Iraqi refugee raped 10yo boy in Austria, says it was ‘sexual emergency’.

Original post by *Stefan*

Mate, I'm not gonna bother with this ignorance. I've already explained how rape cannot be used in an animal context yet you still ask the same thing.

Had enough of this.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Of course rape can be used in the concept of animals hahahaha have you never seen an animal fight another animal when it tries to mate with it?

Stop pussyfooting around the issue you degenerate. You're trying to justify paedophilia.

Reply 63

ivybridge

6

Original post by That Bearded Man

If anything, I'd argue that people who were raised in religious households, were taught homosexuality was a sin, are more at "risk"

I believe there is a degree of genetic susceptibility, but environmental and social factors IMO are the causes. Broadly I think if you were theoretically isolated from one gender (like, say, in an all male prison) you are more likely to be a homosexual or bi, therefore I think you could be "conditioned" into a certain sexual orientation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I wasn't taught anything about homosexuality - it was a non-issue. Just stop - I don't want to have this debate.

"at risk" - of loving another man? Totally a risk.

Reply 64

Original post by AntiBabylonista

Probably because bigots such as yourself are constantly harassing them.

The enablers are the problem. They wouldnt be conflicted if everyone told them they were sick. You tell them, against their own feelings and common logic that they aren't sick, but everyone else tells them they are.

Reply 65

Original post by Kieselguhr

Of course rape can be used in the concept of animals hahahaha have you never seen an animal fight another animal when it tries to mate with it?

Stop pussyfooting around the issue you degenerate. You're trying to justify paedophilia.

Do you actually use your brain at all?

I explained clearly that paedophilia refers specifically to humans, since the word paedo means young person!

And I won't even bother with your first proposition. You don't seem to be older than 14yrs old so obviously can't understand basic logic.

And I'm trying to do what? Lol, what an idiotic idiot.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 66

AntiBabylonista

Original post by Kieselguhr

The enablers are the problem. They wouldnt be conflicted if everyone told them they were sick. You tell them, against their own feelings and common logic that they aren't sick, but everyone else tells them they are.

No

Bigots who think it is their business what other adults are doing in their bedroom are the problem.

Reply 67

Original post by *Stefan*

Do you actually use your brain at all?

I explained clearly that paedophilia refers specifically to humans, since the word paedo means young person!

And I won't even bother with your first proposition. You don't seem to be older than 14yrs old so obviously can't understand basic logic.

Jeez...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Paedo does not refer specifically to humans. Paedo simply means child. Stop trying to hide behind a dictionary and answer the question - do animals rape sexually immature members of their own species?

Reply 68

Original post by AntiBabylonista

No

Bigots who think it is their business what other adults are doing in their bedroom are the problem.

Why is it not the business of the state to maintain moral standards? Would you be happy with a consenting child and consenting adult having sex in their bedroom?

Reply 69

AntiBabylonista

Original post by Kieselguhr

Why is it not the business of the state to maintain moral standards? Would you be happy with a consenting child and consenting adult having sex in their bedroom?

I can't believe I am actually going to explain why paedophilia is wrong whereas homosexuality isn't

The issue is consent and the prospect of potential harm, a child below the age of 16 can't consent ergo it is rape. Two adults of the same sex can consent.

Reply 70

Original post by Kieselguhr

Paedo does not refer specifically to humans. Paedo simply means child. Stop trying to hide behind a dictionary and answer the question - do animals rape sexually immature members of their own species?

Are you out of your mind dude? Paedo is an ancient Greek word referring to persons younger than 15 and 16. It does not and cannot apply to non-humans. Stop trying to hide behind a dictionary? But the dictionary says you're obviously mistaken. Are we to disregard everything because it makes you look like an idiot?

Firstly, rape refers to a specific legal term which is obviously not available with regards to animals animals.

You are referring to sexual coercion, which is still uncommon in the animal kingdom.

Got it now? And I fail to see how this is relevant to anything discussed herein.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 71

elohssa_9001

Further proof that Muslims are gay

Reply 72

Original post by AntiBabylonista

I can't believe I am actually going to explain why paedophilia is wrong whereas homosexuality isn't

The issue is consent and the prospect of potential harm, a child below the age of 16 can't consent ergo it is rape. Two adults of the same sex can consent.

