[Mitth`raw`nuruodo] Just didn't know when to shut his mouth

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-04 06:33pm

I bet those who think this booklet would be perfectly okay around small children would also love to watch porn with them.

It's worth noting, by the way, that neither CC nor anyone else ever said the information was really HARMFUL. They just think it'd be inappropriate. Hell, I'd agree. 13-14 year olds for the most part certainly don't need to have stuff like that presented in that way. They're not gonna take it seriously, for one-- most kids that age I know would likely just giggle at something like this booklet and ignore what it has to say. Fuck, the article posted on the first page states the booklet isn't meant for kids! I think that most of you parents would not want this kind of thing around your kids, not really. Not at the age that was implied by the first post.

With the posting of the article giving more detail about the story, and CC's own admission he was wrong, this thread was over. But for whatever reason, people had to step in, telling CC "no, you can't apologize! You are really a queer-basher!", and this shit has continued for 3 pages, bringing numerous others in. Why doesn't everyone just calm the fuck down?

Editor's Note: Split from here.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-04 07:47pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:I bet those who think this booklet would be perfectly okay around small children would also love to watch porn with them.

Did you just accuse the people posting in this thread of being pedophiles, dickhead?

It's worth noting, by the way, that neither CC nor anyone else ever said the information was really HARMFUL. They just think it'd be inappropriate. Hell, I'd agree. 13-14 year olds for the most part certainly don't need to have stuff like that presented in that way. They're not gonna take it seriously, for one-- most kids that age I know would likely just giggle at something like this booklet and ignore what it has to say. Fuck, the article posted on the first page states the booklet isn't meant for kids! I think that most of you parents would not want this kind of thing around your kids, not really. Not at the age that was implied by the first post.

It's worth noting, moron, that warning people about "extreme" gay sexual content is an implication of harmful or disturbing content as a function of the words chosen!

With the posting of the article giving more detail about the story, and CC's own admission he was wrong, this thread was over. But for whatever reason, people had to step in, telling CC "no, you can't apologize! You are really a queer-basher!", and this shit has continued for 3 pages, bringing numerous others in. Why doesn't everyone just calm the fuck down?

With the parade of apologists waltzing into this thread who obviously have difficulty with reading comprehension, not to mention your own inflammatory accusations of pedophilia, it's going to keep growing.
If your poor sensibilities or so abused by this thing being 3 pages long, posting in it is an utterly stupid way to demonstrate it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-04 07:57pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:I bet those who think this booklet would be perfectly okay around small children would also love to watch porn with them.

You have precisely 1 hour to retract and apologize for that completely groundless accusation, asshole. Clock is ticking.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-04 08:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:I bet those who think this booklet would be perfectly okay around small children would also love to watch porn with them.
You have precisely 1 hour to retract and apologize for that completely groundless accusation, asshole. Clock is ticking.

I didn't mean that in the way it ended up sounding.

I retract that, and apologize.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-04 08:43pm

Frank Hipper wrote:It's worth noting, moron, that warning people about "extreme" gay sexual content is an implication of harmful or disturbing content as a function of the words chosen!

He didn't say the content was extreme. He said it was "extremely gay-sex oriented." I concede that it is an implication that it was disturbing to him. However, it always seemed to me when reading it that he was more disturbed by the idea it was being offered to small children than that it was related to gay sex in general. As others have said, people would have raised the same issue if it were hetero-sex related.

Ugh. I dunno, whatever. I'm just an apologist, I lose by default.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-06-04 09:45pm

If it was explicit in a hetero sense he would have just put a NSFW tag on it or something.

One can't seriously deny that he found gay sex to be more disturbing than explicit sexual material in general. If you're merely straight and not homophobic, gay sex should not turn you on. If you're horrified and disturbed by it that's a different matter entirely.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-06-05 01:50am

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:As others have said, people would have raised the same issue if it were hetero-sex related.

Yeah, they do in similar situations. They're called moronic fundies who oppose anything other than abstinence-only sex education.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-05 03:51am

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:It's worth noting, moron, that warning people about "extreme" gay sexual content is an implication of harmful or disturbing content as a function of the words chosen!
He didn't say the content was extreme. He said it was "extremely gay-sex oriented." I concede that it is an implication that it was disturbing to him. However, it always seemed to me when reading it that he was more disturbed by the idea it was being offered to small children than that it was related to gay sex in general. As others have said, people would have raised the same issue if it were hetero-sex related.

Ugh. I dunno, whatever. I'm just an apologist, I lose by default.

