is a simple concept. You fail, because you cannot grasp such a simple concept. The density of your head must approach that of degenerate matter. (Get it? Degenerate? I wouldn't normally point out such an obvious pun, but, well, I'm talking to you.)

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:
the morality of admiring that which results from a terrible event.

The morality of admiring something would strongly depend on the morality of that which you are admiring.

Not if morality is only about actions, as I think it is. A natural disaster is not an action, and nor is an item of child pornography. There is no such thing as "the morality of that which you are admiring" in these cases.

So here are my questions again:

It is okay for us to admire what results from the terrible event of a natural disaster. We can admire the ruins of Pompeii without being glad that so many people suffered in the process of their creation.

Why is it wrong to admire what results from the terrible event of filmed child abuse? Why can't we admire photographs of sex with children without being glad that children suffered in the process of their creation?

Child abuse and natural disaster are obviously different. But which of their differences makes it the case that we can admire what results from the former, but we can't admire what results from the latter?

0 Replies

agrote wrote:

Child abuse and natural disaster are obviously different.

This is it in a nutshell. Thank you for answering your own question.

The next question is, when will you stop being a complete ass, and an utter waste of oxygen?

See, I think you're an ass. An ass that can type. Probably via prehensile hemorroids. If you wished to debate fine moral points, you'd find a less contentious issue. Like maybe the Holocaust was actually beneficial to Europe, or if abusing women encourages them to better themselves. Low-and-behold!. I can find outrageously disgusting "debate" topics, too.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

agrote wrote:
Child abuse and natural disaster are obviously different.

This is it in a nutshell. Thank you for answering your own question.

I asked more than one question. Which question do you think this answers?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know