Tuesday, February 22, 2011
A bit of overreacting..
It seems like a lot of people overreacted to my last post (along with some amusing psychoanalyzing), which was in jest. I'm obviously not a misogynist and don't hate women. I'm sure everyone here lives a perfectly celibate, puritan lifestyle. I mean seriously, relax dudes. What's the point of a blog if you can't occasionally vent about random stuff?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Were you raped, Cork? You can tell us... this is a safe place. Silence is injustice.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking today how hilarious it would be if she ended up calling you back and "hanging out" (i.e. boned) or something, then you post something like, "Yeah, false alarm."
Pathetic. Now you want to pretend you were joking. Can't take some constructive criticism feedback?
ReplyDeleteBret with the homosexual fantasies again... Just find a down-low partner already, lots of guys love bears. The SO should understand, its all about you, thats normal.
ReplyDeletelol the discourse on this blog has turned downright *toxic* over the last few months. What grave sin has Ginx committed, aside from failing to follow the party line? And it's funny how hot and bothered everyone is by my last post. It's remarkably tame when compared to the ridiculous shit I used to post 7 times a week.
ReplyDeleteBret hasn’t committed any “sin” outside of his own stupidity, parasitic nature and intolerable narcissism. I could care less if he touts any “party” line. I get along with some of the most liberal and lovely people out there, I just dislike narcissists and irrational rudeness - oh and talentless fuckwit college pukes turned parasite.
ReplyDeleteA liberal or progressive with a brain and the ability to be a real skeptic would be welcome, bret is just too stupid to understand his own indoctrination.
Cork: Haters gonna hate.
ReplyDeleteHaters gonna hate.
ReplyDeleteBret fails to mention that it is he that has been the instigator in many cases, throwing around accusations and using unnecessarily vitriolic language without any provocation. It's one thing to civilly disagree, or even get a little angry, but when you start off by calling someone a retard, moron, etc, or telling them (including myself, when I said nothing to provoke it except express an opinion he disagreed with) to "fuck off".
Let's see, he's also accused me, in comments on posts here at SE, of being pro-slavery and a child molester!
This doesn't begin to scratch the surface however; there is also his reliable disingenuousness and constant use of strawman and ad hominem arguments.
Nikk isn't pro-slavery... he's just proud of the millions of Slave State citizens who fought for slavery, because it's their right to govern themselves and their slaves however they want. Slave slave slave. Slave? Slave.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I will check, but I'm pretty sure I didn't call you a child molester, I just pointed out that you seem very defensive of the men caught meeting 13 year old girls on "To Catch a Predator." Sure, the person they talked was not a minor and it was a set up... so I guess that means if I hired someone to kill you and it turned out to be a cop, that isn't a crime either. Clearly. They person I hired was never really a hitman! Come on people, you gotta believe me, I'm too white for prison!
Also, I can't even count how many times I posted a simple and non-offensive comment, only to have whiney bitches let comments from another thread compel them to lay out a completely random and off-topic written tirade. I've taken to doing this as well lately... I must say it's fun. Not constructive, but worth a laugh.
I should add that I also think Bret gets it right quite often, and I'm on his side more than he might realize.
ReplyDeletecaught meeting 13 year old girls
ReplyDeleteWell, that was the issue. They never met any 13 year old girls! Without an actual victim, there is no crime.
so I guess that means if I hired someone to kill you and it turned out to be a cop, that isn't a crime either.
No, you're wrong, because the equivalent situation would be if one of those "To catch a Predator" men proposed a sexual encounter with a real underage girl, then before meeting her, the girl had been replaced by a cop.
If you're actively seeking to kill me, and you hire what you think is a "hitman", then presumably you want to murder me, not as a fantasy, but to find a way to really do it. And, there is a specific possible victim in that instance, the individual they wanted killed. The two situations are not analogous. There is no specific underage "victim" involved at all in the sex sting.
I should add that I also think Bret gets it right quite often, and I'm on his side more than he might realize.
ReplyDeleteI usually interpret your silence as agreement on principles and disagreement on delivery.
No, you're wrong, because the equivalent situation would be if one of those "To catch a Predator" men proposed a sexual encounter with a real underage girl
"I was just coming to hang out with her, officer. You don't know what I would have done with her. I would have lost my nerve and not gone through with it. Prove me wrong."