Except that they're not "small children." They're teenagers. So don't play this, "Oh woe is me, I can't win because SD.Net is so unfair" bullshit.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-06-05 01:20pm

Well he did put that warning up so that all 13-14 year olds would know not to look at it and I am sure would not

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-05 01:23pm

Plekhanov wrote:13 & 14 year olds are by no means “small children” by that age many of are well into puberty, some of the girls will have been menstruating for years for example, and crucially by that age many have very strong sexual drives.

Dot you realise how moronic and harmful to society this idiotic head in the sand refusal to admit that adolescents have natural sexual drives & will have sex whether or not we teach them to do it safely attitude is?

Speaking as someone who was 14 only two years ago, I know about the sexual drives. Yes, kids are probably gonna have sex. Yes, they definitely need to be taught about how to do it safely. I don't disagree with that. However, at 13 and 14, kids don't need to be encouraged so strongly. There are other ways to present that information. Kids at that age are very impressionable. For the most part, they may be physically mature, but they aren't very mature mentally. I don't mean to say sex is a horrible horrible thing. I'm not one of those "omg sex is teh bad" fundies. Just... no one likes to see a 13 year old girl get pregnant. None of the kids I know at that age seem to be able to weigh the risks really, and pamphlets like this are just tacit encouragment for them to have sex without thinking about them.

Kids should definitely be educated about it all, so they can make an informed choice. They just don't need to be educated quite in the way the pamplet was. I would hazard a guess that they agree, as the article on the first page says this: "The ''Little Black Book," produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, is targeted at 18-and-older gay men, according to the committee."

Durandal wrote:Except that they're not "small children." They're teenagers. So don't play this, "Oh woe is me, I can't win because SD.Net is so unfair" bullshit.

I concede that they are not "small children". That was a mistype on my part. However, see above. They may be teenagers, but that doesn't mean they're mature.

I didn't mean to imply "woe is me because SD.net is unfair"-- It's not. No, the fact is, I just can't win, because of just who disagrees with me. You guys could probably beat me in a debate arguing the world is flat and we're all really purple toasters created by God. I'm just out of my league, I guess. I am not really sure why I posted in this thread in the first place, but I'm kind of regretting it now.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2005-06-05 01:24pm

one doesn't understand teenagers very well do you?

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-06-05 01:26pm

Me or him?

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-05 01:31pm

The Guid wrote:Me or him?

Probably you.

And I made a typo. "I would hazard a guess that they agree, as..." should be "I would hazard a guess that those who made the pamphlet agree, as".

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-06-05 03:19pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:I didn't mean to imply "woe is me because SD.net is unfair"-- It's not. No, the fact is, I just can't win, because of just who disagrees with me. You guys could probably beat me in a debate arguing the world is flat and we're all really purple toasters created by God. I'm just out of my league, I guess. I am not really sure why I posted in this thread in the first place, but I'm kind of regretting it now.

Oh gods, what a fucking imbeciles the world churns out these days.

'OH NOES! THE BIG MEANIES ARE AFTER ME! I COULD NEVER WIN EVEN IF I WAS RIGHT!'

Because we know throwing around accusations of pedophilia for daring to educate people is the same as saying the sky is blue.

Fucking whiny ass bitching brat.

Maybe through that whining, crying, and sniffling you'll grow a few braincells and realize no, you can't throw around accusations of pedophilia like candy. But more likely, you'll sniffle and stamp your feet like a spoilt brat.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-06-05 03:35pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:However, at 13 and 14, kids don't need to be encouraged so strongly. There are other ways to present that information. Kids at that age are very impressionable. For the most part, they may be physically mature, but they aren't very mature mentally. I don't mean to say sex is a horrible horrible thing. I'm not one of those "omg sex is teh bad" fundies. Just... no one likes to see a 13 year old girl get pregnant. None of the kids I know at that age seem to be able to weigh the risks really, and pamphlets like this are just tacit encouragment for them to have sex without thinking about them.

This is the same damn argument made over and over again on this thread. Provide evidence that sexually explicit wording encourages promiscuity and sex at a young age or shut the fuck up.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-05 04:21pm

SirNitram wrote:Oh gods, what a fucking imbeciles the world churns out these days.

'OH NOES! THE BIG MEANIES ARE AFTER ME! I COULD NEVER WIN EVEN IF I WAS RIGHT!'

Because we know throwing around accusations of pedophilia for daring to educate people is the same as saying the sky is blue. Fucking whiny ass bitching brat.

