Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, AtlVcl said:

No young man agrees to homosexual acts with another unless he, himself, is already homosexual. There's no sexual abuse going on if it was mutually acceptable. I don't know about you, but I knew my sexual proclivities since I was about 11 or 12. I really don't care what standard of power dynamic you want to apply here; if it's mutual (and it was...), it's not abuse. Those young men were perfectly free to decline the opportunity at any point.
I actually think the St. John story is much more plausible (but then maybe I'm just trying to cover up my latent homosexual desires...?)

Have you learned anything from the previous thread??? Consent doesn’t matter if the victim was underaged. It’s called statutory rape. 

Posted

"I hope you are safely kept away from preteens..."

I'd appreciate it, Mr. West, if you'd refrain from projecting what you imagine onto me, believing those two disparate things to be identical.

My past was thoroughly vetted as a precondition of working with incarcerated juveniles, and found squeaky clean. That was 30 years ago.

Can you say the same about yourself ?

I find it sad that, in public discussions, one overwrought individual can toss a spanner into the gears. It doesn't differ much, that I can see, from a child throwing a successful tantrum.

Posted
11 hours ago, violinnewb said:

Consent doesn’t matter if the victim was underaged. It’s called statutory rape. 

When I was 16, I used to fervently wish Mrs. Goldstein would "statutorily" rape me. Tall, thin, red hair and freckles. Just my type, even if I wasn't aware of it previously.

Posted
3 hours ago, martin swan said:

Jeffrey please please lock this one too ... save us from ourselves (though the Springtime for Hitler clip was a great moment)

 

2 hours ago, Blank face said:

Second that.

Yup.  :rolleyes:

Posted

Vd'A : Does it not strike you as ironic that the very people making the loudest and longest noises about respecting/valuing diversity are the same ones trying to demand, as if by right, that the opinions of those they disagree with be silenced ?

Classic doublethink : claiming to oppose alleged "fascism" by actual fascism (censorship).

If not, what part off the picture am I missing ?

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, A432 said:

Vd'A : Does it not strike you as ironic that the very people making the loudest and longest noises about respecting/valuing diversity are the ones trying to demand, as if by right, that the opinions of those they disagree with be silenced ?

Classic doublethink : claiming to oppose alleged "fascism" by actual fascism.

 

 

I realize a lot of things, but it is my current position that, particularly with the number of "true believers" of differing flavors in attendance, MN is absolutely no place for politically charged discussions.  :P

Posted

Thank you.

Relevant Qutation : "To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore." --JBR Yant

Posted

The problem with online forum discussions is that there are a few that don't read, don't read carefully, don't research, don't reason....but it's mainly the reading part.  

Look before you leap.  Think before you speak.  READ before you reply.

Lock this down.

Posted
46 minutes ago, A432 said:

Thank you.

Relevant Qutation : "To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore." --JBR Yant

Just impossible to ignore - we have been answering quite satisfactorily.

I don't know why I keep bashing my head against your particular brick wall but I need someone to stop me 'cos my head hurts.

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...