Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Lying Liberals and the webs they weaveFollow

#27 Jun 18 2015 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
If you bang my 14 year old and I find out you'll find a hole.
Phrasing.


My first thought when realizing this was to rephrase it as "dirt hole". Am I a Republican now?
#28 Jun 18 2015 at 9:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Malory Archer wrote:
Who's there? What do you want? Because all you're going to get is holes. I, I mean holes in you, not my...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Jun 18 2015 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"...a hole lotta trouble!"


This thread surpassed my expectations. I am a little surprised we got to holes so late though.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#30 Jun 19 2015 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Recent peeps wrote:
jizzyjdog, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (46)

JJD, my MAN! What up?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Jun 19 2015 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Guess we'll find out next month.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Jun 19 2015 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The GOP former Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency is a child molester who sexually abused boys on his wrestling squad and paid out millions of dollars to cover it up.


Child molester? Not saying the guy didn't do anything wrong here, but...


Leave.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#33 Jun 19 2015 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, sure, but at some age under 18 you would call it molestation, right?


Yes. When we're talking about a pre-adolescent:

Quote:
A child molester is any older child or adult who touches a child for his or her own sexual gratification. Child molestation is the act of sexually touching a child. A child is a girl or boy who is 13 years of age or younger.


Quote:
Anyway, there is no criminal classification for molestation under the Illinois system.


And yet, you chose the term, didn't you? Why not talk about what crime he may or may not have committed instead of using a powerfully emotionally charged term? I'm hardly a Hastert fan, but I really get sick of people immediately jumping to the worst label possible in cases like this. Let's call things what they actually are, ok?

Quote:
What Hastert (most likely) did would be "aggravated criminal sexual abuse" (Class 2 Felony) and potentially "criminal sexual assault" (Class 1 Felony) if any penetrative act took place. The "...of a minor" is implicit since the standards for each act are that the victim was a minor.


And could be as little as "criminal child endangerment", if the sexual activity was judged to be consensual (well, non-forced anyway). Or maybe "unlawful sex with a minor", or any of a number of various charges that fall far far far short of what most people assume is meant by "child molesting".


My main point here is with the word choice. I'm not defending any one. I'd do the exact same thing if we were talking about a prominent Democrat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Jun 19 2015 at 7:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
The GOP former Speaker of the House, third in line to the presidency is a child molester who sexually abused boys on his wrestling squad and paid out millions of dollars to cover it up.


Child molester? Not saying the guy didn't do anything wrong here, but...


Leave.


Why? For pointing out that "child molester" is the wrong term for what Hastert may have done? I don't make this point out of some desire to minimize the harm that the offender did, but to not fall into the trap of reducing the impact of the term when actually used properly. Child molestation is probably (certainly?) the most disgusting/terrible thing that a human being can do to another human being. When you use the term broadly, you weaken it. I want anyone labeled as a child molester to be loathed by all for what he has done, not have people wonder "um... Ok. When you say child molester do you really mean that he had consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old student?".

Get it? Geez.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jun 19 2015 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And could be as little as "criminal child endangerment", if the sexual activity was judged to be consensual (well, non-forced anyway).

No, it can't. There is no such thing as consensual sexual activity between a student and educator.

But, hey, if your ace in the hole is that Hastert is "only" guilty of criminal child endangerment so how dare anyone call him a child molester then have it Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Jun 19 2015 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When you say child molester do you really mean that he had consensual *** with a 16 or 17 year old student?".

14. Potentially 13 since you can be a 13 year old high school freshman if your birthday falls in the right place. But let's just call it 14 year olds. Hastert sexually abused 14 year old boys as their coach and teacher. Sounds like a great time to start pouting and getting indignant that someone dared called him a child molester though.

Oh, but you'd so the same thing if it was a Democrat. Of course you would, champ. Of course you would...

Edited, Jun 19th 2015 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jun 19 2015 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not talk about what crime he may or may not have committed instead of using a powerfully emotionally charged term?
Unlike your "explaining" how "harmful" buying groceries is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Jun 19 2015 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And could be as little as "criminal child endangerment", if the sexual activity was judged to be consensual (well, non-forced anyway).

