Ben Carson refers to slaves as "Immigrants"

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Ironic said:

I mean, that's all a matter of opinion. You can think my opinion is trash/not right/evil or whatever, but I'm entitled to my own opinion, as you are to yours.

So essentually you admit you believe gay rights aren't civil rights? I'll respect someones rights to hold political opinions even though I'll debate them. But if someone genuinely believes someone has less rights because of their sexual orientation or personal identity I will consider them a trash human being.

[Sith 1050]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

 

 

 

You clearly tried to argue carson potentially was talking about the crew of a slave ship. Meaning you were arguing he might have been speaking about slavers instead of slaves .

 

In terms of the less argument let me explain my reasoning. Someone asks if everyone has money for food.  Everyone says how much they have but one person says they have less when their wallet is empty. Now noone knows if that person means they have less than someone else or else than they need. The word just isn't used properly in that sentence. Noone can gather from that that the person has nothing and it gives basically no information to the others. But whenever you hear someone say they have less of something that still would imply they have some of it.  If you tried to use the word like that in a academic paper in school you'd probably lose points . Another example. You're out with a friend and you get in the car and they say "I have less gas than I thought". You're never going to interpret that as o shit I'm completely bone dry. It's simply not how people speak. You'd assume it means you're low and need to go to a gas station.

 

 

Really not trying to attack you on this at all. I have no problem with you. And Ironic I only have a problem with because in other threads he's basically argued he dosent think gay rights are civIl rights etc and expressed complete  ignorance of what trans meant in a thread where he was arguing taking away their rights was a good thing . I'm simply pointing out that it's strange to play Devils advocate  but trying to argue he wasn't referring to slaves when I think it's pretty obvious he was and I highly doubt he was speaking of extremely rare occurrences where slaves made some money 

 

 

[Sith 1050]

Sorry for the double-post but breaking news:

 

 

Really man? If I hurt your feelings just use the safe word.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Sith said:

Sorry for the double-post but breaking news:

 

 

Really man? If I hurt your feelings just use the safe word.

Just not trying to continue a dumb fight on a thread lol because it's pointless. Nothing about hurt feelings. Just expressing that I have no problem with you. Not sure why you're trying to turn it into some sort of fight instead of simply a debate . My majors are history and political science. I don't get my feelings hurt in debates 

[Ironic 2278]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

So essentually you admit you believe gay rights aren't civil rights? I'll respect someones rights to hold political opinions even though I'll debate them. But if someone genuinely believes someone has less rights because of their sexual orientation or personal identity I will consider them a trash human being.

If you want to think that, that's your choice. You're entitled to your opinion, like I'm entitled to mine.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Ironic said:

If you want to think that, that's your choice. You're entitled to your opinion, like I'm entitled to mine.

OK just wanted to establish that you are admitting to believing gays deserve less rights 

[trav 6834]

Just now, Ironic said:

If you want to think that, that's your choice. You're entitled to your opinion, like I'm entitled to mine.

 

It is my opinion that black people should not be fornicating with our white women! And that we should be murdering these sons a bitches for even lookin' at 'em!

 

/s

Just now, Travesty said:

It is my opinion that black people should not be fornicating with our white women! And that we should be murdering these sons a bitches for even lookin' at 'em!

 

Ironic: If you want to think that, that's your choice. You're entitled to your opinion, like I'm entitled to mine.

 

xd

[fatb0y 1337]

 

11 minutes ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

So essentually you admit you believe gay rights aren't civil rights? I'll respect someones rights to hold political opinions even though I'll debate them. But if someone genuinely believes someone has less rights because of their sexual orientation or personal identity I will consider them a trash human being.

 

Is being sexually attracted to little boys a sexual orientation? Would you think I am trash if I thought that those people deserved less rights? 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

 

Is being attracted to little boys, specifically, a sexual orientation? Would you think I am trash if I thought that those people deserved less rights? 