Historically in many countries, the age of consent was lower than 16 and is still only 14 in Portugal. It's been assumed for most of time that girks can consent at that age. People are subject to the law at the age of 12 - they're deemed to be aware and responsible by that age.

In ancient civilisations having sex with children was normal due to the early onset of puberty as it is today and the short lifespan of people.

The justifications for paedophilia are the same as those for homosexuality. Both are degenerate and both are immoral

Reply 73

Original post by Kieselguhr

Historically in many countries, the age of consent was lower than 16 and is still only 14 in Portugal. It's been assumed for most of time that girks can consent at that age. People are subject to the law at the age of 12 - they're deemed to be aware and responsible by that age.

In ancient civilisations having sex with children was normal due to the early onset of puberty as it is today and the short lifespan of people.

The justifications for paedophilia are the same as those for homosexuality. Both are degenerate and both are immoral

Here it is, you are absolutely idiotic indeed.

How are the two comparable? One is between two consenting adults while the other is not.

If anyone's a degenerate here, it's you. And we don't care about your morality - you seem like a pathetic loner who likes to degrade people. Hardly moral by anyone's standard.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 74

AntiBabylonista

Original post by Kieselguhr

Historically in many countries, the age of consent was lower than 16 and is still only 14 in Portugal. It's been assumed for most of time that girks can consent at that age. People are subject to the law at the age of 12 - they're deemed to be aware and responsible by that age.

In ancient civilisations having sex with children was normal due to the early onset of puberty as it is today and the short lifespan of people.

The justifications for paedophilia are the same as those for homosexuality. Both are degenerate and both are immoral

I am straight, but literally this post could be used as justification for banning heterosexual sex, you are being that retarded.

Reply 75

Original post by *Stefan*

Are you out of your mind dude? Paedo is an ancient Greek word referring to persons younger than 15 and 16. It does not and cannot apply to non-humans. Stop trying to hide behind a dictionary? But the dictionary says you're obviously mistaken. Are we to disregard everything because it makes you look like an idiot?

Firstly, rape refers to a specific legal term which is obviously not available with regards to animals animals.

You are referring to sexual coercion, which is still uncommon in the animal kingdom.

Got it now? And I fail to see how this is relevant to anything discussed herein.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Feel free to keep the dictionary arguments coming, but just be aware that arguing about the dictionary definition of words to refute an argument is a logical fallacy and considered a self-defeating argument.

However you wish to phrase rape in the animal kingdom, you're absolutely wrong when you say it is "uncommon". It's a very valid and very common reproductive strategy for animals. Take ducks for example - a large amount o duck reproduction comes via rape.

Now, answer the question - do animals rape sexually immature members of their own species?

Reply 76

Original post by AntiBabylonista

I am straight, but literally this post could be used as justification for banning heterosexual sex, you are being that retarded.

Now you're starting to see civilisation. We decide what we can and cannot do based on morals, and restrain ourselves from doing immoral things with discipline. This is what it takes to be civilised. An uncivilised world is one where we could have sex with anything we wanted.

Reply 77

Original post by Kieselguhr

Feel free to keep the dictionary arguments coming, but just be aware that arguing about the dictionary definition of words to refute an argument is a logical fallacy and considered a self-defeating argument.

However you wish to phrase rape in the animal kingdom, you're absolutely wrong when you say it is "uncommon". It's a very valid and very common reproductive strategy for animals. Take ducks for example - a large amount o duck reproduction comes via rape.

Now, answer the question - do animals rape sexually immature members of their own species?

Erm, I'm using authorities which directly back my point. You have no clue about the meanings of the words yet insist in using them inappropriately. If anyone's on the wrong here, it's you. Taking meanings and definitions out of your arse is hardly persuading. Even for a 14yr old.

Rape is not available for animals. How many times do I have to say this? Its elements do not exist in animals.

Hahaha you are actually illiterate. I answered the questions multiple times thus far. Is this an "I will keep asking it no matter what" scenario?

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 78

Original post by Kieselguhr

Now you're starting to see civilisation. We decide what we can and cannot do based on morals, and restrain ourselves from doing immoral things with discipline. This is what it takes to be civilised. An uncivilised world is one where we could have sex with anything we wanted.

So, where are you basing your morality? Christianity? Islam?

If you'd like to live under these morals, feel free to leave Europe and live in the "civilised" areas doing exactly what you're referring to.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79