Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: masterblaster on April 10, 2013, 07:43 am
-
Morality aside, why can i cum in ur kids yo, if they enjoyed it why would you tkae that away from them, i know id let my kids experience new things cause thats what being a kid is all about. Any of u ever wnated to get fucked as a kid, that would be some sweetness if i could have gotten my tiny kock pounded by mommy and her friends
-
You can, but you have to choose a religion: Mormon or Catholic.
Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon cult in Illinois, married at least 2 girls that were 14, among his 30+ assortment wives as old as 50-something.
Catholic priests seem to have their own brotherhood of little brothers, with protection, too! How many Catholic priests are in prison?
So, you can move to Utah, join the cult of Mitt Romney, or you can become ordained as a priest. Both take work, but everything in this life does if you want it to last.
As long as its consensual, it's not rape, and Christian America seems to forget that marriage used to take place less than two hundred years ago with young girls. What has changed is the need for women to get education and have become less about property. A man and boy relationship is lost on America, as they don't know history: Greece, Rome....
Sorry, that's all I can say on the subject.
-
Morality aside, why can i cum in ur kids yo, if they enjoyed it why would you tkae that away from them, i know id let my kids experience new things cause thats what being a kid is all about. Any of u ever wnated to get fucked as a kid, that would be some sweetness if i could have gotten my tiny kock pounded by mommy and her friends
you cannot say "morality aside" and then talk about this. THis is entirely a question of morals, and in America, if you are even asking this question, then you have no morals...
Many kids have no idea what they want, many kids can be tricked into "wanting", wtf is wrong with you that you don't just want an adult anyway...
I hope you don't acutally want to "cum in my kids" and you were just trying to start an interesting discussion.
-
You can, but you have to choose a religion: Mormon or Catholic.
Didn't Muhammad marry a nine-year-old?
masterbator, It's okay to rape children if you're a Muslim too. But it's not okay for the children to be raped, so if anyone finds out the kids will be punished with 300 lashes and/or a death sentence. Do what's best for the kids, rape them in secret.
-
There doesn't even need to be an argument regarding how wrong that is.
-
Morality aside, why can i cum in ur kids yo, if they enjoyed it why would you tkae that away from them, i know id let my kids experience new things cause thats what being a kid is all about. Any of u ever wnated to get fucked as a kid, that would be some sweetness if i could have gotten my tiny kock pounded by mommy and her friends
you cannot say "morality aside" and then talk about this. THis is entirely a question of morals, and in America, if you are even asking this question, then you have no morals...
Many kids have no idea what they want, many kids can be tricked into "wanting", wtf is wrong with you that you don't just want an adult anyway...
I hope you don't acutally want to "cum in my kids" and you were just trying to start an interesting discussion.
I think you can say, "morality aside", especially when the leadership throughout the U.S.--and the world for that matter--is as corrupt as a power hungry drug lord. There is no morality but what we make it. If I grew up with sexual, sensual adults, I would be cool with that. I started masturbating at age 9. Today I'm bisexual. If I had the opportunity to find that out earlier, I would have had a much less stressful early adulthood.
So when you condemn someone on moral grounds, you need a framework that supports your argument. Cum in my kids? OK, if they say its OK. If they decide they don't wanna do that anymore--like when a kid gets tired of playing tag or when they don't wanna play with their favorite doll anymore. If you seriously and intelligently consider the situation, then you should know that it is next to impossible to get research grants to study human sexuality in children. At daycare centers across the country, daycare workers reprimand children that hump their sleeping mats, inanimate objects, or each other. Humans are no different than dogs or sheep or goats with respect to their animal instincts and desires. Putting a lock on sexuality is like putting a lock on drugs. Eventually that lock will be picked and everyone will see how stupid we have been.
Don't you feel that way about the Drug War? Why is it any different with this religious Sex War?
-
Bertrand Russell put it another way toward another argument, but it works here just the same. If you tell your son he can't play with trains, then he will want to know why. What is it about trains that I can't know? It's a secret, a mystery. Humans are curious creatures. If you condemn their curiosity, then you curb their intelligence. You are essentially putting a stigma on learning. Don't you see how that has affected drugs?
How much does a gram of coke cost? 100$? For a gram. It costs pennies to make kilos, but the U.S. and its drug war escalates the costs by illegalizing it. Now terrorists can continue to wreak havoc on South and Central America, which is already poverty stricken. Thanks America for the fighting the war against Human Rights! Kidnappings, torture, and murder are commonplace in much of the world, and it is prolific in South America. Why is that not the vanguard statement for Drug Policy? Human fucking Rights? So for every kilo of coke purchased, a criminal can buy an arsenal of power.....