No, it can't. There is no such thing as consensual sexual activity between a student and educator.


Hence, why I said "non-forced", and why I mentioned "statutory rape" earlier. We do make a distinction between sex that is non consensual because one of the participants is legally too young to grant consent and sex that is non consensual because one participant was forced to have sex against their will. It's interesting that even though I know that you know this, you're pretending not to. Cheap gag, at best.


Quote:
But, hey, if your ace in the hole is that Hastert is "only" guilty of criminal child endangerment so how dare anyone call him a child molester then have it Smiley: laugh


I have no interest one way or the other in Hastert's guilt. My sole point was that your use of the term "child molester" was incorrect. It's a pet peeve of mine that people tend to use the most heinous label possible when labeling someone they don't like for unrelated reasons. Which is precisely what you did here. Why is it not sufficient to damn someone for what they actually did (or at least what they're actually even remotely being accused of maybe doing)? Not sure why there's this need to trump things up so much. Taking advantage of his position as a coach to engage in sexual activity with some of his students should be bad enough, right?

So why do you feel this almost pavlovian need to label it as something even worse? That's the part I just don't get. You are familiar with the "boy who cried wolf" story, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jun 19 2015 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When you say child molester do you really mean that he had consensual *** with a 16 or 17 year old student?".

14. Potentially 13 since you can be a 13 year old high school freshman if your birthday falls in the right place. But let's just call it 14 year olds. Hastert sexually abused 14 year old boys as their coach and teacher.


Allegedly. But sure. Stop there though.

Quote:
Sounds like a great time to start pouting and getting indignant that someone dared called him a child molester though.


Because even the wildest accusations don't match that label. I'm not sure why this is such a terrible thing in your mind. Should I just sit by while you call someone a child molester when no one (other than you apparently) has accused him of that?

Quote:
Oh, but you'd so the same thing if it was a Democrat. Of course you would, champ. Of course you would...



Yes, I would. I've made this exact point about misusing of terms (especially in the area of sexual assault) many times on this forum without any specific alignment vis-a-vis politics. If you were internally honest about this, you'd ask yourself if you would ever label a Democrat in such a manner, of it you only do so to Republican politicians.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jun 19 2015 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Hence, why I said "non-forced", and why I mentioned "statutory rape" earlier.

Neither of which apply legally. And, really, it's likely neither apply practically as well. You're the one making the blind assumption that this was a voluntary thing; the victim's sister's account suggests it was otherwise and very very damaging to the boy Hastert abused.

Quote:
I have no interest one way or the other in Hastert's guilt.

Hence your twisting yourself in knots to make it something "less" bad. "Maybe it was just statutory rape! Or maybe just criminal child endangerment! Huh?! It could just be that!"

Yes, Gbaji, everyone honestly believes your adorable story of this just being a "pet peeve" and it has nothing at all to do with your insane partisanship that you'd rush to diminish the heinous sexual abuse this fucker inflicted on boys as their teacher and coach. Go pat yourself on the back.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Jun 19 2015 at 8:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Yes, I would. I've made this exact point about misusing of terms (especially in the area of sexual assault) many times on this forum without any specific alignment vis-a-vis politics.

True. You'll spend pages and pages diminishing women being raped and saying it doesn't really count and now you rush to say that Hastert's acts aren't so bad as to call them "molestation".

You know what? You're right. I guess it's not partisanship -- you're just one twisted dude. Hey, I wonder if Hastert left any marks while he was fucking 14 year olds. That'd make all the difference in your mind, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Jun 20 2015 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
gbaji wrote:
Child molestation is probably (certainly?) the most disgusting/terrible thing that a human being can do to another human being.


This is not a shot at Gbaji. This is a common statement I hear. It's flat out wrong.

