Nightmares for the Next Two Weeks

Off Topic
21

[quote]thaiclinch wrote:
As far as rape goes im not sure how this would work…from what I have heard most rapes are not a form of lust or attraction its a form of dominance and violence…so I would just assume that even with no balls or dick this piece of shit would still want to hurt and harm people…just fucking incarcerate them for life…

we do it to drug dealers and people that hit people wheil drinking and driving…and all kinds of other reasons we lock people away for life…WHY THE FUCK WOULDNT WE LOCK THESE BAGS OF SHIT UP FOREVER??? Oh pry cause the fucking governors and there pastors are in on the fun too…Alright now Im going to home school my kids…Im scared now.[/quote]

That stuff about rape is wrong I know that was said on CSI it is bull(many things on that show are ridiculouse and totally made up).

The truth isn’t cut and dry sex crimes, rapes,sexual serial murders are caused by either wanting sex the power aspect and most of the time both of them connected to each in some way. It is such a stupidly simple obviouse answer but maybe most people just want it to be cut and dry?

22

Somehow I’m bothered by the idea when it’s wrapped in a nice package of ‘rehabilitation and cure.’ That seems to me to be the road to eugenics and genetic selection. I’m offended by the mental image of some prissy, school marmish figure gently wagging their finger and stating it’s for your own good. I believe it’s put that way so no one feels responsible for what they are doing.

It doesn’t, however, bother me in the least when packaged as punishment. You commit this crime, you are punished in this manner. I don’t care if it cures you or the impact on recividism.

As far as reversability, capital punishment isn’t exactly reversable. It’s also been know to positively impact the likelihood that the offender commit another similar crime.

I’m not saying this is the way we should go but if that’s the road you take, don’t make up some soft soap crappola to ease your mind and give us warm fuzzies about castrating men. Do it or don’t do it.

23

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Non violent sex-related crime is the most over-hyped crime of the 20th and 21st century.

Rape is just a manifestation of a biological imperative, and an alternative mating mechanism.

Read some of TC’s articles. Biological mandates are a powerful, logical impetus to these actions.

Now, the current label of “Sex Offender” includes anything from violent rape to touching a kid in his naughty bits.

Hmm. I don’t think these two acts are tantamount to each other.

A guy doesn’t deserve to have his dick cut off, or testicles removed for touching a kid in the crotch.

sigh Puritanical America with its religiously informed laws…

[/quote]
So, in your mind is it just women and little kids who don’t have the right to say no, or are you a victim of biological mandates as well if some guy twice your size decides that he wants to play with your dick?

24

[quote]dylan10507 wrote:
thaiclinch wrote:
As far as rape goes im not sure how this would work…from what I have heard most rapes are not a form of lust or attraction its a form of dominance and violence…so I would just assume that even with no balls or dick this piece of shit would still want to hurt and harm people…just fucking incarcerate them for life…

we do it to drug dealers and people that hit people wheil drinking and driving…and all kinds of other reasons we lock people away for life…WHY THE FUCK WOULDNT WE LOCK THESE BAGS OF SHIT UP FOREVER??? Oh pry cause the fucking governors and there pastors are in on the fun too…Alright now Im going to home school my kids…Im scared now.

That stuff about rape is wrong I know that was said on CSI it is bull(many things on that show are ridiculouse and totally made up). The truth isn’t cut and dry sex crimes, rapes,sexual serial murders are caused by either wanting sex the power aspect and most of the time both of them connected to each in some way. It is such a stupidly simple obviouse answer but maybe most people just want it to be cut and dry?[/quote]

Fuck…I do watch CSI…now Im confused as to what is reality and what isnt…hmmm, am I dreaming right now?

25

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:

So, in your mind is it just women and little kids who don’t have the right to say no, or are you a victim of biological mandates as well if some guy twice your size decides that he wants to play with your dick?

[/quote]

You extrapolated in error. I said nothing about the objects of said biological mandates and their reception to them. I never said that women or children didn’t have the right to say no. Do not put words in my mouth. My post explained the impetus to so called “deviant” methods of fulfilling a biological directive. You foolishly drew your own conclusion. Don’t do that.

Of course anyone can say no to a sexual advance. But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children then an arm-wrestling match.

Puritanical America…

26

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:

So, in your mind is it just women and little kids who don’t have the right to say no, or are you a victim of biological mandates as well if some guy twice your size decides that he wants to play with your dick?

You extrapolated in error. I said nothing about the objects of said biological mandates and their reception to them. I never said that women or children didn’t have the right to say no. Do not put words in my mouth. My post explained the impetus to so called “deviant” methods of fulfilling a biological directive. You foolishly drew your own conclusion. Don’t do that.

Of course anyone can say no to a sexual advance. But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children than an arm-wrestling match.