Pretty sure we've had a discussion on the forums where people said that being a pedophile is weird but a condition some people have, while being a child molester is a crime. In short the conclusion from that discussion was yes some people are attracted to younger children through some sort of genetic or mental condition but that in itself does not mean they have less rights inherently. They can't act on their urges because it's not consensual according to law

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Pretty sure we've had a discussion on the forums where people said that being a pedophile is weird but a condition some people have, while being a child molester is a crime. In short the conclusion from that discussion was yes some people are attracted to younger children through some sort of genetic or mental condition but that in itself does not mean they have less rights inherently. They can't act on their urges because it's not consensual according to law

 

But that is just a law. Much like anti-miscegenation laws and anti-same-sex marriage laws, they can be struck down and/or changed.

 

Would you support striking down statutes which prohibit and limit the ability of pedophiles to express themselves sexually? 

[Ironic 2278]

Just now, Travesty said:

 

It is my opinion that black people should not be fornicating with our white women! And that we should be murdering these sons a bitches for even lookin' at 'em!

 

/s

 

Ironic: If you want to think that, that's your choice. You're entitled to your opinion, like I'm entitled to mine.

 

xd

True, that's still an opinion and you're entitled to it, even if that's what you really believe.

 

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

 

Is being sexually attracted to little boys a sexual orientation? Would you think I am trash if I thought that those people deserved less rights? 

Or what about little kids who like way older people? What about people that have a sexual attraction to animals? What about people that are sexually attracted to close relatives? That's the big question, where in the heck do we "draw the line"? 

 

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Pretty sure we've had a discussion on the forums where people said that being a pedophile is weird but a condition some people have, while being a child molester is a crime. In short the conclusion from that discussion was yes some people are attracted to younger children through some sort of genetic or mental condition but that in itself does not mean they have less rights inherently. They can't act on their urges because it's not consensual according to law

So if you're saying that liking little kids is a mental condition, how come being gay in your eyes isn't considered a mental condition? Would people who like their relatives be considered to have a mental condition?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

But that is just a law. Much like anti-miscegenation laws and anti-same-sex marriage laws, they can be struck down and/or changed.

 

Would you support striking down statutes which prohibit and limit the ability of pedophiles to express themselves sexually? 

No because it's still all a matter of how consensual it is. Children are deemed by both  psychologists and law as being unable to give consent. 

Just now, Ironic said:

True, that's still an opinion and you're entitled to it, even if that's what you really believe.

 

Or what about little kids who like way older people? What about people that have a sexual attraction 

 

So if you're saying that liking little kids is a mental condition, how come being gay in your eyes isn't considered a mental condition? Would people who like their relatives be considered to have a mental condition?

Condition was the wrong word. State of mind is probably better. I'm ok with any sexual expression where both parties give consent. Children and animals are incapable of giving proper consent according to both law and psychological analysis. At the end of the day noone should have any problem with any sexual interaction that's consensual by all parties involved and suitably private because it affects noone but the parties involved.

[Ironic 2278]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I'm ok with any sexual expression where both parties give consent.

Okay, then how come I only see you fighting for gay rights? Why don't you fight for relative sexual rights, adult to child sexual rights, and etc? Why is it that gay rights are the big thing people fight for? Instead of fighting for one big whole "anyone can have a relationship (sexual or non sexual) with anyone"?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, Ironic said:

Okay, then how come I only see you fighting for gay rights? Why don't you fight for relative sexual rights, adult to child sexual rights, and etc? Why is it that gay rights are the big thing people fight for? Instead of fighting for one big whole "anyone can have a relationship (sexual or non sexual) with anyone"?

Already explained children can't give consent because their minds arent developed enough. Relative sexual rights isn't a issue that's commonly brought up although I suppose one way it's different than gay rights is the fact a child born from a family relationship could have defects which brings on a new aspect of it. I suppose honestly because it dosent harm me either way if two relatives wanted to bang I'd be ok with it as long as they didn't have children which could potentially suffer consequences from that. I've never put much thought into it because of how rare an occurrence it is to even hear about it. Although hell we have a show like game of thrones which essentually humanizes the occurrence and most people got used to it and it's not as big of a deal on screen anymore. 

