"I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards and a Bigot"

[Marco Polo]

The Vikings organization and the NFL could be sued if any of this is true from the special teams coordinator.

I can't imagine the depths of lawsuits that would accrue if any leader in my organization said some of the things that the special teams coordinator said.

Not to turn this into a Duck Dynasty/religion conversation but you can have your opinion, you just can't say those vile things ("nuke it until it glows") while representing your organization.

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-pla...208214#replies

[KC native]

Originally Posted by SNR

On illegal acts such as bestiality and pedophilia, those have judgments passed onto them FOR SPECIFIC ****ING REASONS.

I'm not relying on legal fiction/convenience (whatever the hell that means). I'm making the very simple argument that child sex does harm against the will of a person or persons. There's nothing fictional about that.

Patty is pulling his usual semantic bullshit. He's only speaking specifically about JDiddy's poorly worded argument.

[BWillie]

Poor punter. Got bent outta shape cuz the coach called teammates fairy boys when they were playing indeed like fairy boys.

Even if coach is a homo hater, really dont see how that is related to him getting fired.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by KC native

Patty is pulling his usual semantic bullshit. He's only speaking specifically about JDiddy's poorly worded argument.

When a pretty clear, narrowly focused point is so massively misinterpreted by someone who apparently missed the origin of the argument and who has been repeatedly directed to that origin, it's not really just semantic bullshit. Particularly when the guy who misunderstood is accusing people of being soft on pedophilia and bestiality.

JDiddy's argument was poorly worded at best. More likely, he just doesn't understand what he's saying. It's good to see that you've been able to follow along though.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC native

Patty is pulling his usual semantic bullshit. He's only speaking specifically about JDiddy's poorly worded argument.

Alright, dumbass.... since you want to play, you can answer the questions:


Understanding that consent is irrelevant to animals, since they can neither consent nor refuse consent

AND

Understanding that consent is clearly possible for some people who are considered underage

AND, for that matter

Understanding that polygamy can be between many adults older than the age of consent


Should we tolerate, condone and support any and all lifestyle choices where consent is possible and/or refusal can't be determined?

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Understanding that consent is clearly possible for some people who are considered underage

The polygamy argument finally has a point to it. You could have saved yourself a huge headache had you brought it up sooner. The beastiality and pedophilia counter-examples you thought were airtight are still giant hunks of bullshit.

If animals can't voice their consent and are considered property, why do we have animal cruelty laws in this country? Surely you would agree that there's a difference between ****ing your dog and ****ing your toaster? Just because an animal is property doesn't mean the same shit can be done to it. People can own currency notes from the government, but it's still illegal to burn them. The government doesn't care if you burn your toaster.

Can ALL underage persons give proper consent? If a 16-year old is the same thing as a 4-year old in the eyes of the law, you have to treat them exactly the same. I'm shocked you think this is a valid rebuttal.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SNR

The polygamy argument finally has a point to it. You could have saved yourself a huge headache had you brought it up sooner. The beastiality and pedophilia counter-examples you thought were airtight are still giant hunks of bullshit.

If animals can't voice their consent and are considered property, why do we have animal cruelty laws in this country? Surely you would agree that there's a difference between ****ing your dog and ****ing your toaster? Just because an animal is property doesn't mean the same shit can be done to it. People can own currency notes from the government, but it's still illegal to burn them. The government doesn't care if you burn your toaster.

Can ALL underage persons give proper consent? If a 16-year old is the same thing as a 4-year old in the eyes of the law, you have to treat them exactly the same. I'm shocked you think this is a valid rebuttal.

When you add the "in the eyes of the law" part, you're making a circular argument of the type that gay friendly fellows like you and me wouldn't approve in the days of anti-sodomy laws.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by patteeu

When you add the "in the eyes of the law" part, you're making a circular argument of the type that gay friendly fellows like you and me wouldn't approve in the days of anti-sodomy laws.

