(untitled). . did you know? In "1955, Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in Playboy a short story about straight men being persecuted in a world where homosexuality  (untitled) did you know? In "1955 Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in Playboy a short story about straight men being persecuted world where homosexuality
Upload
Login or register

(untitled)

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
did you know?
In "1955, Hugh Hefner agreed to publish in
Playboy a short story about straight men being
persecuted in a world where homosexuality was
the norm. In response to the criticism, Hefner
replied, ''If it was wrong to persecute
heterosexuals in a homosexual society then the
reverse was wrong, too."
teru/ p/ tont
moo ook.
...
+1600
Views: 70992 Submitted: 12/18/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (390)
[ 390 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#21 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply +185 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [+] (6 replies)
stickied by shadowkingdr
ok to all you what if people in the comments section read the ******* thing again its a response to criticism so **** off
ok to all you what if people in the comments section read the ******* thing again its a response to criticism so **** off
#227 to #21 - reefer
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Go back to ******* school before you comment again, you illiterate moron.
User avatar #235 to #227 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
that wasn't very nice
User avatar #278 to #227 - lebarricuda
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Seems to be the other way around, Mr. Reefer. Try putting down the pipe.
User avatar #234 to #227 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
well that wasn't very nice
User avatar #398 to #21 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
im just saying this is the largest ********* i have ever seen
User avatar #50 to #21 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
i made it to the front paaaggeee and it felt so good... felt so good... i put my content inside of it yeaaahhhh
#20 - vonspyder
Reply -73 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Yes, in a world where few pedophiles are persecuted by people who are attracted to people their own age....its wrong because what if there was a world where everyone was a pedophile and there were only a few people attracted to people their own age?
User avatar #292 to #20 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
lol no
#98 to #20 - hardongo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
the ignorance in this post is physically hurting me, how can you even compare pedophilia with homosexuality
the ignorance in this post is physically hurting me, how can you even compare pedophilia with homosexuality
User avatar #108 to #98 - vonspyder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Im not against homosexuality. Im against the flaw in his argument and it angers me because making flawed arguments HURTS the principle you are trying to advocate for. This arguement OP presents possesses the Strawman Fallacy and thus doesnt work as an argument in favor of eliminating gay prejudice. Since I am again such persecution I am against someone making a flawed argument protesting persecution of gays.
User avatar #182 to #20 - vonspyder
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
You ******* need to thumb down alot more if you want to counter the numerous top rated posts ive made. ******* FJ is slacking off I see.
User avatar #279 to #20 - gwegw
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
There's always one ignoramus who equates homosexuality with paedophilia.
User avatar #407 to #279 - vonspyder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
And theres always a **** ton of ignoramus' who completely missed the point.
User avatar #411 to #407 - gwegw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
It's good you realise what you did
User avatar #434 to #411 - vonspyder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Think you missed the plural in there.
User avatar #55 to #20 - Crusader
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Pedophilia is nothing like homosexuality.
Pedophilia results in unhealthy relations between a power figure and someone not old enough to realize what's going on.

Homosexuality is between two consenting people that understand everything.
User avatar #109 to #55 - vonspyder
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
see comment above.
#69 to #55 - anon id: 66523259
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
there's bound to be at least 1 young person smart enough to give consent, but it's still illegal
User avatar #24 to #20 - kanadetenshi
Reply +117 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
The difference lies in consent.
#99 to #24 - doctoryou
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
A 40 year old women having sex with a 15 year old boy s still a pedofile, regardless of consent
User avatar #103 to #99 - kanadetenshi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Uhm no?

Pedophillia is the sexual attraction towards prepubescent children around the age of 11 and under. The boy isn't 11 and under so it's not pedophillia by definition...
#105 to #103 - doctoryou
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Where I'm from, 15 is still a child, since under the legal age of consent
User avatar #107 to #105 - kanadetenshi
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Biologically, a child (plural: children) is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. On average boys begin puberty at the age of 12. Ergo 15 year olds are not children.

