"I Was An NFL Player Until I Was Fired By Two Cowards and a Bigot"

[Marco Polo]

The Vikings organization and the NFL could be sued if any of this is true from the special teams coordinator.

I can't imagine the depths of lawsuits that would accrue if any leader in my organization said some of the things that the special teams coordinator said.

Not to turn this into a Duck Dynasty/religion conversation but you can have your opinion, you just can't say those vile things ("nuke it until it glows") while representing your organization.

http://deadspin.com/i-was-an-nfl-pla...208214#replies

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're making a claim that simply isn't there. You're trying to claim that pedophilia somehow automatically infringes upon someone's rights. That's not true anymore than claiming that homosexuality automatically does so.

As for animals, they have no rights. They're animals.

I get your conundrum here. You can't actually acknowledge that you oppose these things as a lifestyle because it kills your tolerance claim, yet you either oppose it, despite your lofty ideals, or you support it and know that acknowledging that would get you destroyed here.

It's a tough position to be in, and you've chosen to be a hypocrite on the subject. That's not surprising. That's what was expected.

I have claimed that I have opposed these things. Numerous times. They take without consent. That's what's wrong with them. I shall not say it again.

Arguing with your ****ed up logic is like arguing with a rock. I'm done with it.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I have claimed that I have opposed these things. Numerous times. They take without consent. That's what's wrong with them. I shall not say it again.

Arguing with your ****ed up logic is like arguing with a rock. I'm done with it.

you're just not very tolerant.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I have claimed that I have opposed these things. Numerous times. They take without consent.

This is simply not true, at least in all cases. Again, in order to try reconciling your positions, you're forced to claim that all children are incapable of granting consent. That's bullshit, and you know it.

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Arguing with your ****ed up logic is like arguing with a rock. I'm done with it.

My logic is fine. Your position is just untenable if you use rational thinking instead of emoting and speaking banal platitudes.

[rabblerouser]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This is simply not true, at least in all cases. Again, in order to try reconciling your positions, you're forced to claim that all children are incapable of granting consent. That's bullshit, and you know it.



My logic is fine. Your position is just untenable if you use rational thinking instead of just emoting and speaking banal platitudes.

You just won this thread and qualify for the playoffs to win the whole internets by making total rational sense - how does that make you feel??

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You're making a claim that simply isn't there. You're trying to claim that pedophilia somehow automatically infringes upon someone's rights. That's not true anymore than claiming that homosexuality automatically does so.

As for animals, they have no rights. They're animals.

Animals and children can't legally consent.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

This is simply not true, at least in all cases. Again, in order to try reconciling your positions, you're forced to claim that all children are incapable of granting consent.

Legally they are. This is a fact.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by splatbass

Animals and children can't legally consent.

Originally Posted by splatbass

Legally they are. This is a fact.

Now you're going to try breaking out the law? Your argument's weaker than J. Diddy's. Homosexuals couldn't legally marry.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Now you're going to try breaking out the law? Your argument's weaker than J. Diddy's. Homosexuals couldn't legally marry.

Are you saying that having sex with animals and underage children is acceptable? Or are in any way comparable to consenting gay adults having sex?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by splatbass

Are you saying that having sex with animals and underage children is acceptable?

No. I'm posing questions.

Originally Posted by splatbass

Or are in any way comparable to consenting gay adults having sex?

In the context of this discussion about groups being free to live their lifestyle, yes.


Are you willing to acknowledge that your appeal to legality was a garbage argument?

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No. I'm posing questions.



In the context of this discussion about groups being free to live their lifestyle, yes.


Are you willing to acknowledge that your appeal to legality was a garbage argument?

It is not a garbage argument. Children and animals should NOT be able to consent. You are not free to live your lifestyle if you impose it on others that can't consent or are too young to say no to an authority figure.

Your freedom ends when it infringes on the rights or safety of others.

And none of this has anything to do with adult gay people consenting to have sex with one another.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by splatbass

It is not a garbage argument. Children and animals should NOT be able to consent. You are not free to live your lifestyle if you impose it on others that can't consent or are too young to say no to an authority figure.

Of course it's a garbage argument. You know, to a certainty, that at least some children reach a point, still in childhood, where they are more than capable of granting consent.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Are you willing to acknowledge that your appeal to legality was a garbage argument?

..meanwhile, schools are telling underage girls they don't need their parents consent to have an abortion..

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Of course it's a garbage argument. You know, to a certainty, that at least some children reach a point, still in childhood, where they are more than capable of granting consent.

No, that is not true. Adults are authority figures and children are taught to obey them, especially with family members (and most child molestation is committed by family members).

You are actually saying that children should be able to consent to sex with adults. Sick.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by stevieray

..meanwhile, schools are telling underage girls they don't need their parents consent to have an abortion..

They are also making condoms available, punishing 6 year old boys as sexual harassers (until a firestorm erupts and they back down) and teaching sexual education in elementary school.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by stevieray

..meanwhile, schools are telling underage girls they don't need their parents consent to have an abortion..

Where is this? In most places children legally are required to get consent from their parents or from a court to have an abortion. I seriously doubt this. It sounds like propaganda to me.