4-year olds aren't capable of giving consent. Can we agree on that?

Most 16-year olds are capable of giving consent.

However, the law treats both of these individuals as minors. The 16-year old is not a sub-adult or Minor Class II. They're both juveniles.

In other countries like Japan, the age of consent is lower. The point is, the Japanese believe that there IS a point where children can't understand letting adults do stuff to them.

That's the point of pedophile laws.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by SNR

The polygamy argument finally has a point to it. You could have saved yourself a huge headache had you brought it up sooner. The beastiality and pedophilia counter-examples you thought were airtight are still giant hunks of bullshit.

If animals can't voice their consent and are considered property, why do we have animal cruelty laws in this country? Surely you would agree that there's a difference between ****ing your dog and ****ing your toaster? Just because an animal is property doesn't mean the same shit can be done to it. People can own currency notes from the government, but it's still illegal to burn them. The government doesn't care if you burn your toaster.

Can ALL underage persons give proper consent? If a 16-year old is the same thing as a 4-year old in the eyes of the law, you have to treat them exactly the same. I'm shocked you think this is a valid rebuttal.

Everything I used had a point to it. It's nobody's fault but your own if you're too stupid to figure it out.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by patteeu

When you add the "in the eyes of the law" part, you're making a circular argument of the type that gay friendly fellows like you and me wouldn't approve in the days of anti-sodomy laws.

They have to play games, because that's all they have. Their own arguments undermine their positions.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Everything I used had a point to it.

Everything up until you brought up polygamy had a false point to it. They weren't valid counterexamples.

It's not ****ing hard to figure this out.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by SNR

4-year olds aren't capable of giving consent. Can we agree on that?

Most 16-year olds are capable of giving consent.

However, the law treats both of these individuals as minors. The 16-year old is not a sub-adult or Minor Class II. They're both juveniles.

In other countries like Japan, the age of consent is lower. The point is, the Japanese believe that there IS a point where children can't understand letting adults do stuff to them.

That's the point of pedophile laws.

Yeah, I understand the point of pedophile laws. This is about the more abstract concept of morality though. The state of the law is an approximate reflection of society's moral judgment, not the other way around.

The fact is that we do make moral judgments about lifestyle choices and consequences of those judgments sometimes involve lack of access to government benefits, fines, incarceration, etc. Some of those judgments change over time.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by SNR

Everything up until you brought up polygamy had a false point to it. They weren't valid counterexamples.

It's not ****ing hard to figure this out.

They are perfectly valid examples. You don't like them precisely because they undercut the tolerance argument by offering examples that fit that tolerance argument but are far enough to the edge that even today, in the era of freakish behavior, they're considered to be outrageous. That's not my problem. That's a problem for the tolerance brigades, because it shows that they're full of shit.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Alright, dumbass.... since you want to play, you can answer the questions:


Understanding that polygamy can be between many adults older than the age of consent


Should we tolerate, condone and support any and all lifestyle choices where consent is possible and/or refusal can't be determined?

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy between adults and if the people who practiced polygamy had restrained it to that, then it might not be illegal. Unfortunately, polygamous communities have long histories of pedophilia and straining social services (shit load of kids without the economic resources to provide for them).

That being said, I didn't make JDiddy's awful argument and didn't say it was right. I was just pointing out how absurd your argument was. Since you completely missed that and said you wanted to discuss things without the name calling (which apparently only mattered because SNR stung you pretty good), you can kindly go **** yourself now and keep Pedophilin' on by.

[MahiMike]

This stupid story has been around long enough for me to miss the 'bully in miami' story.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

They are perfectly valid examples. You don't like them precisely because they undercut the tolerance argument by offering examples that fit that tolerance argument but are far enough to the edge that even today, in the era of freakish behavior, they're considered to be outrageous. That's not my problem. That's a problem for the tolerance brigades, because it shows that they're full of shit.

No they are absurd counterexamples and it's ****ing ridiculous for you to try to assert otherwise.