[JFK 546]

Just now, Ironic said:

Okay, then how come I only see you fighting for gay rights? Why don't you fight for relative sexual rights, adult to child sexual rights, and etc? Why is it that gay rights are the big thing people fight for? Instead of fighting for one big whole "anyone can have a relationship (sexual or non sexual) with anyone"?

 

I think you've been told like six times in the past month what consent is.

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

No because it's still all a matter of how consensual it is. Children are deemed by both  psychologists and law as being unable to give consent. 

Condition was the wrong word. State of mind is probably better. I'm ok with any sexual expression where both parties give consent. Children and animals are incapable of giving proper consent according to both law and psychological analysis. At the end of the day noone should have any problem with any sexual interaction that's consensual by all parties involved and suitably private because it affects noone but the parties involved.

 

Over time, the legal age of consent has changed.

 

(I am lazy and will cite Wikipedia) https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

 

According to the article, the legal age of consent has varied from 10 - 18.  I don't study psychology, but what age do you think is appropriate for genuine consent. The modern ages of 16, 17, 18 all seem pretty arbitrary to me.

 

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Already explained children can't give consent because they're minds are developed enough. Relative sexual rights isn't a issue that's commonly brought up although I suppose one way it's different than gay rights is the fact a child born from a family relationship could have defects which brings on a new aspect of it. I suppose honestly because it dosent harm me either way if two relatives wanted to bang I'd be ok with it as long as they didn't have children which could potentially suffer consequences from that. 

 

So you do believe in restricting the rights of incestuous couples. As in limiting their civil right to pro-create. 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

Over time, the legal age of consent has changed.

 

(I am lazy and will cite Wikipedia) https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

 

According to the article, the legal age of consent has varied from 10 - 18.  I don't study psychology, but what age do you think is appropriate for genuine consent. The modern ages of 16, 17, 18 all seem pretty arbitrary to me.

 

 

So you do believe in restricting the rights of incestuous couples. 

I mean if I had to give an age I'd still say between 16 and 18 because by that time a person has had the time to adjust to their sexual development. I suppose it's arbitrary to pick between those three but the general point remains. 

If you read what I said I said I'm ok with any sexual interaction that's consensual and dosent harm others. I said there's an issue because of the issues of birth defects from inbreeding which potentially harms another so that's a murky ground. 

[trav 6834]

How did we get here? lol

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I mean if I had to give an age I'd still say between 16 and 18 because by that time a person has had the time to adjust to their sexual development. I suppose it's arbitrary to pick between those three but the general point remains. 

If you read what I said I said I'm ok with any sexual interaction that's consensual and dosent harm others. I said there's an issue because of the issues of birth defects from inbreeding which potentially harms another so that's a murky ground. 

 

Is it right of me to assume that you are cool with a 16 year old girl hooking up with a 34 year old man?

 

 

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

 I suppose honestly because it dosent harm me either way if two relatives wanted to bang I'd be ok with it as long as they didn't have children which could potentially suffer consequences from that. 

 

 

I took this to mean that you believe that incestuous couples shouldn't procreate, or that you might even support a law that prevented them from being allowed to procreate. 

The right to procreate is a civil right. 

 

Children born to normal couples can suffer birth defects. Should they also not procreate? Birth defects are random, sometimes some people are just unlucky. 

 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

Is it right of me to assume that you are cool with a 16 year old girl hooking up with a 34 year old man?

 

 

 

 

I took this to mean that you believe that incestuous couples shouldn't procreate, or that you might even support a law that prevented them from being allowed to procreate. 

The right to procreate is a civil right. 

 

Children born to normal couples can suffer birth defects. Should they also not procreate? Birth defects are random, sometimes some people are just unlucky. 

 

I suppose 16 would still be a little young because it would still be very different levels of development mentally and sexually. Although it's allowed in some countries and I suppose some of it has to do with the cultural factors and sex education etc. There's reasons the age of consent can be affected by the age of the older partner because it's also connected to how similar their levels of development are.