Furthermore that definition is extremely flawed and simplified.
#111 to #107 - doctoryou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
biologically, that may be, but legally, it is not so
User avatar #115 to #111 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
For some reason i automatically logged out and posted as anon.
#128 to #115 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Like anon said "statutory rape", not necessarily classified as pedophilia. It's more to say that your mind hasn't full developed to the point where you can truly comprehend the consequences of your actions. This is a good practice, as putting all the liability on the adult generally prevents them from manipulating youngin's.
User avatar #129 to #128 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Yeah that's obvious, any one with half a brain can figure that one out. My point is that he misuses the term pedophile.
#133 to #129 - bann
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
You're both right in the sense that legally definitions and scientific don't necessarily correlate. In some places legally a 16 year old sexin' a 15 year old is pedophilia by law, thus making the offender a pedophile. Legal definitions are no less true just because they follow a different criteria than scientific ones.
User avatar #135 to #133 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
"Legal definitions are no less true just because they follow a different criteria than scientific ones"

Uhm yes they are, because science is based on facts. That's like saying making it legal that 1+1=3 is no less true.
#125 to #115 - doctoryou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Must we call in the use of such language?  Legally a pedophile is someone who engages in sexual activity with someone under the legal age of consent, biologically it's someone who engages in sexual activity with someone prepubecent
Must we call in the use of such language? Legally a pedophile is someone who engages in sexual activity with someone under the legal age of consent, biologically it's someone who engages in sexual activity with someone prepubecent
User avatar #127 to #125 - kanadetenshi
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
And the point is that the legal definition is a false definition because it's not based on facts. I could legally make it a rule that a pedophile is something who eats hamburgers but that doesn't make it true.
#138 to #127 - doctoryou
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Saying that one definition is false and another is true is opinion, and nothing more
Saying that one definition is false and another is true is opinion, and nothing more
User avatar #139 to #138 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Oh alright, i guess it's true now that 1+1=3. Thanks genius.
#144 to #139 - doctoryou
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
**doctoryou rolls 84** being a sore loser at its finest
User avatar #146 to #144 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
You're the one who's saying 1+1=3, there's no point in even remotely discussing things with someone who thinks that.
#150 to #146 - doctoryou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I didn't saay it though
#145 to #144 - doctoryou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
#113 to #111 - anon id: 8ef7f9d8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I don't give a **** about the legal definition. The law isn't based on facts, science is.
#118 to #113 - anon id: 15840e92
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
***** perhaps you are looking for the term statutory rape
User avatar #269 to #105 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Not where I live.
In Germany children defined as 14 or younger. People between 14 and 18 are called Jugendliche (youths), who have the right to consent to sex, although there are certain restricitons (no person of authority involved, aso).
User avatar #244 to #105 - ugottanked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
the term for someone attracted to someone say 13-17 is ebophelia
User avatar #270 to #244 - metalmind
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
*hebephilia
User avatar #271 to #270 - ugottanked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
ah, my mistake
User avatar #390 to #24 - douthit
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
17 year-olds are technically pedophiles. I'm not saying someone's as smart as they're ever gonna be at 17, but a 17 year-old is lucid enough to decide whether or not they wanna have sex.
User avatar #391 to #390 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
No because pedophillia is attraction towards prepubescent children of age 11 and below.
User avatar #300 to #24 - thrakerzad
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
alright though, in your latter arguments you say that biologically people attracted to 12 and up are not technically pedophiles, yet they are still persecuted even though in your definition they are not pedophiles, what that.
User avatar #168 to #24 - hoponthefeelstrain
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Adding on, a pedophile doesn't love his victim. They might while they're still children, but once they grow up they'll want nothing to do with them. So they'll scar them for life and then move on to another child.

I mean who do they think they are? Runnin round, leavin scars

#90 to #24 - anon id: 10197414
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
If homosexuals had the ability to give consent, they wouldn't have done so to a person of the same gender.
User avatar #61 to #24 - willisteal
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Nail ---> Head
#43 - thesoulless
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
#318 to #43 - smbiosis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
They've got some explaining to do in regards to the porn I've been watching.
User avatar #159 to #43 - mitchr
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Actually...
You need to login to view this link
It's a real thing.
User avatar #313 to #159 - Haentar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Holy **** I thought you were talking about the nuns.
User avatar #435 to #313 - mitchr
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Ye- i mean no. tHey arEn't reaL at all! People don't just Monitor thE internet.
#64 - anon id: 2ee4eccd
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
so by this logic, if something is true, then also the reverse is true? which is false?
User avatar #74 to #64 - kousei
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
It's saying if under a set of condition (A) something (B) is wrong, then under the opposite set of conditions (-A) the opposite (-B) must also be wrong.

