|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 11, 2017 21:58:02 GMT
right so at what age do you think (generally) that children can consent to sex? I don't know. No decent scientific research has been done. Since you advocate pedophilia, but you rule out two year olds because they cannot consent, you must have an idea about the age YOU find acceptable, what is that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 22:03:20 GMT
Because children are incapable of giving consent. Why can't they by definition? Because consent involves being able to make a judgment about the situation, and children cannot do this. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
 
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 11, 2017 22:10:30 GMT
Why can't they by definition? Because consent involves being able to make a judgment about the situation, and children cannot do this. You said by definition. What definition and how? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 22:25:33 GMT
Because consent involves being able to make a judgment about the situation, and children cannot do this. You said by definition. What definition and how? The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 11, 2017 22:28:52 GMT
You said by definition. What definition and how? The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. So why do you think a teenager can understand things like geometry and calculus but not sex? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2017 22:57:45 GMT
The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. So why do you think a teenager can understand things like geometry and calculus but not sex? Did I say anything about understanding? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 11, 2017 23:13:47 GMT
The definition I just gave, by the way it's written. So why do you think a teenager can understand things like geometry and calculus but not sex? Guessing you don't have an answer to my question. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 12, 2017 2:12:08 GMT
Sick as hell but better that than real children. Speaking from experience..... I disagree.  Okay... Last joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 12, 2017 2:55:01 GMT
So why do you think a teenager can understand things like geometry and calculus but not sex? Guessing you don't have an answer to my question. How about looking to biology for the answer. At what age are you able to have sex? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jul 12, 2017 2:59:16 GMT
Guessing you don't have an answer to my question. How about looking to biology for the answer. At what age are you able to have sex? How about following the conversation, I am looking for Saraodh's opinion. Thanks for your input though. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 12, 2017 8:07:39 GMT
It's more than disturbing to me. I would call it sickening.
Welcome to the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 12, 2017 8:34:40 GMT
No, it's not a verb. The above is called "statutory rape". Paedophilia is, clinically, attraction to a pre-pubescent child and, more broadly, attraction towards minors. It can be what I want it to be. Ah, my bad. Like Arlon and Erjen, yours is a personalized dictionary. Who am I to argue with your odd-yet-melodic language? |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 12, 2017 8:41:56 GMT
Wobble house? Monkey spoon got cup teabag! Biscuits everywhere, why car fast into justice? If rabbits pillows cushion, then why table grass snout? Well played. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jul 12, 2017 8:43:13 GMT
Truly, purple hobbits during veterinarian along they with and frog. Not an argument. Nonsense. You just didn't grok his words. Gird your mind-grapes. |
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jul 12, 2017 8:58:53 GMT
It can be what I want it to be. Words are just a collection of graphemes/a collection of phonemes. There is no "correct" definition of anything.  |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 9:00:03 GMT
So why do you think a teenager can understand things like geometry and calculus but not sex? Did I say anything about understanding? Then why can't they consent? |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 9:01:10 GMT
It can be what I want it to be. Words are just a collection of graphemes/a collection of phonemes. There is no "correct" definition of anything. Dictionaries just document conventional usage. Nothing else |
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jul 12, 2017 9:14:24 GMT
Dictionaries just document conventional usage. Nothing else Carry on dude. Oh and adminThis poster is a troll who on the previous board regularly advocated pedophilia and having sex with children. He had thus far not done that on this board. I see now in this thread he's now up to his old tricks. His next tactic if he gets away with these posts will be to create/use sock accounts to spam this board with threads and posts about pedophilia and have disgusting discussions about it. This went on on the old board for months (evidence available upon request). I'm sure I speak for most RFS posters when I say we wouldn't want a repeat performance on this board. When one logs onto a board one doesn't expect to see sickos discussing the merits of having sex with 7 year olds. |
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Jul 12, 2017 9:24:16 GMT
Dictionaries just document conventional usage. Nothing else Carry on dude. Oh and adminThis poster is a troll who on the previous board regularly advocated pedophilia and having sex with children. He had thus far not done that on this board. I see now in this thread he's now up to his old tricks. His next tactic if he gets away with these posts will be to create/use sock accounts to spam this board with threads and posts about pedophilia and have disgusting discussions about it. This went on on the old board for months (evidence available upon request). I'm sure I speak for most RFS posters when I say we wouldn't want a repeat performance on this board. When one logs onto a board one doesn't expect to see sickos discussing the merits of having sex with 7 year olds. Lol I never once advocated sex with seven year olds. You will have to provide evidence for that or apologise. You will also need to provide evidence for me spamming the boards with socks or apologise. |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jul 12, 2017 9:26:46 GMT
Carry on dude. Oh and adminThis poster is a troll who on the previous board regularly advocated pedophilia and having sex with children. He had thus far not done that on this board. I see now in this thread he's now up to his old tricks. His next tactic if he gets away with these posts will be to create/use sock accounts to spam this board with threads and posts about pedophilia and have disgusting discussions about it. This went on on the old board for months (evidence available upon request). I'm sure I speak for most RFS posters when I say we wouldn't want a repeat performance on this board. When one logs onto a board one doesn't expect to see sickos discussing the merits of having sex with 7 year olds. Lol I never once advocated sex with seven year olds. You will have to provide evidence for that or apologise. You will also need to provide evidence for me spamming the boards with socks or apologise. Every sentence in Superdude's post is true. You are a liar and a troll. |
|