Child molestation is a horrible horrible crime and the people committing it are disgusting creatures that have no place in society. Murder is worse. Physical torture is worse, though molestation can also fall into that category in some (many?) cases. Genital mutilation that some cultures practice is worse (essentially physical torture and molestation in one). We feel like child molestation is worse because it disgusts us that anyone could harm our children in a sexual way but in reality it'd be much worse if they killed our children, or say cut off their fingers, as there'd be no option for recovery.
#43 Jun 20 2015 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Agreed, circumcision is worse than kiddy fiddling.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#44 Jun 20 2015 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Agreed, circumcision is worse than kiddy fiddling.


Usually when people complain about the horrors of genital mutilation they are talking about the ones where they chop off female genitals, not the trimming of foreskin. I'd think that'd be right up your ally of support, rather than sarcastically denying the claim.

Edit:
Foreskin is censored...

Edited, Jun 20th 2015 1:15pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#45 Jun 20 2015 at 11:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Child molestation is probably (certainly?) the most disgusting/terrible thing that a human being can do to another human being, unless you do it a year later when they turn 14. Then it ain't so bad. Heck, then it's just like statutory rape or criminal child endangerment or pretending to be a black woman. In any event, be sure to fight tooth and nail to defend them because last year it was the most disgusting/terrible thing that a human being can do to another human being but, in this year's fashions, it's just one of those wacky things that politicians do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Jun 20 2015 at 12:42 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Child molestation is probably (certainly?) the most disgusting/terrible thing that a human being can do to another human being


Not to say that it isn't a horrible thing, I don't think it's the most disgusting/terrible thing.

My mother, and all of her siblings, along with a few cousins, were molested/raped (some combination, details are not openly discussed) as children by a family member. When it was discovered the family hid it, the mother of the perp got angry at the children claiming they were demons that seduced her son.

But, today my mother is alive (along with all her siblings and cousins), relatively healthy, and my brother and I, along with all my cousins, exist. There are a few more scenarios that could have happened that would not have allowed all of that to be. I would list those as higher on the list of terrible things.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#47 Jun 20 2015 at 12:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, I was riffing off Gbaji's line there. How it's the worst thing in the world to molest someone who is 13 (to use the definition Gbaji gave) but apparently fairly trivial if they're 14 and you can handwave it away as being "like statutory rape". The fact that statutory rape is his benchmark for "not so bad" is another question entirely.

I'm personally not up for ranking all the possible atrocities one can inflict on kids. I suppose that raping a nine year old is "better" than raping a nine year old and then cutting their legs off but that wouldn't make me defend either event.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jun 20 2015 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm personally not up for ranking all the possible atrocities one can inflict on kids.

Well, just have to watch a few episodes of L&O: SVU, you'll be up to speed on everything you can possibly do to anyone. The media, movies, video games, etc don't leave out much when it comes to thinking up scenarios. You don't have to be particularly imaginative.

Side note:
I was watching Hannibal last week. They showed, uncensored, a man being deboned, skinned, and molded into a sculpture of a human heart. But then they showed the lead character holding up an old painting (similar to this one, warning, nudity). They blurred out the breasts and even the ass. I could not help but think that it was done in jest, rather than necessity.

Edit: No, I'm not trying to make a violence/sex censorship comparison to anything, it merely popped into my head as I was remembering L&O:SVU and all the random stories they came up with.

Edited, Jun 20th 2015 3:08pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#49 Jun 20 2015 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Hannibal is a trip. If you can ignore the fact that he's killing and eating people, you have to give him points for presentation. Those meals look delicious.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#50 Jun 20 2015 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Yeah, he really put his heart into his cooking.

Well, someone's heart, anyway.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#51 Jun 21 2015 at 5:19 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Samira wrote:
Hannibal is a trip. If you can ignore the fact that he's killing and eating people, you have to give him points for presentation. Those meals look delicious.


Definitely some stunning visuals.

The whole Man->Heart->Stag-Creature transformation was well done, like something you'd find in a nightmare, or when the sirens sound in Silent Hill..

Edited, Jun 21st 2015 7:21am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 257 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (257)