3
   

The UK Puritans Carve another Notch in the Bedpost

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 01:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Maybe you have no idea where i "think people are."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 01:52 pm
By the way, kudos to whoever tagged this thread "Creepy old man."
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  3  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
9 years old would be the more appropriate place to end the restrictions that we are currently placing on 17 year olds.


You want to screw 9 year olds? You really are a sicko.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:13 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
No, you don't understand me correctly. You also, apparently, don't understand why societies have a justified and proximate interest in controlling the activities of capitalists. People who buy advertising, and those who sell it to them, only care if somebody spends money with them. They certainly don't care what the teenage pregnancy rate is, or if rape increases due to casual attitudes toward teenagers as sexual objects, and they certainly don't care if paedophilia is encouraged. Those are just a few of the very good reasons that societies act to curb the activities of greedy and unprincipled individuals . . . such as you David (or so you say).
R u impugning the sincerity of my GREED? or of my support of laissez faire capitalism ???





David
Setanta
 
  2  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I'm impugning those who allow their greed to blind them to social responsibility. I'm impugning anyone who tries to claim that there ever has been such a thing as laissez faire capitalism. I, personally, am not so stupid as to believe that.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta I wonder somehow if a well design young lady would walk by you that you might take note and had a few milliseconds of sexual thoughts.

Seems that you wish the society to protect you from yourselves instead of the society protecting 17 years old girls from the likes of Hawkeye.

The US and the UK share a strange anti-sex view of the world and now we are for the most part no longer placing people in prison over adult sexuality such people need to fall back on the fact that some girl look younger then she is in a ADV!!!!!!!

contrex
 
  2  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:47 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Setanta I wonder somehow if a well design young lady would walk by you that you might take note and had a few milliseconds of sexual thoughts.


This has what relevance, exactly? Nobody is denying that teenagers can be (on occasion very) attractive. No blame attaches to anyone who is aware of this. It is what we do about it and the attitude we take, that is at issue. At the celibate priest said when asked how he coped with female attractiveness, "I can't stop the birds flying over my head but I don't have to let them nest in my hair."
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 02:48 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I must admit that everytime Hawkeye and Bill criticise the UK for not respecting the rights of perverts I feel really proud
.

Yes you had a proud history of going after perverts even driving Alan Turing to suicide for being a gay pervert and not allowing a little thing like the large debt that everyone in the West owe him for his war research in the field of computers and code breaking to slow you down.

Yes if I was you I would wave my UK flag high and proudly on every June the 7 the date of Turing death.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 03:36 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I'm impugning those who allow their greed to blind them to social responsibility.
That 's me; as an Individualist and as a lover of personal liberty, I tend not to think of "social responsibility".
Off hand, I can t think of any exceptions.
I 'm not entirely sure that anyone has any "social responsibility",
altho possibly, that concept might be included in self defense,
in some cases (e.g., some pervert who decides to burn rubber tires,
befouling the naborhood in acrid smoke).




Setanta wrote:
I'm impugning anyone who tries to claim that there ever has been such a thing as laissez faire capitalism.
Did someone allege that in this thread??
For MY part, I expressed what I support,
without addressing what has existed or not. I also support
colonizing outer space, tho we have not DONE it yet.



Setanta wrote:
I, personally, am not so stupid as to believe that.
I will leave u to be the judge of how stupid u r.



That is a joke, in its implication,
in that (in all sincerity) I do not deem u to be stupid; (a damn liar, yes, but not stupid).





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 04:20 pm

Tho I have not read all of the posts in this thread,
I wish to address its main subject matter, as follows:

Altho I am an optimist by nature,
it appears to me to be the inevitable destiny of our grandchildren
to end up as the Borg, with progressively more unlimited government surveillance
beyond Orwell's nightmares of intimate control. Government will know, count,
study & regulate their diets, drugs, and orgasms, at all ages.
( Already, we see profusions of photographic cameras in the streets;
these supervisory intrusions will be WELCOMED in the name of safety.)
The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave will be lost
in the mists of time
, like the wars of ancient Rome or Greece in popular memory.

My refuge will be death, long before that happens.

It begins with thought control; in the Korean War,
we found communist POWs to be carrying pocket diaries
in which their commissars required them to reveal their
thoughts, thru out the day. Thay were commanded NOT
to think of sex, but rather to think of the Communist Party.
The ends justified the means for the commie totalitarians.
Thay believed that communism was WORTH it.

Pornography is psychological.
Looking at anything is not the same as dangerous conduct,
e.g. raping the model, whatever the age might be.

Once the principle is established, accepted that thought control is OK
(because its supporters felt passionately toward their goal): nothing is safe.
From then on, its only arguing a question
of where to draw the borderline, a matter of degree.

My safety will be in death within the next few years.

Our grandchildren need us to fight energetically
to CURTAIL jurisdiction of government: nip it in the bud.