A*B = -A*-B
#322 to #74 - jaked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Though it's true in this circumstance that's a logical error. Example: if all velociraptors are dinosaurs, that which is not a velociraptor is not a dinosaur. It's called denying the antecedent en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent The logical error in the original image is the error of Affirming the Consequent en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Example: If there is a hurricane there will be large waves, therefore if there are large waves there is a hurricane.

TL;DR I'm an amateur logician and the comment above me and the original image aren't logical truths, though I agree with the sentiment that homosexuals shouldn't be prosecuted.
User avatar #344 to #322 - kousei
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
i have to disagree, You see my statement was dealing in inverse not in inequality (forgive me, i do not know the proper term) and it is what i honestly believe the post is discussing.

I'm not saying, as you believe, if not P therefore not Q. I'm saying if -P then -Q. This statement is because the content is talking in absolutes to make a moral point. going back to my previous note we would see:
A = being the minority
B = putting them down being a moral negative
+ = heterosexuals
- = homosexuals

or to put it into a sentence

If heterosexuals(+) were the minority (A) putting them down would be wrong (B) therefore if homosexuals (-) were the minority (A) putting them down would be wrong (B)

TLR I too am an amateur logician (maybe a little more so then he is) and i disagree with the appointed fallacies.
#433 to #344 - jaked
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Ah, I understand, it was just a communication error then. I agree.
User avatar #171 to #74 - trivdiego
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
the contrapositive!

**** geometry
#60 - AdamBaum
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#167 - krakalisk
Reply +16 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Came for the content.

Stayed for the *********
#180 - swedishassassin
Reply -14 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
"A story about innocent people being persecuted in a world where murdering babies was the norm."

I'm not arguing that homosexuality is wrong by any means, but I don't like declaring geniuses when their logic can be dismantled.
User avatar #219 to #180 - swedishassassin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
ANNNNNNNNNND... people cannot understand English enough to know I wasn't comparing the two, only the logic....
User avatar #274 to #219 - Nullifier
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
the issue is that the logic isn't applicable to your analogy. Sexuality resides solely in one's preferences and actions in private, while killing babies is despicable by any ethical approach.

as someone who loves to make analogies, and fails sometimes lots of times i think i'm qualified to say that
#245 to #180 - neoexdeath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
If murdering babies was the norm, it wouldn't be half as fun, ignorant faggot.
User avatar #284 to #180 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
that's an interesting quote, mind explaining where it's from?
User avatar #294 to #180 - thegrimgenius
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
If murdering babies was the norm, it wouldn't be murder, would it? Unless of course it was still against the law, which doesn't make much sense, since it's the norm.
#187 to #180 - admiralamory **User deleted account**
+9 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#188 to #187 - bizzar
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I do
I do
User avatar #266 to #187 - peezle
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
User avatar #5 - PgFalcon
Reply -13 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
While I agree with him fundamentally, I also thing the logic is quack.


You could say the same thing to justify all sorts of 'wrong' behaviors.
#26 to #5 - anon id: e0afb227
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
is this bitch ass ***** fo real , wot hte fuk homie
User avatar #56 to #5 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Not really, most other "wrong" behaviours are actually harmful at some point to others.
User avatar #62 to #56 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Aids hurts people. Torn colons and large intestines hurt people. Anal bleeding, tearing, and the septic nature of your ass can lead to all sorts of medical problems ranging from infections to internal bleeding. Your ass ain't naturally lubricated, and that soft membraneous tissue can easily be damaged by accident.