Maybe through that whining, crying, and sniffling you'll grow a few braincells and realize no, you can't throw around accusations of pedophilia like candy. But more likely, you'll sniffle and stamp your feet like a spoilt brat.

In that respect, I fucked up. I wasn't trying to imply pedophilia at *all* when I wrote that. I should have worded what I said another way, but.. my fault. *shrug* I retracted and apologized for it already, and I'm not gonna give a special apology again just because your feelings might have been hurt.

This is the same damn argument made over and over again on this thread. Provide evidence that sexually explicit wording encourages promiscuity and sex at a young age or shut the fuck up.

It's not the wording itself. It's the tone, the attitude that it's presented. No, the wording isn't the problem-- I hear worse than what was in those pamphlets almost every day among the younger kids at my school. That pamphlet makes the assumption one is already sexually active, and talks with that kind of tone. It directly encourages promiscuity, telling people what things are safest to do. Among adults, this is fine. But young teens don't need to be talked to quite that way.

I don't know, I'm kind of split on this. The information should definitely be out there-- I never disputed that. I just don't think sex should be encouraged at that age. It's like "You really shouldn't do this, <insert risks>. However, if you're going to, here are the safest ways to go about it." But I'll admit that's based on a personal choice of mine, and quite simply just my opinion.

To more directly answer your statement, Pint0; there is no evidence I know of that sexually explicit wording alone encourages promiscuity at a young age, despite what the FCC and all kinds of fundie groups would like us to think. That pamphlet, however, DOES encourage promiscuity. And, hell, it's not meant to be around children. "The ''Little Black Book," produced by the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, is targeted at 18-and-older gay men" (link). The people who wrote that targeted it for 18-and-older men. Do you all know better than them?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-05 04:36pm

Oh for fuck's sake, you're a fucking useless apologist piece of shit, you know that? You've conceded every particular issue and now you're down to "well, it sort of strikes me the wrong way". NOBODY GIVES A FUCK WHETHER IT STRIKES YOU THE WRONG WAY, SHITHEAD. If you can't come up with some evidence that it harms anyone, then you can just shut the fuck up right now because you have no case. Is that clear, asshole?

And frankly, that so-called "apology" was totally inadequate. You never apologized for what you said; you apologized for the way you said it. And then you made up some bullshit about how it just "came out wrong", as if there was any other possible meaning behind that statement. That stinks of bullshit to high heaven, you little ass-wipe. You are hanging by a thread, mister.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2005-06-05 04:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh for fuck's sake, you're a fucking useless apologist piece of shit, you know that? You've conceded every particular issue and now you're down to "well, it sort of strikes me the wrong way". NOBODY GIVES A FUCK WHETHER IT STRIKES YOU THE WRONG WAY, SHITHEAD. If you can't come up with some evidence that it harms anyone, then you can just shut the fuck up right now because you have no case. Is that clear, asshole?

I pretty much planned on it. You're right, I have no case. Sorry for posting in the first place. Christ.

And frankly, that so-called "apology" was totally inadequate. You never apologized for what you said; you apologized for the way you said it. And then you made up some bullshit about how it just "came out wrong", as if there was any other possible meaning behind that statement. That stinks of bullshit to high heaven, you little ass-wipe. You are hanging by a thread, mister.

No. I quite apologized for what I said. I didn't want to accuse anyone of pedophilia, and I'm sorry that I said that. However, it DID come out wrong. My intention wasn't to accuse you all of being pedophiles, and don't fucking tell me it was. I'd like to think I know my intentions better than you, you know? Since obviously this is still a big deal, here's what I meant: This material is just about as seuxally explicit as porn, and you all who would like to teach kids using this material (meant for adults, remember) would probably not mind teaching them by sitting them down and having them watch porn. I don't stand behind that anymore. It was stupid of me to say that in the first place, and especially for me to say it in the manner I did. I made a mistake; sorry. Is there something else you need me to say so you'll stop latching onto that?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2005-06-05 05:05pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:You're right, I have no case. Sorry for posting in the first place. Christ.

OK, that's it.

Maybe your mother should have sat you down one day when you were a child and explained to you that when you say something really bad, like falsely accusing people of being pedophiles, it's not enough to give a half-assed apology that says "OK I'm sorry, but you guys are assholes for getting angry over this." But since she didn't, I'm not going to waste any more time listening to your bullshit. Good fucking bye.

Every goddamned post you've made since your so-called apology, you've been trying to get digs in about how we've overreacting, how you're not being treated fairly, etc. Blow me, you little ass-wipe.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-05 05:10pm

POST REMOVED: No longer applicable. The problem has been permanently solved.