SatanLucy wrote:
And why do you feel urge to post male rape porn?
Is it your secret kink?
Don't you miss prison?
I mean, it's the only place you ever had a social life isn't it?
SatanLucy wrote:
And why do you feel urge to post male rape porn?
Is it your secret kink?
Don't you miss prison?
I mean, it's the only place you ever had a social life isn't it?
Yes or no, do you miss your friends from prison?
SatanLucy wrote:
No, I dont circumcise infants to alter their sexual functions for religious or arbitrary purposes.
Nobody thinks you actually circumcise infants, what is creepy is that you want to fuck infants.
SatanLucy wrote:
So much for "wah wah wah".
So much for a pedophile that thinks of infants as sex objects.
Do you whack off to potty training videos too, or is it just circumcision porn that makes your keyboard sticky?
SatanLucy wrote:
That is a too difficult question for Sidewalker to answer.
Nope, it's real simple question that I've answered multiple times already, you are just too stupid and perverted to understand it.
If he answers "no", he is agreeing with me, which is impermissible. If he says "yes", he is agreeing with sexual abuse of infants, which is also impermissible.
No, what I've been saying all along is that you are a sick fuck for thinking of infants as sex objects, so it doesn't really matter how I answer Sarge's question, I'm not agreeing with your perverted way of looking at infants.
You can claim anything you want; you can whack off to circumcision videos all day long for all I care, I'm just not going to be a part of your fucking freakshow.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Okay, but one again typical avoidance strategy.
Gee, you think so? I tried to explain the normal world to you, but as I suspected, you just don't get it, fact is, almost all parents avoid thinking about infants in a sexual manner, and we think it's creepy when you do it.
So let me just put the question to you very simply.
OK, but I'll put a question to you very simply also. Why do you enjoy having sexual thoughts about infants?
Do you support the ritual circumcision of infants?
Yes or no.
All three of my sons were circumcised, so yes, but that doesn't mean it's OK for you to start sharing your sexual thoughts about my sons when they were infants. Try to dial down the creepy.
SatanLucy wrote:
Actually, I am a victim of circumcision myself. tho my circumcision was worse because it gone wrong and left me with bent dick.
TMI
SatanLucy wrote:
I dont advocate for violence against circumcisers.
Of course not, you like to watch circumcision porn.
Circumcision just needs to be made illegal.
Why don't you just stop whacking off to circumcision videos.
SergeantLynch wrote:
Ah, you participated again.
Yeah, I told SatanLucy to leave me alone, if you want to call that participating, fine, whatever floats your boat.
So when you see this reply, just ignore it.
Nope, as long as you continue making shit up to say about me, I’ll continue to respond to your nonsense.
Though your reticence can only lead one to conclude that you do actually support the right of adults to perform sexually motivated acts of ritual abuse on minors...Such is your own participation in the "sexual infant thing".
LOL, your obsession with me is very strong Grasshopper, perhaps you can take your own advice and “just ignore it”, but seeing as you can’t, let me try to explain again.
You probably can’t understand this, but nevertheless, I’m going to tell you about the real world, the one commonly referred to as “normal”.
I’m a father and a grandfather, three sons and two grandsons, and like all “normal” parents, I am constitutionally incapable of thinking about infants sexually, no matter how much you insist, like all “normal” parents, I don’t want to do it, I can’t do it, and I won’t do it. I’m sorry that upsets you, I’m afraid you are just going to take your own advice and “just ignore it”.
Now, in regard to your inane logic that “theoretically” my refusal to participate is a form of participation, I think the extent to which a normal parent would participate in this creepiness, the instinctive reaction parents have to the "sexual infant thing", is a strong desire to protect their children from such people. Like all parents here in the normal world, I would want to beat the shit out of any person doing that “sexual infant thing” if they so much as touched any of my kids or grandkids when they were infants.
So, there you go, theoretically, like any parent, I’m participating, happy now?
Shoresy wrote:
You said t = 0 as a measurement of duration. That's mathematically incorrect. You were probably thinking delta t, not t.