Not saying ass-play ain't fun and awesome. Just saying that homosexuality kills more people per year than pedophilia.
User avatar #293 to #62 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
>Cause only gay people get AIDS
User avatar #66 to #62 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Are you saying that these things are exclusive to homosexuals?
Those things in general kill more than pedophilia, but those things happen with straight couples as well.

Show me hard statistics showing that more people die per year as a result of homosexuality than people are traumatized by pedophilia.
User avatar #68 to #66 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
And DEFINITELY more people are traumatized by pedophilia.

Have you not seen that video about the sex trade in the philipines, with web-cam stuff with minors? Millions of kids dude. Millions.
User avatar #70 to #68 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Ok, I don't see your argument here then.

Homosexuality harms people on a consentual level, which kills a few hundred a year
Pedophilia is just abuse, which kills and traumatizes millions

Yet this argument we use for the support of homosexuality is invalid because you can use it for pedophilia?
User avatar #72 to #70 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
It's a philosophical argument dude, stick with me. I'm asking what actually separates homosexuality from pedophilia in the general sense. You could make a case for how evil and dangerous marijuana is by how many mules, suppliers, and users get killed in the drug war. Doesn't mean the drug is dangerous in it of itself.

What exactly separates pedos from homos in terms that would show how one is moral and the other not.
User avatar #76 to #72 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Well, Homosexuals don't create unhealthy relationships with power imbalances due to a lack of knowledge/experience, and they don't traumatize their partners.

My arguments have nothing to do with gender, my issue is with age.
Two guys that date where one is 25 and one is 12 is just as bad as a guy and a chick, or a chick and chick.
User avatar #83 to #76 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
What if the kid is the dom?

Rofl, but really. What you're implying is that all young love is unhealthy. There will always be a power imbalance, and in the man on girl love situation that is exaberated by the man's phsyical strength and size. Would you then say that hetero sex is wrong because it's an unhealthy dispersion of power in the relationship? Can a woman not give consent?
User avatar #85 to #83 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
1 - Not all young love is unhealthy, because young love is usually between two people of equal ignorance, they are both young

2 - If the relationship is so offset by the man's strength, then yes, it is unhealthy.

3 - Yes a woman can give consent, but there is actual consent and the "consent" pedophiles get where it's pressure.
User avatar #89 to #85 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
The second has zero experience. (is experience the deciding factor in ability to give consent)?
User avatar #87 to #85 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Then what about between one young person with a lot of sexual and other 'world' experience, and another, of equal age and the exact same gender? Would that be immoral too?
User avatar #88 to #87 - Crusader
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Yes, if they are pressuring the person, which is where the relationship becomes unhealthy.
User avatar #94 to #88 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
or even worse, the old man is a virgin, and the kid out of symathy seeks to educate and help him! XD
User avatar #93 to #88 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
and half retarded.
User avatar #92 to #88 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
and to compound the problem, the kid is much stronger. Say the adult is an old man.
User avatar #91 to #88 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
What if, in a pedo scenario, both are inexperienced and neither pressures the either?
User avatar #67 to #66 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Maybe that would be a good argument against anal in general, then?

User avatar #6 to #5 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
well your morality is just a lasting stain left by religion you have to make your own idealism while crushing the ones that cause the most grief using anything possible
User avatar #9 to #6 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Also, I hate religion more than most normal people, and have very good reasons too, but I'm not about to go around hating on people just because they're too weak minded to know better.

If something makes you happy, and if it isn't hurting anyone else, it shouldn't matter what it is specifically that you're doing. You should be allowed to do it. Even if its borderline evil.
User avatar #7 to #6 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Imagine it with pedophilia then. Lets say that just because you can reverse something and have a society where pedophilia is the norm and non-pedophilia is 'outlawed', doesn't make the former suddenly right nor the later wrong. In both universes pedophilia is still evil.
User avatar #10 to #7 - angelusprimus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I think you missed the point.
He is saying that prosecution is wrong. He doesn't make judgement calls on if homosexuality is right or wrong, just that prosecuting people on being different is wrong.
User avatar #12 to #10 - PgFalcon
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Scenario time! (while I wait for you to answer).