So you wanna ban children from learning? You wanna deprive children of free expression? Precocious children are smarter than average adults. Most children, for that matter, have reached the average U.S. education by age 12. So what does it matter, as long as they consent? I'm not interested in children, sexually, but I am interested in their health and education.
-
To answer your question more directly: God, how come I cannot cum in your kids?
God has nothing to do with it. If it were up to God, women would still be property and children would be married off like Muslims practice today. Did you ever think of that? At the time of Jesus, Mohammad, and Joseph Smith, everyone was marrying children. Women were property--they still are. Humans are property, just as a brick or stone can be owned. It is mass that can be traded, bought, and sold. Slavery still exists--although in disguise of corporations and prisons.
Joseph Smith (Mormons), Catholics, Muslims still enjoy young pleasures--forbidden fruit. It is tyranny that keeps our children from being free agents in society. The current system encourages runaways to have sex, because that enables them to be free from abusive parents--which is often the reason why children run away! Hurtcore, for example, is a monstrous enterprise... another feature of outlawing sex.
Pornography used to be outlawed... Bad words in public and in public broadcasts used to be outlawed... The more you keep from somebody, the more valuable that secret becomes....
-
This thread has given me a massive brain tumor.
-
masterblaster is a known troll. dont feed him
-
This thread makes me sick. And brings back a massive amount of horrible memories from my childhood. I hope OP gets castrated.
So you read the thread title that says "God, how come and i cant cum in ur kidz!@" and then decided to click on it and read it anyway? Are you a moron? What did you think was going to be in here? Flowers and Kisses? Do you realise this is not Facebook or Google? This is an anonymous forum, any freak can post whatever they want.
-
masterblaster is a known troll. dont feed him
I don't think any human being should starve.
-
Are children property? Can they not decide for themselves what they want to do? Do you know that children commit suicide? Hurt other children... but they also learn. What we teach them, how we behave toward them--all our actions they observe--influences their lives. If we restrict them, then they suffer.
I masturbated as a boy, from age 9, wishing and hoping for sex. I was deprived of it. No one taught me what it was. I had to learn it on my own. In middle school and high school, I had sex with every girl that said "yes". If I had an adult that taught me at a young age what love is, what sex is, then I would not have 4 kids in the next county over. Do you see what's going on here?
Sex education has suffered for too long because no one is willing to have an open and thoughtful conversation about human sexuality in our children--who become adults like us right now.
-
Convert to ISLAM...
Mohammed married a 6 year old and raped her when she was 9.
Let the children have their innocence i say! one thing to fool around with 12 year old when you are 12 but when someone even a year or two older starts fooling around that's not cool. The older person will be more capable of manipulation and it would no longer be "fair and innocent"
Abuse leads to more abuse in a vicious cycle. I believe children and in charge of there own bodies and no adult/guardian has the right to touch them.
-
Convert to ISLAM...
Mohammed married a 6 year old and raped her when she was 9.
Let the children have their innocence i say! one thing to fool around with 12 year old when you are 12 but when someone even a year or two older starts fooling around that's not cool. The older person will be more capable of manipulation and it would no longer be "fair and innocent"
Abuse leads to more abuse in a vicious cycle. I believe children and in charge of there own bodies and no adult/guardian has the right to touch them.
OK, let's pick this apart.
First, let children have their innocence.
Good so far.
Then, you go on to state that age gives people advantage over others. What about younger people taking advantage of older people? A clever 15 year old can outsmart a 17 year old. Or 18 year old... sometimes even 30 year olds... This argument fails. Thus, "fair and innocent" loses its support by your standards.
"Abuse leads to more abuse in a vicious cycle. I believe children and in charge of there own bodies and no adult/guardian has the right to touch them."
OK, this last part is a mess.
1. Abuse leads to more abuse in a vicious cycle.
This is seemingly true and self-evident.
2. Your belief that children are in charge of their own bodies is a good one.
I like this belief. However, it conflicts with you next statement about touching children. If children are in charge of their own bodies, then shouldn't they decide who touches them; and decide who is allowed to them? That's where the issue of consent arises.
This whole argument is about consent. Traditionally, marriage can take place as young as 14 in many US states. That's called the "age of consent". Some states make it 15 or 16. If the parents do not agree, and there is sex out of wedlock, then it is an issue of statutory rape... even if there is consent. This matches the label of "nanny state" or "police state"... as in totalitarianism. Tyranny. Despots. Warlords....
If children are going to come out of this argument unscathed, then you have to examine the facts. What are we really arguing about? What do we really want? I want to know why children aren't involved in their own future when their parents are given bad labels by the State. Doctors make as many mistakes as any other member in society. A college degree does not make you perfect...