How far does one's dick have to be in a 13 year old before it's a crime?
Also, why does a real child have to be subjected to these sick conversations in order to catch people who are taking advantage of children?
For some chat logs from these conversation, see here. If you can read two from start to finish and tell me you still want real children to be the target of these people, I'll drop the issue (and advise people to not leave their children in your care).
If you can read two from start to finish and tell me you still want real children to be the target of these people, I'll drop the issue
ReplyDeleteI don't want children to be subjected to any sick minds, but that's not the issue. You continue to use obfuscation to cloud whatever issues you discuss. The issue is, are we under the rule of law as constrained by the constitution, or can someone be convicted of a "crime" where no victim was ever in jeopardy? It might be more difficult to catch people when they actually commit crimes, but that's just to damn bad. if you want we can just accelerate the trend in this country in the direction of a total police state, I'm sure that will make the job of the cops even easier, and they'll catch even more bad guys.
advise people to not leave their children in your care
Oh, no, you're not implying I'm any kind of child molester! You mean something else, right?
Meanwhile, I'll be advising parents not to leave their newborns in your care, Mr. Infanticide.
The issue is, are we under the rule of law as constrained by the constitution, or can someone be convicted of a "crime" where no victim was ever in jeopardy?.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize none of these guys are likely being caught on their first time, that many were previously arrested for actually abusing children, and that there is literally no harm to non-pedophiles to go pervert-fishing, right?
A police state is characterized by enforcing unjust laws (especially those seeking to silence dissenters and critics). If you have a problem with people being locked up for pursuing pre-teens, there's plenty of countries in the Middle East and in the Eastern Pacific which are quite friendly and accepting of such pederasty. You won't be bothered by police states preventing people around you (not yourself, of course) from finger banging 4th graders.
And no, this has nothing to do with "love it or leave it," I'm saying there are places where you can seek refuge from this horrible, oppressive police state that is locking up pederasts. Clearly there is something keeping you from pursuing these other options... like the fact that you must inherently realize that you are over-reacting to something which isn't even a problem. I wish more cops were out catching child molesters, in fact I wish every cop investigating drugs would switch their focus to real crimes. I doubt we would need so many police, in that case.
But yeah, I guess it's better to accuse police who arrest pedophiles with being the harbingers of a "police state," when there are only about a million other real problems with law enforcement one could actually discuss.
Meanwhile, I'll be advising parents not to leave their newborns in your care, Mr. Infanticide.
Less diapers to change.
Also, I should do a series of posts on here called "Dear Mr. Infanticide." I could discuss methods and recipes (baby-back ribs, anyone?).
A police state is characterized by enforcing unjust laws (especially those seeking to silence dissenters and critics).
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. You can use police state tactics to enforce "just" laws and to go after murderers, armed robbers, etc. Looking for a killer or rapist? Just sweep whole neighborhoods and force everyone to give a blood test to check their DNA. We already have exclusionary rules about evidence being used in court where such evidence that was illegally obtained, and the crime committed doesn't matter, even if the accused is guilty as hell.
If everyone's DNA was on record, how could that be abused? I'm just curious... I mean real abuse, in the absence of systems and rights and privacy and other illuory ideas. I mean... I'm curious if you can find a real situation where having a DNA library can be abused (I will accept stories involving clones and elaborate plots to frame you for horrible crimes in a desperate grab for power... bonus points if it reminds me of a Philip K. Dick story or Judge Dredd... though realize that everything turns out okay in the end of those tales).
ReplyDeleteSo you have no problem with everyone being forced under penalty of law (government is force) to give up a sample of DNA to be on permanent record that can be checked whenever the state wants to check it against evidence left at a crime scene? I doubt if that's what you're really suggesting, but if I'm right in that, then you aren't really responding to my comment, you're just obfuscating again, equivocating again, engaging in sophistry again, in other words, trolling again.
ReplyDeleteWell Nikk bret trolls or he spends the day masturbating to gay porn until his sugar momma gets home from work and make him clean the Cheetos crumbs off the bed and wipe down the laptop.
ReplyDeleteI just recognized a conversation going no where, so I opined on what tangible harm is there in something like DNA records. Got any ideas?
ReplyDelete