Suppose I was a father of a little girl. I decided, in this enlightened day and age, that when she turned twelve that I was going to give her the D as a birthday present, because that is how I had chosen to raise my child. In an idealistic society, would you or would you not persecute me for such a decision?
User avatar #11 to #10 - PgFalcon
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Is it wrong to persecute pedophiles then?
User avatar #15 to #11 - angelusprimus
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Yes it is. Very simply because its a crime where there is abuse involved.
Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is just sick. One is an act between two willing, fully aware people, other is an act of abuse by person with power over a person not developed enough to know whats going on or defend itself.
One is an act of love, or passion, other is an act of violence.

Heffner made a very clear example. He didn't say "Prosecuting anyone is bad because social norm could change" he said "If homosexuals prosecuting heterosexuals is bad, then reverse is too."
User avatar #18 to #15 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
So, then, what is the difference between a 17 and an 18 year old (or, as in some states, a 15 and 16 year old)? Why is the difference of just a day of age so significant?

Aren't you just being intolerant of other peoples love, just because you don't agree with it or understand it? They're not hurting anybody. Why all the hate?
User avatar #28 to #18 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Because at a younger age they are not cognitivally nor biologically ready for sexual intercourse.

What is good or bad isn't based on your perception, it's based on facts. And the fact is that pedophillia harms while homosexuality does not.
User avatar #30 to #28 - PgFalcon
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Biologically you say? Cognitively you say?



Once upon a time both were used as reasons through which to criminalize and persecute gay people, you know? It was treated as a mental illness, and because the ass ain't designed to harbor big things pummeling their way in and out of it, all sorts of medical problems tend to crop up around the gay lifestyle.
User avatar #32 to #30 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Back then psychology and psychiatry where extremely early concepts and we had barely any idea how it worked. Now with advancements in neurology and evolutionary psychology we have far superior methods to determine what is psychologically good or not. And no ******* an underaged child is not psychologically a good thing for the child.

And yet the g-spot is located in the anus.
User avatar #33 to #32 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Medically, homosexuality is still seen as either a mental or biological condition that may or may not be connected to either genetics or other health conditions.
User avatar #35 to #33 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
It's connected to neurology aswell as epigenetics. Are you even remotely qualified to talk about biology? Do you even have any knowledge on the matter aside from your highschool biology 101 book?
User avatar #38 to #35 - PgFalcon
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I might ask the same of you, actually. Gay men's CT scans follow the archetype of women's brains. Gay men also have an exaggerated tendency to have pituitary and other hormonal conditions. Being gay is, actually, quite similar to being a serial killer, in that there are certain odd biological and psychological markers that keep popping up and we're not really sure why, because nobody really cares enough to look deeper into it.

Personally I think it's another form of population control wired into our genetics, just like ticks control the population of deer, and is a natural thing that shouldn't necessarily be demonized..... but, once again, ALL THE SAME THINGS CAN ALL BE SAID ABOUT PEDOPHILIA.

I challenge you to make me one arguement for your case that wouldn't also make the exact same case for pedo's everywhere.
User avatar #41 to #38 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Which only proves my point that it is connected to neurology.

Also that's a false analogy, just because the same happens with serial killers doesn't mean it's remotely based on the same cognition, you just dishonestly took the worst example you could give, but forgetting the fact that most child prodigy's and geniuses also have odd neurological markers.

Furthermore there is no such thing as population controlling genetics, that's not remotely how evolution works, it doesn't make specific genetics for a purpose, it's based on random genetic recombinations that is refined by natural selection. What it really is is that it's a form of social bonding within mammals, like female bonobo's having sexual intercourse to create bondship with eachother.

I already gave my argument, homosexuality is based on consent and hurts nobody, pedophillia does. Yet you don't even bother refuting it and instead trying to side-step this blatantly obvious fact. You're willfully ignorant.
User avatar #45 to #41 - PgFalcon
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Does having sex with a minor really hurt them? It's accepted fact that minors will have sex with each other, so what is the problem with a slightly older person doing exactly the same thing?

