Holy ****, did anyone see the latest Something Awful weekend web?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
The primary definition (#1) was "lacking sex." Pick and choose all you want

Yeah, pick and choose. How about finishing that definition; lacking sex or functional sex organs. Obviously this is using the term sex as in reference to gender ie. - niether female or male. Surely you aren't going to claim that is the case of virgins.

[JohnT]

I can't believe I have to do this:

Main Entry: or
Pronunciation: &r, 'or, Southern also 'är
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, alter. of other, alteration of Old English oththe; akin to Old High German eddo or
Date: 13th century
1 -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty
2 archaic : EITHER
3 archaic : WHETHER
4 -- used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true; compare

Therefore, the primary definition contained two possible uses of the word.

[Dis]

edit: that looks out of place. there are 2 pages to this thread

[Dis]

some of you guys are cruel to paedophiles. They are people too.

Castrate them and let them go free.

[JohnT]

Hell, I'll go with castration. No problem there.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
I can't believe I have to do this:

Main Entry: or
Pronunciation: &r, 'or, Southern also 'är
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English, alter. of other, alteration of Old English oththe; akin to Old High German eddo or
Date: 13th century
1 -- used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty
2 archaic : EITHER
3 archaic : WHETHER
4 -- used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true; compare

Yes, and in this case the word 'or' was being used as an equivalent. Or are you saying that they put two definitions under one hedaing?

(Funny that they desribe 'or' by using the word in it's own definition. )


You're not very good at semantics if even I can beat you at it. I suggest you avoid quoting the dictionary in the future, if you can't understand it.

1 : lacking sex or functional sex organs

Does not mean "They can't get laid" it means that either 1. the subject has no gender, or 2. it's sexual organs are not functional - ie. the subject is not capable of performing sex. Virgins are.

In most cases anyways, which is why the terms celibate or abstinent are usually the the terms best suited to describe a 50 year old virgin.

[Kuciwalker]

JohnT - if a lesbian gets raped by a guy, does that make her straight?

[JohnT]

Kucinich, you're better than that.

Ludd, I'm gonna concede this one out of boredom. You win! I'm now convinced: pedophiliacs are wonderful people.

[JohnT]

Since this thread is degenerating (Hey, I made a pun!) quickly, let me add to it:

I am not at all surprised that the Communists are defending this: Azazel, Spiffor, OB, and GL. Not that you are pedarists or anything, but the disassociation that you Communists have between "logic" and the real world is really showing on this matter. Sometimes, people, you just have to take a stand against what is wrong.

Carry on without me. This "debate" is very unpleasant to participate in to begin with, and more so as it continues.

[Kuciwalker]

Who's defending pedophilia? We're defending freedom of thought, not any specific thoughts. Obviously, we condemn acting on pedophilia.

[Lorizael]

And skywalker is most certainly not a Commie.

And to make one last point.

Using your definition

sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Keyword here being preferred. This is a statement of what the person desires, of what they want. It doesn't say that a pedophile is a person that has sex with children.

A person that does not act on their pedophilic desires is still a pedophile by this definition, because children are still their preferred sexual object.

[Az]

Hell no, I am not defending freedom of thought. I think that these thoughts are wrong, but:

a) shouldn't be punished by themselves. They're just thoughts, the mind flows in all kinds of directions, and noone is harmed at that point.

b) should be treated, if possible, and I claim that it is possible. If it isn't, castrate them, sure, but don't you think that some research into that is needed?

Just trying to find the best solution. I am sorry that I am not jumping into "hell they're paedophiles, let's just shoot them/ cut their balls off".

And I am fully willing to accept, that sometimes, this IS the the solution, like in the case of psychopaths, people that anatomically can't feel empathy, and have no possibility of a cure/prevention.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm now convinced: pedophiliacs are wonderful people.

The paedophiles that don't hurt children in any way their whole life, that shy away from all contact with children, whilst I wouldn't call them wonderful any more than I'd call a guy resisting the urge to rape a hot woman, they are certainly not bad people.

[Monk]

It's a no-brainer that being exposed to pedophilia can be extremely harmful and actually is just that in most cases - but one interesting question I can't help but think about is whether there are children whose sexual encounters with some adult are actually positive experiences overall.

[Az]

This is quite a disturbing thought, isn't it? Like these people on that site, wasn't one of them quoted remembering himself being molested, and thinking of that happily? Eery.