Puritanical America…[/quote]

My guess to the sandwich comment would be because force feeding someone a sandwich doesn’t have as high a chance as causing severe psychological damage as raping someone. I mean, if I got held down and anally raped/forced to do sexual shit against my will I don’t imagine I’d be quite right for a bit, or ever.

As to the second comment about adult-child sex interactions, I would agree that north america as a whole tends to take it a little too far (two 17 year olds can have sex, but a 17 and and 18 year old is rape, because the day someone turns 18 they magically level up like in a video game), and sex in generally is too hush hush taboo.

27

[quote]JLu wrote:

My guess to the sandwich comment would be because force feeding someone a sandwich doesn’t have as high a chance as causing severe psychological damage as raping someone. I mean, if I got held down and anally raped/forced to do sexual shit against my will I don’t imagine I’d be quite right for a bit, or ever.
[/quote]

I think his point was that you would only feel that way because you have been conditioned to by society. Being force-fed is the same kind of personal violation, but edible rather than sexual.

Mind you, I’m not agreeing, but it’s an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any reasonable way to test his hypothesis.

The fact of the matter is that rape does do psychological damage. Regardless of whether that is an innate response or a socially conditioned one, and laws are (and should be) written accordingly.

[quote]
As to the second comment about adult-child sex interactions, I would agree that north america as a whole tends to take it a little too far (two 17 year olds can have sex, but a 17 and and 18 year old is rape, because the day someone turns 18 they magically level up like in a video game), and sex in generally is too hush hush taboo.[/quote]

It’s a lot easier to rigidly enforce the letter of the law without any regard for its intent.

28

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
A guy doesn’t deserve to have his dick cut off, or testicles removed for touching a kid in the crotch.

sigh Puritanical America with its religiously informed laws…

[/quote]

If someone touched my son in the genitals, I’d cut off his balls myself. Ass clown.

29

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
You extrapolated in error. I said nothing about the objects of said biological mandates and their reception to them. I never said that women or children didn’t have the right to say no. Do not put words in my mouth. My post explained the impetus to so called “deviant” methods of fulfilling a biological directive. You foolishly drew your own conclusion. Don’t do that.

Of course anyone can say no to a sexual advance. But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children then an arm-wrestling match.

Puritanical America…[/quote]

So many children have you “touched”? You sick fuck. And praytell, what country condones adult-child sexual interactions since “Puritanical America” has it all wrong?

30

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Idiocy, and bullshit.

Puritanical America…[/quote]

It’s not puritanical ideology, it’s a punishment for one of the most degrading things a human can do to another. It’s not a fucking sandwich.

You’ve obviously never had anyone close to your sexually assaulted.

You ask most folks who’ve been sexually assaulted or who love someone who has they would probably opt for more than just castration.

31

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Non violent sex-related crime is the most over-hyped crime of the 20th and 21st century.

Rape is just a manifestation of a biological imperative, and an alternative mating mechanism.

Read some of TC’s articles. Biological mandates are a powerful, logical impetus to these actions.

Now, the current label of “Sex Offender” includes anything from violent rape to touching a kid in his naughty bits.

Hmm. I don’t think these two acts are tantamount to each other.

A guy doesn’t deserve to have his dick cut off, or testicles removed for touching a kid in the crotch.

sigh Puritanical America with its religiously informed laws…

[/quote]

G-star?

32

[quote]Ghost22 wrote:

It’s not puritanical ideology, it’s a punishment for one of the most degrading things a human can do to another. It’s not a fucking sandwich.

You’ve obviously never had anyone close to your sexually assaulted.

You ask most folks who’ve been sexually assaulted or who love someone who has they would probably opt for more than just castration. [/quote]

Your response illustrates the primacy of emotion in your moral reasoning. You make fallacious assumptions about my own experience which is irrelevant to the issue, and magnifies the flaw in your reasoning:

You assume everything.

You assume that sex is inherently degrading and damaging, because society has programmed you to emotionally associate sex+child with disgust and block out any rationalization.

There is nothing inherently degrading or damaging about sex. Look at the Bonobos. This species of chimpanzee is the most peaceful species in existence. Sexologists have observed them extensively and found that there is not a single taboo in their social infrastructure. Incest, polygamy, homosexuality, adult-child sex, all of it is used to maintain peace.

Our sexual taboos evolve out of fear, and the need to control the masses. Sexual morality like this stems from religion and the ignorance of people like you.

You represent the idiocy of today and the sheep mentality that is eating at our collective unconscious.

33

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:

But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children then an arm-wrestling match.

[/quote]

WOW! T-Nation got his own pedophile!
I wish you gettig heavily pounded in your asshole by a thick dick against your will, and then you’ll eventually realize being force fed a sandwich is not really the same thing that being sexually molested…

34

Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot by comparing rape to making someone eat a sandwich.

So, if someone raped your mother, you’d just tell her to buck up? It’s just like eating a sandwich mom! No big deal.

