New Testingstan

who is alfred in this equation can it be me

Zablorg wrote:who is alfred in this equation can it be me

You're Penguin.

Count Chocula wrote:Wow, you failed to make an argument yet again! Bravo. You have a special kind of myopia. You amuse me.

Sweetie, you're beneath regard. The reason you're beneath regard is because you're the only one who doesn't see that, which makes it all the more hilarious.

Flagg wrote:I do if they molest children or rape people.

Do you have a mental problem?

I don't mean that as an insult, I seriously want to know if you have some sort of cognitive dissonance issue. The entire point of that extended analogy was to show how placing "I'm a baddy, ostracise me and commit vandalism on this place" signs on the houses of everyone on a list when said signs are targeting only a very tiny percentage of people on that list was a bad idea. You stated you were okay with it because they're all kiddie-fiddlers, I pointed out that only a fraction of them are kiddie fiddlers, and only a tiny fraction of that fraction do their fiddling outside the circle of trusted family and friends, thus the signage would hit all the wrong people and do little to nothing to stop the people they're allegedly trying to stop... and with a straight face, you say you're fine with it because they're all kiddie-fiddlers.

It's the same damn thing you're doing in the other thread.

Seriously, is there something wrong with you?

Count Chocula wrote:EDIT by the way, Backs, when did you become kitty's batman?

this is you right now

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Wow, you failed to make an argument yet again! Bravo. You have a special kind of myopia. You amuse me.

Sweetie, you're beneath regard. The reason you're beneath regard is because you're the only one who doesn't see that, which makes it all the more hilarious.

Flagg wrote:I do if they molest children or rape people.

Do you have a mental problem?

I don't mean that as an insult, I seriously want to know if you have some sort of cognitive dissonance issue. The entire point of that extended analogy was to show how placing "I'm a baddy, ostracise me and commit vandalism on this place" signs on the houses of everyone on a list when said signs are targeting only a very tiny percentage of people on that list was a bad idea. You stated you were okay with it because they're all kiddie-fiddlers, I pointed out that only a fraction of them are kiddie fiddlers, and only a tiny fraction of that fraction do their fiddling outside the circle of trusted family and friends, thus the signage would hit all the wrong people and do little to nothing to stop the people they're allegedly trying to stop... and with a straight face, you say you're fine with it because they're all kiddie-fiddlers.

It's the same damn thing you're doing in the other thread.

Seriously, is there something wrong with you?

Raping children is beyond the pale. Short of killing them it's literally the worst thing that can happen to them. So I don't take issue with society putting a scarlet letter on the motherfuckers. We don't let violent criminals own guns, why let child molesters have access to children?

Flagg wrote:

Zablorg wrote:who is alfred in this equation can it be me

You're Penguin.

Um I actually meant it using the non-captialized version:

"Noun 1. batman - an orderly assigned to serve a British military officer" - thefreedictionary.com. If you think kitty's worthy of British officerhood and you can vanquish Baks for the position, have at it.

I think the position's much lower than you deserve with your enginfilmineering chops. I'd also hesitate to work for someone who persists in calling me "Sweetie" or "dear" and is not my wife. Just a personal choice.

Flagg wrote:Raping children is beyond the pale. Short of killing them it's literally the worst thing that can happen to them. So I don't take issue with society putting a scarlet letter on the motherfuckers. We don't let violent criminals own guns, why let child molesters have access to children?

Fucking hell, you do have an issue because you're doing it again.

WELL OVER 90% OF THE PEOPLE GETTING THIS SCARLET LETTER ARE NOT CHILD-RAPISTS. OF THE LESS THAN 10% THAT ARE, MAYBE .1% DID THE RAPING OUTSIDE OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU ARE FUCKING OVER 999 PEOPLE JUST TO GET ONE THAT HAS NOT EVEN DONE ANYTHING YET.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Flagg wrote:Raping children is beyond the pale. Short of killing them it's literally the worst thing that can happen to them. So I don't take issue with society putting a scarlet letter on the motherfuckers. We don't let violent criminals own guns, why let child molesters have access to children?

Fucking hell, you do have an issue because you're doing it again.

WELL OVER 90% OF THE PEOPLE GETTING THIS SCARLET LETTER ARE NOT CHILD-RAPISTS. OF THE LESS THAN 10% THAT ARE, MAYBE .1% DID THE RAPING OUTSIDE OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU ARE FUCKING OVER 999 PEOPLE JUST TO GET ONE THAT HAS NOT EVEN DONE ANYTHING YET.

1) I agree the list includes too many people in too broad a category. I have from the start.
2) If you're on the list you have done something.