And yes, homosexuality kills loads of people. Just look at africa and the aid's epidemic... and not to mention all the torn or ruptured rectums and lower intestines that people give themselves from trying to imitate porn stars and shove too-huge things up their bump or otherwise do things nature never intended for them to do.

I agree that anal feels good, and hell, maybe I'd enjoy having sex with another man. Not sure. Will likely never give it a try so long as I have a say in the matter, and unless I have a say I likely won't enjoy... but I digress. Gay people go to the hospital a WHOLE lot more than straight people, simply because anal sex isn't exactly 'safe' or natural at all. Of course, in the search for sexual creativity, what wouldn't we stop at? People have sex with horses for christs sake... which I totally condone.
User avatar #51 to #45 - kanadetenshi
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I have never seen 5 year olds having consensual sex with eachother. If you're referring to teens then it only shows how retarded you are for not knowing the difference between pedophillia and ephebophillia.

If we are going to talk about issues like statutory rape laws then that's a complete different and debatable issue, but here's an article lining up arguments from both sides: www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/13/findlaw.analysis.colb.statutory.rape/index.html


Oh yes because homosexuality is the only way to get HIV hurrrrr durrrr. The aids epidemic in africa is caused by the catholic church teaching them not to use condoms, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, in fact homosexuality is mostly banned in africa. Plus straight people have statistically more anal than homosexuals.

Horses cannot give consent. Seriously if i have to mention to your dense ******* brain what consent is ONE more ******* time then we're done with this conversation since arguing with you is a waste of time.
User avatar #59 to #51 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Soooo.... you're saying that alll the data that exists that says that you're much, much, much more likely to contract aids if you're a homosexual is just all puffs of smoke then. Sounds legit.

I agree about the Catholic Church. They're a bunch of assholes. Can't deny a combination of homosexuality and promiscuity is a cause of Africa's problems, not just lack of easy access to condoms, though.

And what if I don't give consent to an animal? What's going on there! Neither one of us wants to engage in sex, but there I am, getting raped by a dog or something. **** happens dude, and I know a lot of pet freaks would be very angry at you for not recognizing their animals emotions as being legitimate and real and to be respected. Even goats and dolphins.

So consent is the only thing determining the legitimacy in your eyes then. Fine. What constitutes consent? Give me your definition of that real fast so I can destroy it.
User avatar #149 to #59 - angelusprimus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
No not puff of smoke. Just about 20 years out of date.
Also while its a bit more likely that male homosexual will get aids then heterosexuals, spread of aids among lesbians (who are also homosexual) is negligable. Combining statistics for homosexual males and females and heterosexuals you get that homosexuals are actually slightly less likely to contract aids.
User avatar #151 to #149 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Well I think we can all agree that lesbianism is totally cool and fine, right? =D
User avatar #71 to #59 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
That's extemely exegaratted. But that's not the point, i know you're more likely to get HIV from homosexuality but that doesn't change the fact that it happens a lot in heterosexual couples aswell, if HIV is your justification to call it a bad thing then by your logic so is heterosexuality.

There is only one country that has proper laws for homosexuality, homosexuals barely even get the chance to have sex there, so no homosexuality is not the cause of africa's problem, no condoms and poor/no medical treatments are.

We don't consider the actions of animals to be up par with humans. If an animal eats a human we try to shoot it, but we don't call the animal a crazy immoral murderer like we do with humans. Furthermore animals by definition cannot give consent to sexual intercourse because they don't understand human language and cognition, yes they understand what mating is there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that animals understand the situation when people try to have sex with them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent I mainly refer to informed consent, but besides that consent isn't the only thing determining it, what also determines is the harm done intentionally with malice aforethought.
User avatar #82 to #71 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Also, animals can in fact know exactly what the situation is, and what is going down. Dolphins, for instance, engage in recreational sex all the time. So do most whales, a lot of monkeys, and a few other notable mammals that I've forgotten. Interspecies sex isn't exactly uncommon either.

In these ways sex with animals is just as natural as homosexuality.
User avatar #79 to #71 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
And what about sex with the mentally handicapped? Can they consent at all, and if so, at what age would that come about?
User avatar #78 to #71 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
And a better way of putting it... what if someone has matured extremely slowly (like in anime sometimes) and turns 18 without having fully sexually developed. Would it be immoral, then, to have sex with them because they can't consent?
User avatar #77 to #71 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I don't read links dude. Put it in your own words or not at all.