What a joke.

35

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:

But why should the punishment for disregarding ‘no’ be any more severe than asking if someone wanted a sandwich, to which they reply no, and then you proceed to force feed them a sandwich? Why is sex such a special case?

Regarding Adult-Child sexual interaction, our flawed society puts sexual interaction between an adult and child in a special category of intrinsic moral violation, when it actually has no inherently damaging qualities.

The damage from sexual contact is only perceived, and stems from the social taboos surrounding child/adult sexual interaction, and the sexual mores that can be traced back to religious dogma.

Sex play with children is no more inherently damaging to the children then an arm-wrestling match.

[/quote]

WOW! T-Nation got his own pedophile!
I wish you getting heavily pounded in your asshole by a thick dick against your will, and then you’ll eventually realize being force fed a sandwich is not exactly the same thing that being sexually molested…

36

I wouldn’t even bother with this guy people. He obviously either has a screw loose, or he’s seeing how far he can push the envelope. best not to feed into it.

37

[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot by comparing rape to making someone eat a sandwich.

So, if someone raped your mother, you’d just tell her to buck up? It’s just like eating a sandwich mom! No big deal.

What a joke.[/quote]

Again MarvelGirl, you extrapolate in error. You come up with these stupid hypothetical scenarios, and expect to prove your point!

You have a very poor grasp of rhetoric and its technique. But I’ll still address your inane question.

If my mother was raped, with absolutely no extreme violence, and no STD contracted, or pregnancy, then I would not be too concerned. I would be upset, sure, but no more than someone force-feeding her a sandwich.

As I said, non-violent sexual assault is not inherently damaging.

If violence was involved, this changes matters. Violence IS inherently damaging in an unequivocal way.

Your argumentative style is simple, and crude MarvelGirl. You use fiery rhetoric and hypothetical situations as a crutch for not being able to think lucidly. I think it best for you to remove yourself from further intellectual discussions.

Why don’t you go debate something easy like black rights?

Leave the challenging topics to the big boys.

38

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Thank you for making yourself look like an idiot by comparing rape to making someone eat a sandwich.

So, if someone raped your mother, you’d just tell her to buck up? It’s just like eating a sandwich mom! No big deal.

What a joke.

Again MarvelGirl, you extrapolate in error. You come up with these stupid hypothetical scenarios, and expect to prove your point!

You have a very poor grasp of rhetoric and its technique. But I’ll still address your inane question.

If my mother was raped, with absolutely no extreme violence, and no STD contracted, or pregnancy, then I would not be too concerned. I would be upset, sure, but no more than someone force-feeding her a sandwich.

As I said, non-violent sexual assault is not inherently damaging.

If violence was involved, this changes matters. Violence IS inherently damaging in an unequivocal way.

Your argumentative style is simple, and crude MarvelGirl. You use fiery rhetoric and hypothetical situations as a crutch for not being able to think lucidly. I think it best for you to remove yourself from further intellectual discussions.

Why don’t you go debate something easy like black rights?

Leave the challenging topics to the big boys.
[/quote]

Well, I suspect this may be some HH trolling job. The writing style seems very similar…

39

Did you just learn the word extrapolate ?

Also, this is the most thinly veiled Troll job I have ever seen, ya bust out with the name Ted Bundy telling us you hold rape at no more harmful then jaywalking.

40

[quote]Ted Bundy wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:

It’s not puritanical ideology, it’s a punishment for one of the most degrading things a human can do to another. It’s not a fucking sandwich.

You’ve obviously never had anyone close to your sexually assaulted.

You ask most folks who’ve been sexually assaulted or who love someone who has they would probably opt for more than just castration.

Your response illustrates the primacy of emotion in your moral reasoning. You make fallacious assumptions about my own experience which is irrelevant to the issue, and magnifies the flaw in your reasoning:

You assume everything.

You assume that sex is inherently degrading and damaging, because society has programmed you to emotionally associate sex+child with disgust and block out any rationalization.

There is nothing inherently degrading or damaging about sex. Look at the Bonobos. This species of chimpanzee is the most peaceful species in existence. Sexologists have observed them extensively and found that there is not a single taboo in their social infrastructure. Incest, polygamy, homosexuality, adult-child sex, all of it is used to maintain peace.

Our sexual taboos evolve out of fear, and the need to control the masses. Sexual morality like this stems from religion and the ignorance of people like you.

You represent the idiocy of today and the sheep mentality that is eating at our collective unconscious.

[/quote]

Well shit if monkeys do it it can’t be wrong, guess I better start flinging my shit around for fun. You seem like a pretty intelligent person…in theory, but as we all know theory and reality don’t exactly always coincide.

You say MarvelGirl should leave the big topics to the big boys, when what I think you meant to say was leave theoretical discussions to those of us who have no real life experience.