Abuse needs to be defined by the experience of the "abused". We also need to hear from the "abused" to gather convincing evidence for or against "age of consent".
-
Have you seen the movie "Crush"?
It depicts how much power you put in the hands of children. A child that lies about sexual abuse has complete power over the accused. Did you think about that? How easy you are making it to blacklist and stigmatize innocent people? Just because a child gets upset... Don't you know how easy children get upset?
Now, do you want children to have this kind of power over law-abiding adults?
-
Children easily get upset yes.
Therefore they are emotionally immature.
Therefore they cannot correctly comprehend the repercussions of their actions. IE. giving you consent to cum in them and potentially giving them HIV
-
Children easily get upset yes.
Therefore they are emotionally immature.
Therefore they cannot correctly comprehend the repercussions of their actions. IE. giving you consent to cum in them and potentially giving them HIV
You raise an important issue. That is education. Do you think people that engage in promiscuous and dangerous situations "correctly comprehend" the consequences? In many cases... probably most cases, it can reasonably stated that these people do not "correctly comprehend" their behavior, and thus, cannot possibly understand the consequences.
Adults get HIV... from cum... I agree that children should NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER get exposed to HIV... but then no one should. HIV is the problem in your argument, not "age of consent".
-
Children easily get upset yes.
Therefore they are emotionally immature.
Therefore they cannot correctly comprehend the repercussions of their actions. IE. giving you consent to cum in them and potentially giving them HIV
Adults are also "easily upset". Does that mean they are emotionally immature? That they should be monitored and protected? It sounds like you are against the Road altogether by this logic.
Furthermore, regarding HIV, people get HIV from more than just semen, anal, or vaginal secretions. Blood.
As in "I'm going to the doctor today to give (or receive) blood"....
"Now I have HIV."
These consequences better reveal the issue at hand is with HIV. People give consent to give blood. Not everyone considers the statistics of HIV infection from legal medical procedures. How many people got that fucking fungus in their spine recently? 48 died, right? Over 40 people died. Do you think they should be allowed to consent, if they weren't fully understanding of the consequences?
-
education is good, but you have to understand there are physical differences in tween/teen brains as puberty fluctuates emotions wildly. Its not a level playing field. They should be free to experiment with their are group. In all honestly you only want to have sex with young girls like most males, but experience has taught our culture this is not a good idea. This is the wisdom of our culture. I personally believe if you had been in a long term non sexual monogamous relationship with a teen and you both honestly believe in spending the entirety of your lives together there an argument to taking the relationship to a sexual one. That said, have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with a teenage girl?
Lolita is a good movie
-
Basically: This is not me, this is western society - DO NOT have sex with girls under 16
-
education is good, but you have to understand there are physical differences in tween/teen brains as puberty fluctuates emotions wildly. Its not a level playing field. They should be free to experiment with their are group. In all honestly you only want to have sex with young girls like most males, but experience has taught our culture this is not a good idea. This is the wisdom of our culture. I personally believe if you had been in a long term non sexual monogamous relationship with a teen and you both honestly believe in spending the entirety of your lives together there an argument to taking the relationship to a sexual one. That said, have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with a teenage girl?
Lolita is a good movie
There are physical differences between a 20 year old and 30 year old. Significant differences between 30 and 70. Genetic differences can also make a 20 year old seem drastically different from another 20 year old... or for that matter a pair of 12 year olds.
You are addressing monoculture with regard to monogamous relationships. There are many polygamous relations that are very health and do not bring harm to their respective community. "I personally believe"... but not everyone has the same belief. That's a democracy. Different practices also work, if you it is sincere and honest.
Intelligent conversations with teenage girls? Yes, there are many teenage girls that participate in college events. Are you calling teenage girls stupid? How did they get that way? Is it because they are too sheltered?
There are also less intelligent adults that find teenage girls very appealing. So, are you saying that because an adult doesn't fit in with their peers because of a possible learning disorder, that they should remain celibate or sexually isolated? What if the teenage girl wants to have sex with her neighbor? What if it was her choice?
-
Basically: This is not me, this is western society - DO NOT have sex with girls under 16
Basically, it is you. If you repeat other people's thoughts, then you are advertising their ideals. You become a spokesperson for everything you repeat. That is why I try to be complete in my responses. I don't offer one liners to significant discussions, because that's all people will have to judge me by.
-
This is me: the 16 year old age of consent is based , like all laws, off the lowest common denominator. There are those who would maliciously seek out younger girls to use. Do you really want your girlfriend to have lost her virginity to a 45 year old bald guy with a gay convertible?
-
This is me: the 16 year old age of consent is based , like all laws, off the lowest common denominator. There are those who would maliciously seek out younger girls to use. Do you really want your girlfriend to have lost her virginity to a 45 year old bald guy with a gay convertible?