Well said about the HIV thing, but its still a general fact that homosexual intercourse is a good deal riskier than straight-up missionary with the missus. You simply can't dance around that fact. Its riskiness isn't quite on part with, say, anal sex with a horse... but it's still not quite vanilla. Vanilla is boring though, so I can see how you might want to mix up your night life.

And yes, in fact, Africa's horrid sexual practices are the source of it's current AIDS delemna, and there is absolutely no getting around the fact that both Africans perform a hugely disproportional amount of it as well as the fact that anal almost always involves blood... which if you know anything about HIV, blood is a bad thing. Sex with women also includes a surprising amount of blood too, but still not nearly the same.

Really the only 'safe' sex is masturbation. With a glove. By yourself. But again, we start to yawn... and in any case we're losing sight of the real argument again.

Back to consent!!!

What I think you're trying to get at is the legal age of consent... which would be a good argument if it weren't for the fact that that arbitrary number changes wildly from state to state, and nation to nation. So what is the actual, moral, real age of consent? It would likely change from person to person... so how would we tell when it has been reached, and if, say that age is 9 years old, would it be acceptable to then proceed to consummate the marriage?
User avatar #104 to #77 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Alright then, have fun living in your own ignorance.
User avatar #110 to #104 - PgFalcon
-2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Meh. I probably will. Problem with people like me is we get away with things. I wouldn't say that I capture and torture to death wild animals, buuuuut... I would say that I'm not exactly a normal individual, and maybe that's a bit scary but it's reality. Personally, bestiality, homosexuality, and pedophilia really are all fine by me. They're all just facets of the exact same gem.
User avatar #100 to #77 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Oh so now you're even refusing to read sources facts? Then i'm done arguing with you.


User avatar #102 to #100 - PgFalcon
-2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Linking to wiki is like me winking you to 4chan. I don't care to read a book every time you reference one.
#179 to #45 - digress
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Man, these mentions provide a good read.
User avatar #209 to #179 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Rofl, it was fun writing them too. ^^
User avatar #31 to #28 - PgFalcon
Reply -8 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
The reason I'm using Pedophilia in my arguments, dude, is two-fold.

#1, Homo and pedo are both very similar in a lot of ways, especially in regards to the issues we're talking about.

#2. I'm showing you what the argument looks like from my side, and you don't like what you're seeing. If you were standing where I was standing right now you'd look a whole lot like a homophobe... or a pedophobe as the case may be. XD
User avatar #34 to #31 - kanadetenshi
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
1. No it's not, heterosexuality and homosexuality are more related since both are based on adults giving consent. Pedophillia isn't. Seriously people have been explaining this multiple times now already, seriously.

2. Uhm no you're simply making a strawman, and i am trying to educate you on your poor argumentation using logic.
User avatar #13 to #11 - shadowkingdr [OP]
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
flacon read it again he is responding to criticism he did not just say it out of the blue
User avatar #14 to #13 - PgFalcon
Reply -7 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I suppose he did... but I still think the train of logic is extremely flawed. Still, we can't all be scientific in our approaches to philosophy, can we? Most people are too stupid to be moved by anything less than emotion anyway. XD
#17 to #14 - anon id: 24bfe14c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
His logic isn't flawed. He wasn't just replacing the social norm with something more socially deviant and pointing out the moral contradiction behind it all. He was illustrating how tenuous the line that separates homosexuality and heterosexuality truly is, and thus why it would be morally wrong to chastise one and not the other. He's not comparing apples with oranges but rather oranges with mandarins, which is why his dissertation works.
User avatar #19 to #17 - PgFalcon
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
And you, sir, aren't listening. What I'm saying is that his metaphor is absolutely NOT a proof, one way or another, of the morality or righteousness of homosexuality. You take his entire story and replace it with pedophilia and it wouldn't change anything other than your perception. The only thing this story DOES do is garner pity for gay people.

