Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

So if "one size doesn't fit all" with respect to your Big Three, there must be a fourth (and possibly fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.) criteria that should be applied to each case.

Can you share what they are?

Regarding gay marriage, there aren't other things to consider. Two adults want to enter into a private contract that causes no harm to anyone else, even remotely. I don't see a reason to tell them no.

So in the end, your entire argument comes down to "because I said so", because obviously the "Big Three" reasons don't mean **** . . . sometimes they apply, and sometimes they don't.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 6:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 6:30:00 PM (view original):
"It" is your guidelines for "bad".

I answered several pages ago.  I told you a couple of weeks ago that I'm not playing your stupid "Answer the same question over and over again" game.

Taking your ball and going home, biz?

Because I won't answer the same question repeatedly?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 5:55:00 AM (view original):
Please explain how watching child porn is harmful?  Who is getting hurt by the act of watching?

The very narrow circumstance you described harms no one.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 8:06:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

So if "one size doesn't fit all" with respect to your Big Three, there must be a fourth (and possibly fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.) criteria that should be applied to each case.

Can you share what they are?

Regarding gay marriage, there aren't other things to consider. Two adults want to enter into a private contract that causes no harm to anyone else, even remotely. I don't see a reason to tell them no.

So in the end, your entire argument comes down to "because I said so", because obviously the "Big Three" reasons don't mean **** . . . sometimes they apply, and sometimes they don't.

I've never said that anything was a rule for everything. Gay marriage harms no one. There's no criminal element to it. What else should we consider? You may say tradition. To that I say that tradition is personal. My tradition doesn't have to be your tradition and vice versa.

"Because I said so".

Got it.

I'm asking what else needs to be considered.

Taking your ball and going home, biz?

Make no mistake, "biz" hasn't gone home. In fact, he's getting quite a kick out of reading this even if it is predictable.

I do wonder about one thing that I don't believe was ever asked (if it was, I missed it): Are you homosexual, BL?

I only ask because you are so stubborn and determined I think it's worth knowing as part of the discussion. I'm guessing you'll ignore this and refuse to answer, though, because you really don't want anyone to know.

I have to say I've lost all respect for tec in this thread. This is the same bullshit sophistry I've seen from miket before. Make some ludicrous apples-to-oranges comparison, rephrase what others say to distort meaning...and nearly 300 pages into the thread he's still hasn't produced a cogent argument against gay marriage.

Pathetic.

What a surprise you attack tec, genghisxcon, since it's incredibly likely you either ARE bad_luck with another user name or are somehow closely acquainted with him. I established that long ago, so I just wanted to make sure tec and others are aware of it here.

Let's put it bluntly: If you've ever disagreed with BL on anything, I've never seen it, and plenty of people disagree with BL so it shouldn't be hard to find an instance of you doing it.

I've argued with tec too but I don't think he's half as bad as you make him out to be. Give the guy some credit; he defends what he believes in and he's not doing a bad job.

Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 9:51:00 AM (view original):
I have to say I've lost all respect for tec in this thread. This is the same bullshit sophistry I've seen from miket before. Make some ludicrous apples-to-oranges comparison, rephrase what others say to distort meaning...and nearly 300 pages into the thread he's still hasn't produced a cogent argument against gay marriage.

Pathetic.

Sounds about right.

Posted by tecwrg on 7/11/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/11/2013 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/11/2013 3:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/11/2013 3:05:00 PM (view original):
Really? 

This particular circumstance doesn't harm anyone, but he's said multiple times that because of the severity and how terrible the production of child porn is that all ownership should be illegal.

Also I think he's being a little vague to **** you off.

He's always a little vague when his argument is a FAILURE.

The entire point is that his "One Size Fits All" Big Three actually doesn't fit all or that he is severly lacking in morals.    He won't concede either so he'll repeat questions, disappear until the subject changes or just be vague.

I never said anything is one size fits all. In the case of gay marriage, there is no reasonable argument to ban it. Is there a reasonable argument to criminalize child porn possession?

So if "one size doesn't fit all" with respect to your Big Three, there must be a fourth (and possibly fifth, sixth, seventh, etc.) criteria that should be applied to each case.

Can you share what they are?

4) Doesn't include an activity that involves the raping of children.

We good now?

Posted by bistiza on 7/12/2013 9:55:00 AM (view original):
What a surprise you attack tec, genghisxcon, since it's incredibly likely you either ARE bad_luck with another user name or are somehow closely acquainted with him. I established that long ago, so I just wanted to make sure tec and others are aware of it here.

Let's put it bluntly: If you've ever disagreed with BL on anything, I've never seen it, and plenty of people disagree with BL so it shouldn't be hard to find an instance of you doing it.

I've argued with tec too but I don't think he's half as bad as you make him out to be. Give the guy some credit; he defends what he believes in and he's not doing a bad job.

No, he doesn't defend what he believes in, that's the point. He distorts and distracts. Almost 300 pages worth so far.