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Flagg wrote:Raping children is beyond the pale. Short of killing them it's literally the worst thing that can happen to them. So I don't take issue with society putting a scarlet letter on the motherfuckers. We don't let violent criminals own guns, why let child molesters have access to children?

Fucking hell, you do have an issue because you're doing it again.

WELL OVER 90% OF THE PEOPLE GETTING THIS SCARLET LETTER ARE NOT CHILD-RAPISTS. OF THE LESS THAN 10% THAT ARE, MAYBE .1% DID THE RAPING OUTSIDE OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU ARE FUCKING OVER 999 PEOPLE JUST TO GET ONE THAT HAS NOT EVEN DONE ANYTHING YET.

Read the fucking article, geniecatfourscoreandthree. Let me recap with FACTS to which you seem to be allergic, much like people are allergic to kitty dander: the article arguendo is from Simi Valley, CA, population 125,000. There are 119 registered sex offenders. In other words, .0952% of the population are registered sex offenders. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that 12 of them are the superpervs who should absolutely be kept away from children.

Either figure, 119 or 12, is less than 1% of the population. THE 99% PROTECT THEIR OWN!1!1! WE ARE THE 99%!1!1! If it saves just one innocent child, it's worth it!

Okay, enough hyperbole. You are extrapolating the doings of one city in one state and generalizing from there to support a position that 90% of sex offenders are NOT deserving of the title. And, nice move, you are "supporting" your "argument" by limiting sex offenders to the subset of "CHILD-RAPISTS." You cherry-picking asshole.

Do you live there? No? The city council voted for the ordinance, which means they had the approval of their constituents. See, if you had said the voters of Simi Valley were bigoted fuckknuckles from your POV for allowing that ordinance, you might have received some sympathy or agreement. But no, you jerked your knee and made your non-factual position a global indictment. How predictable.

You amuse me.


EDIT fixed one grammar and one spelling goof.

Seriousely, I hadn't picked up on that, but you realize that those 80-90% are just molesting the easiest targets, right? It's pretty hard to get friendly with kids when if you're caught you go back to prison.

Ummm...

Could you all get a room ? This starting to get embarassing.

man i love that argument that women must prostitute themselves so that rapists won't rape them

i really do

it's so amazingly brainfucked. and when you extend that argument to child molestation, that's just fantastic. let's have a reserve army of children that are legally raped for money so that children won't be raped.

but y'know keep them in a place where we the important people can't see them

What in the world.

Did I accidentally stumble on SDN, or what ?

Count Chocula wrote:

Djinnkitty83 wrote:

Flagg wrote:Raping children is beyond the pale. Short of killing them it's literally the worst thing that can happen to them. So I don't take issue with society putting a scarlet letter on the motherfuckers. We don't let violent criminals own guns, why let child molesters have access to children?

Fucking hell, you do have an issue because you're doing it again.

WELL OVER 90% OF THE PEOPLE GETTING THIS SCARLET LETTER ARE NOT CHILD-RAPISTS. OF THE LESS THAN 10% THAT ARE, MAYBE .1% DID THE RAPING OUTSIDE OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS. YOU ARE FUCKING OVER 999 PEOPLE JUST TO GET ONE THAT HAS NOT EVEN DONE ANYTHING YET.

Read the fucking article, geniecatfourscoreandthree. Let me recap with FACTS to which you seem to be allergic, much like people are allergic to kitty dander: the article arguendo is from Simi Valley, CA, population 125,000. There are 119 registered sex offenders. In other words, .0952% of the population are registered sex offenders. Let's just say, for argument's sake, that 12 of them are the superpervs who should absolutely be kept away from children.

Either figure, 119 or 12, is less than 1% of the population. THE 99% PROTECT THEIR OWN!1!1! WE ARE THE 99%!1!1! If it saves just one innocent child, it's worth it!

Okay, enough hyperbole. You are extrapolating the doings of one city in one state and generalizing from there to support a position that 90% of sex offenders are NOT deserving of the title. And, nice move, you are "supporting" your "argument" by limiting sex offenders to the subset of "CHILD-RAPISTS." You cherry-picking asshole.

Do you live there? No? The city council voted for the ordinance, which means they had the approval of their constituents. See, if you had said the voters of Simi Valley were bigoted fuckknuckles from your POV for allowing that ordinance, you might have received some sympathy or agreement. But no, you jerked your knee and made your non-factual position a global indictment. How predictable.

You amuse me.


EDIT fixed one grammar and one spelling goof.

Holy shit you're thinking of yourself in the plural and singular senses simultaneously?!?!? Dear God. Dear God.