I should have specified I'm still on the fence about procreation. This is the first time I've had a serious discussion on the specific occurrence. I understand that birth defects are random but because of how much more common it can be in interbreeding there is murky ground. I suppose if I had to give a concrete answer I'd say that my personal beliefs lean towards it should be allowed just because personally it dosent harm any living being at that point and the issue of birth defects is still essentially random. I'm not super set on everything completely simply because this is a topic I've never had to do any independent research on.

[trav 6834]

As long as nobody is hurt from it or suffers, I don't see any problem with it or why we should get involved.

 

LAND OF THE FREE!

[fatb0y 1337]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

I suppose 16 would still be a little young because it would still be very different levels of development mentally and sexually. Although it's allowed in some countries and I suppose some of it has to do with the cultural factors and sex education etc. 

I should have specified I'm still on the fence about procreation. This is the first time I've had a serious discussion on the specific occurrence. I understand that birth defects are random but because of how much more common it can be in interbreeding there is murky ground. I suppose if I had to give a concrete answer I'd say that my personal beliefs lean towards it should be allowed just because personally it dosent harm any living being at that point and the issue of birth defects is still essentially random. I'm not super set on everything completely simply because this is a topic I've never had to do any independent research on.

 

You cited psychology and law previously as determinants to age of consent, but now you are citing cultural factors and sex education as determinants of age of consent. Which do you think are more relevant to the issues of pedophilia? 

 

So, at least in this thread, it seems like you could go potentially either way regarding incestuous relationships. So I assume you somewhat understand why some people might believe in abridging the rights of incestuous couples. Would you call those people trash? 

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

Just now, fatb0y said:

 

You cited psychology and law previously as determinants to age of consent, but now you are citing cultural factors and sex education as determinants of age of consent. Which do you think are more relevant to the issues of pedophilia? 

 

So, at least in this thread, it seems like you could go potentially either way regarding incestuous relationships. So I assume you somewhat understand why some people might believe in abridging the rights of incestuous couples. Would you call those people trash? 

Cultural factors like I tried to convey can affect it by a couple of years but overall mental and physical development still have more to do with it. Education and cultural factors can affect how knowledgable an individual is about sex and the consequences of it which combined with body development can affect the exact age that's best for consent. Pedophilia I suspect has more to do with genetics etc but it's still a matter of the ability of the second party to give consent which isn't possible when dealing with Pedophilia. 

There's once again a difference. Gay sexual interactions harm noone. Incest potentially does because it creates higher risks of birth defects so like I said there's a murky ground. 

[Yunki 2197]

Just now, Ordinarygamer96 said:

 

I should have specified I'm still on the fence about procreation. This is the first time I've had a serious discussion on the specific occurrence. I understand that birth defects are random but because of how much more common it can be in interbreeding there is murky ground. I suppose if I had to give a concrete answer I'd say that my personal beliefs lean towards it should be allowed just because personally it dosent harm any living being at that point and the issue of birth defects is still essentially random. I'm not super set on everything completely simply because this is a topic I've never had to do any independent research on.

Wtf

So you think incestuous relationships should be allowed to procreate because at the moment of them having sex no one alive is suffering from it? That's incredibly short-sighted. You know something like incest isn't good for your species when chimpanzees even fucking plants posses mechanisms in order to prevent incest from occurring (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534796100288) (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7309/abs/466926a.html) [You have to pay to see the actual information, I'll see if I can find a free link]. Regardless, sure maybe no one is being harmed right now, but guess what, in 6 months when that baby comes out prematurely and more than likely has a birth defect as a result of two people who share 50% of their genes, then someone is being harmed.

 

You also state that your fine with it because birth defects are essentially random. But it is well-known and agreed upon that when you mate with first-degree relatives there WILL be an increased chance at severe birth defects. This doesn't require extensive research.

[centran 4457]

This is getting almost as good as TMS