I think its hopeless.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 04:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Once the principle is established, accepted that thought control is OK
(because its supporters felt passionately toward their goal): nothing is safe.
From then on, its only arguing a question
of where to draw the borderline, a matter of degree.
the ends justify the means to these people....aggression against others is OK, richeous even, so long as what they want to force is morally right to them. They should be reminded that Hitler was sure that he was right too....

I want people to be free so that we can choose to come together in unified effort, socialism is not worth spit when it is carried out at gunpoint, because then all it is is prettied up oppression.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 04:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
Once the principle is established, accepted that thought control is OK
(because its supporters felt passionately toward their goal): nothing is safe.
From then on, its only arguing a question
of where to draw the borderline, a matter of degree.
hawkeye10 wrote:
the ends justify the means to these people....aggression against others is OK, richeous even, so long as what they want to force is morally right to them. They should be reminded that Hitler was sure that he was right too....
Hitler's thought control prevailed until Ike & Patton knocked it down.

WHO will knock it down when Orwellian World Government
has unlimited surveillance of all our great-grandchildren
for however many years or centuries of technological advancement ?????



No one seems to CARE.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 06:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Hitler's thought control prevailed until Ike & Patton knocked it down.


And Monty didn't have anything to do with it?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 07:15 pm
@izzythepush,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Hitler's thought control prevailed until Ike & Patton knocked it down.
izzythepush wrote:
And Monty didn't have anything to do with it?
I woudn 't say that. He kinda got in the way;
(e.g. Operation Market Garden, instead of clearing nazis away
from the roads leading from Antwerp, like Ike wanted), but we can forgive him.

We can be magnanimous.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Thu 10 Nov, 2011 07:20 pm

He also gave Patton an incentive to go FASTER.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  0  
Fri 11 Nov, 2011 01:07 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Hitler's thought control prevailed until Ike & Patton knocked it down.


And Monty didn't have anything to do with it?


Izzy, in case you haven't noticed, you're wasting your time arguing with these pricks. They really are wankers. The worst kind of idiotic Yanks. **** them.

For them, 21AG might just as well have not existed. Didn't you know the Americans won the war all by themselves? And they did it by masturbationg over pictures of schoolgirls. For freedom.

contrex
 
  1  
Fri 11 Nov, 2011 01:10 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
richeous


I just realised what your level of education must be, if you could write that.

QED

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 11 Nov, 2011 02:03 am
@contrex,
Quote:

I just realised what your level of education must be, if you could write that.
I was an engineering major, we were never expected to be able to spell. I consistently got c's and d's on my spelling tests in Grammar school, and was very happy when they stopped coming my way in high school.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Fri 11 Nov, 2011 03:41 am
@BillRM,
If i bother to look at a teenage girl at all, my thoughts are almost always on the subject of how immature she is. I inhabit a different world from that of teenagers, which is how it should be. I certainly don't find them sexually attractive. I have a problem with the idea that a woman in her 20s is sexually attractive, at my age. That's a product of something called maturity--a subject about which i would suggest that neither you, nor the Rapist Boy nor David know anything from personal experience.

The subject here is the sexual objectification of people. It's bad enough that advertisers can get away with it for adults, and i know of no one here calling for that to be restricted. However, when it comes to children, society has a right to object, and if it does, that's just too damned bad for the "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" crowd.

First, get your facts straight. Fanning was 17, she was not of age to sign a contract to buy 12 recordings in 12 months from a record company--and she certainly was not an adult being portrayed in an almost sheer garment. So this is very definitely a case of protecting underage girls from the likes of Rapist Boy--and of you. It may come as a shock to you, but mature men look at girls under the legal age, and very likely, any woman under 25, and see a child, not a potential sexual partner. Grow up, for christ's sake.

It is only a side issue, but there is also something wrong with objectifying people rather than seeing them as people, as individuals. I might see a woman of 30 or 40 whom i consider attractive, but learn that i don't like her personality, and the attractiveness ends then and there. I might get to know a woman of 30 or 40 to whom i would not necessarily be attracted on a superficial basis, but become enamored of them for reasons of their personality, their character, their intellect--you know, all those things about which you don't have a clue?

It truly is pathetic to see middle aged men (or, as in Rapist Boy's case, superannuated teenyboppers) slavering over girls who are, essentially, just children.
Setanta
 
  2  
Fri 11 Nov, 2011 03:43 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Oh, i already knew you have no concept of social responsibility. It's because there are so many idiots of that nature loose in the world that society organizes, among other reasons, to protect itself from the consequences. I learned along time ago that you are unable to distinguish between so-called freedom and license.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Legal age Now - Question by Jj0912
Proud pedo runs for office - Question by Lash
Podesta Brothers and Madeline McCann - Discussion by gungasnake
childhood signs of a future pedrphile? - Question by manfrom atlantis
You wont believe this! - Question by KrisC68
Was Moses a NUTCASE? - Discussion by jesusBastard
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 04:39:11