F.J. Prefect, Esq wrote:What in the world.

Jub wrote:
In short the law is worse than pointless and you could do more to prevent these sorts of things by making prostitutes cheap and legal than you would passing these sorts of worthless hateful laws.

Jub wrote:I'd be willing to bet that more crimes would be prevented by giving people access to legal of age pussy than would be prevented by shunning people further. After all, I've already shown that your law would prevent 1 rape a decade if all stranger rapes were committed by people already on the offender list and happened by means of pulling a kid in from the front step. It shouldn't be hard for virtually anything else to do better.

Flagg wrote:Seriousely, I hadn't picked up on that, but you realize that those 80-90% are just molesting the easiest targets, right? It's pretty hard to get friendly with kids when if you're caught you go back to prison.

That doesn't seem to bear out because a large fraction actually don't go after their own children, but rather children they know personally. Also, this is like saying that 90% of rapes are marital or acquaintance because "those are the easiest targets".

what in the actual fuck

Nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Oxymoron wrote:Nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Blame Canada!

As a Canadian, I'm offering you a hearty hot mug of "shut the fuck up, please", Chocks.

Maple syrup, beavertails, a plaid shirt, and a chainsaw are included

Chuckles wrote:lulz I support mob rule and don't care if ten, twenty or fifty other people get their lives ruined just so I can preemptively punish that one who was already convicted and has about as much statistical evidence of being about to try again on halloween as there was in the eighties for satanic cults abducting babies.

Sweetie-pie, you just aren't important, go play with your little toys now. There's a good Chuckles, maybe some day I'll actually play along with your fantasy that I'm somehow obligated to give your wailing any regard.

Jubblefucks wrote:

Yeah, he's that special sort of aggravating. The type that makes one or two points so that you're thinking maybe he's got a good position, then goes off the deep end. The sort of well-meaning idiot that ends up tainting whatever cause he's attached himself to.

Would I be paranoid in thinking perhaps he's actually a false-flag troll?

I've been thinking on the subject of those legions of evil child molesters just waiting for their chance on halloween to grab helpless, unsupervised kids, which are about as prevalent in my opinion as evil satanic cults kidnapping and indoctrinating kids while sacrificing babies that was the subject of a similar (and arguably more widespread) hysteria during the eighties:

This law is both I'M A JUGGALO WOOP WOOP and insanely counterproductive even if these kinds of people existed in the numbers implied by the proponents of the law. What predatory child-rapist who's already been convicted at least once would be so stupid as to repeat their crimes in their own house? Why give the child they're about the assault the perfect piece of evidence to point the finger of blame at them should said child overcome the trauma and step forward with what happened? "Can you tell us where this happened?" "Yes, this house on this street." "Ah, a convicted sexual offender lives there, let's get him!"

All this law does is, assuming for sake of argument these evil, once-convicted random child rapists exist and are just waiting for the right holiday to strike again, convince the stupid ones not to commit the deed where they live and thus make it harder to track them down when they do strike again. Not only will they just leave their marked and off-limits houses to do the crime somewhere that can't as easily be traced back at them, but they now also have the perfect alibi: "No officer, I was at my house on halloween, not in the tree-filled park half a mile away where the attack occurred, and since your new laws make my house a clearly marked no-go zone, I was doing my part as well by locking the doors, keeping the lights off and not answering no matter how many times someone knocks, so as not to even accidentally attract any strangely unsupervised kids that might go by on the sidewalk. Of course I still got egged, a rock was thrown through my living room window, and someone spraypainted 'Rapist!' on my garage, see?"

This is why this issue gets to me. It doesn't solve anything, it's a feel-good bandaid for those who want to just appear to be 'for the children' without actually doing anything useful, it hurts a lot of innocents, it indirectly supports mob-rule and vigilantism, and arguably it makes any theoretical random-child-rapist *more* likely to get away with something should they attempt it.

RyanThunder wrote:As a Canadian, I'm offering you a hearty hot mug of "shut the fuck up, please", Chocks.

Maple syrup, beavertails, a plaid shirt, and a chainsaw are included

Well since you said "please," my answer is, um, "no." Eh? BTW none of the lumberjack accoutrements are unique or even original to Canada. A French-English dictionary would have been a better imaginary bribe.

I'll give you my .44mag brass, if you'll just drop it and go away for a month.

Aaron wrote:I'll give you my .44mag brass, if you'll just drop it and go away for a month.

I don't own a .44 Mag. Sorry.

Is bloodypants actually trying to argue that all pedophiles are smart people who think everything through before acting on their uncontrollable urges?

Probably illegal anyways.