This is me: the 16 year old age of consent is based , like all laws, off the lowest common denominator. There are those who would maliciously seek out younger girls to use. Do you really want your girlfriend to have lost her virginity to a 45 year old bald guy with a gay convertible?
"Lowest Common Denominator": I thought we were talking about people. If you want to include statistics, or perhaps what the LCD is in this case--outside of the realm of mathematics and in the realm of the real world (which can be described elegantly with mathematics in countless situations).
There are those that maliciously seek out younger girls now, with or without those laws. The part of the situation I am addressing is consent. Malicious attacks are just that: malicious. They malign society against itself, therefore harming public health. I don't want to address that issue, but the specific one of consent; what constitutes consent; who is doing the consenting; why should that be illegal? Where is the harm?
What's wrong with masterblaster's gay convertible? Are you homophobic? Do we need a strawman argument? A hypothetical figure that is stereotypical and obviously fictional just to make a point? I don't think we need to go there. Those are malicious people.
If your intent is not to harm anyone, and everyone that is party to the interaction gives their consent, then it is legal. If you consent to smoke a joint with your friends, that is consensual. However, under American laws, that is illegal, and often unnecessarily treated with hostile force by authorities of all kind, be it LEO, judge, prosecutor, or local and state politicians. They have not considered the argument in full, which is why we have so many poor leaders in our country today. No one stops to think about the issues, but instead, everyone is arguing for their own selfish purposes.
We gave up our identity to speak our minds, yet everyone is still holding on to their personal beliefs as if one's own ideas are perfect. Who here is perfect? It's time to accept anonymity, which means thinking for yourself. Don't make me do it for you. I grow tired of it.
-
Shit, I thought my posts were bad.
Cumming in kids is not what I want to see when I log in here.
-
NOT COOL...... >:(
-
one time i asked the nazis at the stormfront forum why society ignores heterosexual men molesting children and how homosexuals are accussed of molesting little girls and i was shitlisted/deleted/permabanned/faggotlisted/ipbanned/kikekilled all in one go.
i could have killed hitler and id be less banned. the heteros just cant handle taking collective responsibility in the same way they dish it out!
-
This whole argument is about consent. Traditionally, marriage can take place as young as 14 in many US states. That's called the "age of consent". Some states make it 15 or 16. If the parents do not agree, and there is sex out of wedlock, then it is an issue of statutory rape... even if there is consent. This matches the label of "nanny state" or "police state"... as in totalitarianism. Tyranny. Despots. Warlords....
Traditionally the age of consent in the US was 10. Now federal law says it is 16 for US citizens, regardless of where they are, meaning even if a US citizen is in a country with an age of consent of 15 they cannot legally have sex with someone under 16. Individual states can set the age of consent over 16, but they cannot over ride federal law, setting it lower would only be ceremonial. States have ages of consent set at 16, 17 and 18. Most of the world has age of consent set below 18, Canada in 2000 had the age of consent set at 14. I think 14 is a good number, it protects young children but doesn't needlessly demonize people for screwing fully self aware teenagers.
-
This whole argument is about consent. Traditionally, marriage can take place as young as 14 in many US states. That's called the "age of consent". Some states make it 15 or 16. If the parents do not agree, and there is sex out of wedlock, then it is an issue of statutory rape... even if there is consent. This matches the label of "nanny state" or "police state"... as in totalitarianism. Tyranny. Despots. Warlords....
Traditionally the age of consent in the US was 10. Now federal law says it is 16 for US citizens, regardless of where they are, meaning even if a US citizen is in a country with an age of consent of 15 they cannot legally have sex with someone under 16. Individual states can set the age of consent over 16, but they cannot over ride federal law, setting it lower would only be ceremonial. States have ages of consent set at 16, 17 and 18. Most of the world has age of consent set below 18, Canada in 2000 had the age of consent set at 14. I think 14 is a good number, it protects young children but doesn't needlessly demonize people for screwing fully self aware teenagers.
Bump.
-
Anybody who typed up over 2+ sentences In this thread, Has officially earned there pedo card.
-
Anybody who typed up over 2+ sentences In this thread, Has officially earned there pedo card.
their; not there; not they're; their. Learn to write well and you won't be accused of having your ignorance card.
-
I can't believe that people are actually making serious posts in this blatant troll thread.
-
Might be a troll thread, but the troll is being serious. When he gets a little older he will understand why children need to be protected. Until that time enjoy being creepy
-
Might be a troll thread, but the troll is being serious. When he gets a little older he will understand why children need to be protected. Until that time enjoy being creepy
I may be under 18, but I don't think you can say who I can and cannot sleep with.