The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on December 15, 2009, 02:15:16 AM
-
Did Ian say last night that he had gay sex? NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!! I'm just trying to clarify?
-
Just listened to that part, and yep thats what it sounds like. 19 minutes in about.
-
I think Mark had some hot prison sex.
-
Hot prison sex is a myth perpetuated by bears who have access to sex dungeons and video cams in San Pornedino.
-
Ian was a teenage male prostitute. You can probably learn the uninteresting details by searching the forum and wiki for "koosh".
-
That sounds gay.
-
I would think a koosh ball would be difficult to clean? Perhaps though not as difficult as a gerbil.
-
Ian said on a previous show that when he was about 10 that he had sex (didn't specify what kind of sex) with a male neighbor in exchange for video games and stuff like that.
-
lol
-
I heard this too. Went something along the lines of:
Mark: "I wouldn't hold it against a husband who had gay sex 20 years ago to not tell his wife"
Ian: "Well you know I had gay sex once and blah blah blah"
Soundbyte was maybe 3 seconds long and I had to rewind the podcast just because I was like "what? Did I really just hear that?"
-
That was the AOC argument. Ian thinks he was fully cognizant from day one.
-
Starting 18:04
Mark: If 20 years ago I had gay sex, am I going to tell my wife that? No!
Ian: I would, and I have.
Mark: I understand you would. I know you have, and--
Ian: All right.
Mark: I don't think less of you for it. I might jibe you about it every once in a while, but that's it. No, no, no!
Ian: I guess I'm just a little more forthcoming in my relationships than you are.
Personally, I'm leaning Mark on this one-- being in a relationship doesn't mean that you need to divulge your entire sexual history to your partner, or even that they want to hear it. But if your partner asks "Have you ______?" I think you should answer honestly.
-
Ian was a teenage male prostitute.
He wasn't a teen. He was younger.
That was the AOC argument. Ian thinks he was fully cognizant from day one.
I respect his choice. It was his, whatever preconceptions you might have.
-
Personally, I'm leaning Mark on this one-- being in a relationship doesn't mean that you need to divulge your entire sexual history to your partner, or even that they want to hear it. But if your partner asks "Have you ______?" I think you should answer honestly.
I'm inclined to agree in the general sense, you should be honest.
But if your relationship is likely to return that honesty in a hurtful way during the inevitable clash, maybe its not a good idea to divulge certain things. If your partner isn't the kind who does that, then divulge.
-
That was the AOC argument. Ian thinks he was fully cognizant from day one.
I respect his choice. It was his, whatever preconceptions you might have.
I don't have any preconceptions. I'm just saying he came off as being capable of adult decisions. He wasn't, and he gives the impression otherwise.
If children are capable of adult decisions at age ten, then they should be put in the electric chair if they murder. Can't have it both ways.
-
I don't have any preconceptions. I'm just saying he came off as being capable of adult decisions. He wasn't,
Preconception.
If children are capable of adult decisions at age ten, then they should be put in the electric chair if they murder. Can't have it both ways.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_5_110/ai_n27144918/
Note: ^^ case is in a state without death penalty, thankfully.
They ARE charging 11 year old murderers as adults. So... based on the action of the state... do you honor Ian's choice?
-
I don't have any preconceptions. I'm just saying he came off as being capable of adult decisions. He wasn't,
Preconception.
If children are capable of adult decisions at age ten, then they should be put in the electric chair if they murder. Can't have it both ways.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_5_110/ai_n27144918/
Note: ^^ case is in a state without death penalty, thankfully.
They ARE charging 11 year old murderers as adults. So... based on the action of the state... do you honor Ian's choice?
They are *sometimes*. And they have NOT ever put a child in the electric chair in this country.
The rest is a non sequitur.
"Based on the actions of the state do you honor Ians choice?" Thats just a dumb runtogether. Jesus.
Look, if you believe children are capable of adult thinking, go have some. You'll start thinking different immediately.