Oh my God, apparently you don't actually know what delta means, did you even look at the cut and paste you did? Delta represents the change in time, it is a measurement of duration, and in that context (please refer to your own cut and paste), T= no time.
Plain old t = 0 usually means in almost all standard physics equations:
and almost never as "duration"
LOL, you mean it's something like T=0 represents the initial condition, or origin point, and that's one of the "two reference points" needed to measure time. OK, so let's say it's a "starting point", and then you have another term, let's call it the "ending point", and viola, that amount of time between those two reference points is what we call a time measurement.
I think I'm saying this in the simplest way I can, I really don't think I can dumb it down any further. Maybe go back and read it again, real slow for comprehension this time, and make sure you go back to the beginning because I've been saying the same thing each time.
Shoresy wrote:
That's not entirely accurate.
t = 0 does not mean no time. The change of t = 0 means no time.
almost no physics equation references duration of time without delta in the equation. it's easy to be confused if you haven't studied delta equations.
LOL, you do realize you just restated what I said. as a measurement of change (that's what delta means), T=0 means no time....it's the headline of your cut and paste even.
As I said, as a measurement, t=0 is no time, as a reference point, it is one of the two points necessary for a time measurement.
Shoresy wrote:
If you are measuring change, you need two reference points, wouldn't T=0 just represent "no time".
absolutely not, the number line extends infinitely in both directions; it does not end at zero.
zero is a common mathematical point indicating present time. You took physics in high school, right?
nearly all the textbook primers use this standard for the introduction into motion equations.
I know how it's used in mathematics, it's often one of the "two reference points" needed to measure time, and if it is a measurement of duration, T=0 represents no time.
SatanLucy wrote:
Is that the one where you said you like to jack off to circumcision videos?
No, and I dont "like to jack off to circumcision videos".
Then why did you say you jack off to circumcision videos?
SatanLucy wrote:
"That was the topic, now you've made me the topic"
Who made who the topic?
Check post 8.
Post 8? Is that the one where you said you like to jack off to circumcision videos?
Shoresy wrote:
If you are measuring a change, you need a reference point, as in t = 0
If you are measuring change, you need two reference points, wouldn't T=0 just represent "no time".
Shoresy wrote:
Would you say Heisenberg's principle dictates that all evidence must exist in the past and never in the present?
No, I wouldn't say that.
Simply put, the act of observing itself consumes some measure of time that makes it impossible to observe evidence at t=0?
Time is a measure of change, it measures the temporal interval between two events, it represents a duration, or temporal length of events and the intervals between them.
Consequently, I don't know what T=0 means.
SatanLucy wrote:
topic is circumcision, so make up your mind where you stand on that topic.
That was the topic, now you've made me the topic with your latest sicko obsession, I always say "I don't see how he can be any creepier", and then wham, you come up with a new level of creepy.
You've creeped me out enough for today, go creep out somebody else now.
You already joined in creepiness by choosing to argue against me. You could have simply said "Pedophilia is wrong, and circumcision videos are wrong.".
You are just making things up, and I don't appreciate you including me in your creepy fantasies. All I said was "Pedophilia is wrong and thinking sexual thoughts about infants is wrong", if this obsession with me is because you need my approval, well get over it.
I dont see why engage in defense of circumcision videos by proxy indirect attacks.
Probably because I haven't done so, that's just the role you have me playing in your creepy fantasy psychodrama. If you want to jack off to circumcision videos, go ahead, just keep me out of your pedophile fantasies.
Whatever you call me wont change what circumcision videos are. Is it me you are attacking, or arguments against circumcision videos?
It's pedophilia I'm disapproving of, so yeah, I guess that means it's you I'm attacking.
Time is just an idea without any physical referent; it is conceptual and by definition, it moves in only one direction, it always flows from past to future.
It's true that within the mathematical formalisms of physical theories it has no directional coordinate but that is about the mathematics, not time.