If you were to try and say anything else you'd need to first also stand your ground and say that man-boy love is a beautiful, natural, and right thing to happen between a man and a boy. If you can't say that, then don't try to use the exact same argument to garner sympathy for gays you ******* retard.
#400 to #19 - anon id: 24bfe14c
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
Read what I was saying again, idiot. He's simply discussing just how interchangeable heterosexuality and homosexuality can be, and how history could have easily taken a completely different turn. He's also appealing to his demographic (straight men) by proposing these what if scenarios, and allowing them to see the fallacy in stigmatizing a certain sexual orientation.

The reason why it does not work for pedophilia is because the difference between liking an immature girl opposed to a grown woman are not as trivial as the difference between liking a man or a woman. It's more than a question about age. It's a question about sexual maturity, cognitive maturity, and a whole lot more.

You don't just get an argument and supplant its subjects with seemingly analogous terms. This doesn't prove whether the logic is fallible or not simply because they are not similar. That in itself is a logical fallacy.
User avatar #408 to #400 - PgFalcon
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
And I'm saying that in the same way you're saying homo and hetero are the same the same arguments could be made case by case for pedo. You're not accomplishing anything, but the illusion is there so you dance around and say "look at this! Ain't I the smarterest philosophier of dem all? I sure showed those haters what for!"


What you don't understand is that I totally agree with you. I don't think homosex should be such a big deal. What you also don't get is that I feel similarly about things like bestiality and pedophilia... and I'm pointing out that these arguments all work for those things too, so unless you condone all of the above it's dangerous for you to be saying 'tolerance at all costs!' like you seem to be doing.

Idiot.
User avatar #8 to #6 - PgFalcon
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Reapply as necessary with slavery, rape and subjugation of all women, self-mutiliation, etc... etc... until you realize the argument is flawed.



I don't have anything against gays myself. Hell, I too enjoy seeing a weiner every now and then... but just because something looks right doesn't mean it is.
#52 - fuckoatmeal
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Pretty sure he is where stds came from
User avatar #95 to #52 - soupkittenagain
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
#16......
User avatar #86 - orrisic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Homosexual isn't natural. You can't even reproduce in a homosexual world.
User avatar #176 to #86 - gtk
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
To be fair, there are asexual organisms, as well as organisms that can take on either gender roll. Its not too much of a stretch to say that one of these species could develop to the point where they would have this homosexual society.
User avatar #286 to #86 - nimba
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
troll troll is troll
#312 to #86 - anon id: e4cfc6f3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/19/2013) [-]
because we are pack animals, and rely on social construct just as much as reproduction. why do you think elderly live way past menopause by your logic woman should die as soon as they're unable to make babies. but they don't, why? so they can help raise the young. more people looking after fewer children>less people looking after more children =healthier generation. same theory can be applied to homosexuality, maybe in that in that manor, but the point that survival of the species is more complicated that just "make more of" stands.
User avatar #112 to #86 - leonhardt
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Nice bait, lol
User avatar #114 to #112 - orrisic
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
So you're saying you can reproduce?
User avatar #117 to #114 - leonhardt
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Nope. I'm pointing out your thinly veiled "I'M TROLLING YOU" attempt.
User avatar #140 to #117 - lordmoldywart
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Even though I disagree with orrisic, saying 'hurr durr you're a troll' isn't making you look smart
User avatar #177 to #140 - leonhardt
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I was not trying to look smart.
#169 to #140 - hillbillypowpow
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
He's level -325. there's not much to say to him.
User avatar #216 to #114 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
Gay guys can jerk off in a cup, lesbians can use a turkey baster or something to get it in their vag. Reproduction does not necessitate sex. HOWEVER! I see no reason why people can't be whatever sexuality they wish. Homosexual is not better than straight is not better than bisexual is not better than pansexual is not better than asexual is not better than homosexual. Whoever you want to **** shouldn't decide how good or bad of a person you are.
User avatar #160 to #86 - elmarcocfc
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I've seen better bait on a boat.
#191 to #160 - slysixtyfourwii
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(12/18/2013) [-]
I've seen better bait in a stangers van.