-
And they have NOT ever put a child in the electric chair in this country.
The rest is a non sequitur.
Bringing up the death penalty for "children," as if it has anything to do with the argument at hand, was your idea.
Look, if you believe children are capable of adult thinking, go have some. You'll start thinking different immediately.
Well gee, I happen to have three children, and I disagree with you. It's such an obvious sign of faulty or non-existent reasoning when someone says "If only you _____, you would surely agree with me!" (Fill in the blank with "had children," "were older," "had served in the military," "weren't so bourgeois," etc.)
-
It's such an obvious sign of faulty or non-existent reasoning when someone says "If only you _____, you would surely agree with me!" (Fill in the blank with "had children," "were older," "had served in the military," "weren't so bourgeois," etc.)
I agree completely.
-
And they have NOT ever put a child in the electric chair in this country.
The rest is a non sequitur.
Bringing up the death penalty for "children," as if it has anything to do with the argument at hand, was your idea.
Look, if you believe children are capable of adult thinking, go have some. You'll start thinking different immediately.
Well gee, I happen to have three children, and I disagree with you. It's such an obvious sign of faulty or non-existent reasoning when someone says "If only you _____, you would surely agree with me!" (Fill in the blank with "had children," "were older," "had served in the military," "weren't so bourgeois," etc.)
So.... its good to know your children are capable of adult decisions, and were fully cognizant from day one. It must be a real thrill to have adult children. Are you sure they're not midgets?
Do they live with you, or have their own apartments? And please explain to the class at what age they were fully prepared to live on their own, and what helped you arrive at those realizations of their adult independence.
Be advised, if your "children" are not performing in adult situations like adults, and you make decisions for them because they are unable to fend for themselves in *ALL* matters of living, you are a mushy-headed idiot who can't string together two rational thoughts.
"well, uh, no... they live with me... and I provide for their needs... but, but, but..."
Shut the fuck up, moron.
-
You can't own... your kids...
You most certainly can. You own your kids until they assert their own self-ownership.
Oh, look at this... Is it because they're not capable of complex problem-solving at certain ages? Some decisions are beyond them, due to lack of experience.
This is cognizance. This is why they are excused from adult penalties when they take certain actions. Actions which they are not fully capable of comprehending the ramifications.
You either support the idea of leniency in the correction of minors in adult situations due to their lack of development, or you don't. And if you do, you're acknowledging the fact they are incapable of making adult decisions. They shouldn't own guns, cars, or be allowed to view certain things. They shouldn't be permitted to make choices about drugs and other substances, what to put in their bodies. Another one is who they hang out with, and what those people do to them whether they consent or not.
You're so enlightened... and thats a good thing. But in your fits of libertarian zeal, try to remember, they shouldn't be riding the subway home alone from daycare, or fucking the passengers who offer friendship and candy. The stinking crackhead shitbag is a bad man, and should not be permitted to befriend your children, regardless of their appeals.
-
Look, if you believe children are capable of adult thinking, go have some. You'll start thinking different immediately.
Well gee, I happen to have three children, and I disagree with you. It's such an obvious sign of faulty or non-existent reasoning when someone says "If only you _____, you would surely agree with me!" (Fill in the blank with "had children," "were older," "had served in the military," "weren't so bourgeois," etc.)
So.... its good to know your children are capable of adult decisions, and were fully cognizant from day one.
Are you serious, resorting to such a blatant strawman? Do you really have no other alternative in this discussion? Fucking pathetic.
-
You either support the idea of leniency in the correction of minors in adult situations due to their lack of development, or you don't. And if you do, you're acknowledging the fact they are incapable of making adult decisions.
I assume that what you meant is "you're acknowledging the fact that some minors are incapable of making adult decisions in some situations." I can't think of any other interpretation of your statement that makes any sense. But then, if this is what you meant, I don't know of anyone who contests that point.
Edit: In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many non-"minors" are incapable of making what I would consider to be adult decisions in many situations.