Why does it seem that whenever a serious debate gets going on this board, the people defending the {non-discriminatory} side of things put up a tonne of conditions that they then fall back on and say "in this case, this situation - there is no harm whatsoever, therefore my point is valid"?

Umm...

...this "tonne of conditions" is near-universally

(a) Short 'n simple

...and...

(b) no different than the conditions which would be required for the same outcome for heteroerotic, homoerotic, or zooerotic interaction.

Then people wonder why no one takes us seriously.

Umm... the last few people I came out to IRL took us fairly fuckin' seriously.

Then people wonder why no one takes us seriously. They are going to laugh at you if you say "in a society {of non-discrimination} adult child sex will not be harmful".. why? Because that is Very much detached from reality as it exists today as to be totally hypothetical, and when it comes to serious debate, hypothetical utopian scenarios have no weight.

So, let me get this straight - pardon the phrase.

Your fucking argument is "because we discriminate, we should discriminate?

Damn, you're a stupid fucking bitch. And you'll have to do better than that.

When someone argues that the blame for the harm cannot totally rest on a society that makes it taboo, due to the adult knowing this is taboo yet still going through with it - making a hypothetical jump through hoops 5 point...

Lux? I will shoot one person a day until you renounce Christianity and worship and publically proclaim Lucifer as God.

By your argument? Christianity itself becomes an inherent evil...

...and you were the sole party responsible for these deaths; I am under no obligation to change my behavior.

Have a nice day.


'We do not negotiate with terrorists.'
- the US Federal Government

{similar statements attributed to Mossad omitted)