Scientifically speaking, time's direction is determined by:
Putting philosophical semantics games aside, the reality of the situation is that all observations are that the past lies behind us and is fixed and immutable, the future lies ahead and is not fixed, and we can causally affect the future with our actions. Sir Arthur Eddington introduced the concept of the "arrow of time" in his seminal 1928 book, "The Nature of the Physical World". he demonstrated that the unidirectional, irreversible flow of time is dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the constant increase of entropy (disorder) in the universe.
He established scientifically that the arrow of time is a feature of the universe, its contents, and the way it has evolved.
If I was getting married again, my dad wouldn't have come to my wedding either.
Of course, my dad is dead.
I wish your dad could be more like my dad.
I dont see whats so hard about saying "Maybe this infant circumcision thing and recording of it isnt as great idea as we thought".
I don't see why you are obsessed with me joining you in your creepiness, what's so hard about leaving me out of it.
There are lots of people on this site, none of them has joined you in this particular creepiness, how about you go irritate one of them.
Nonetheless, the very fact of your ongoing need to not think about the issue, manifests as an ongoing need to think about the issue.
Your ongoing need for me to think about the issue, manifests as an inexplicable neediness, perhaps for validation, or maybe control, or just a desire to prolong the stimulation afforded by the subject, but it's creepy either way.
Maybe you should just accept it and you and SatanLucy can do your sexual infant thing without me.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
What a weird way to justify torture of infant's penis and the recording of such.
If I'm weird because infant penises don't make me have sexual thoughts, then go ahead and think I'm weird. It would probably upset me if you didn't think I was weird. Sorry Pumpkin, but you are just going to have to do your freak show without me.
Why would it even matter if it was sexual or not? I mean, it obviously is, but even if we pretend it's not, does it make it any better?
Why would it even matter if I don't want to participate in your world, I obviously don't, but even if you pretend that I do, does it make it any less creepy?
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality...There's no denying the fact.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
And if an issue is raised within the context of a discussion forum, then there is nothing "creepy" about openly discussing it.
OK, but creepy is in the eyes of the beholder, if a pedophile wants to talk about infants sexually that's fine, I'll pass and exercise my right to think such conversations are creepy.
There are a 101 other issues raised here that I never thought about previously, would it be "creepy" to discuss these issues openly.
Trying to see the world through pedophile eyes is creepy to me, are you saying there is nothing on the internet that you find creepy?
Though for sure, social conditioning for some becomes intellectually debilitating and they have no choice but to resort to the "creepy" argument.
Yeah, you can call it "intellectually debilitating" for me to choose what I want to think about and discuss if you want, but I'm thinking there's nothing intellectual about letting the internet choose what I think about.
But hey, you want to discuss it "intellectually", I'll defer to Marshall McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter. In their book "They Became What They Beheld" they explored how modern media and technology have transformed human perception and identity, creating a new "sensate tribal world" where people are constantly bombarded with information, leading to changes in behavior and self-awareness. They focused on the changed sense of self in modern life and made a strong case that people become reflections of the media they consume. I think my sense of ‘creepy” is a matter of internalizing the sense of how participation might affect my sense of self.
Consequently, you and SatanLucy can go be “intellectual” about the pedophile point of view on your own, I think McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter make a strong argument that I should select what I spend time thinking about. Go figure, but I choose to control the medium rather than let the medium control me.
It's okay, I fully understand.
Like I said, whatever floats your boat, I'll pass.
So what are your views on the non-paedophilic style physical and sexual abuse of minors...
I haven't ever given it any thought till you and SatanLucy brought it up, but my initial reaction is I find it creepy that you think of infant circumcision sexually.
Damn man, get a grip.
Sure, I merely demand some consistency from my enemies.
Nobody gives a shit what a pedophiles demand, that is what's consistent.
If they want to ban pedophilia, that's fine, but then they should also ban circumcision videos, or someone will say they are being terribly inconsistent.
Nope, we are very consistent in not giving a shit about your inane comparisons, keep on whining crybaby, nobody cares.
It doesn't matter how much you whine about it being unfair, pedophilia is illegal, even if you convinced someone online that it's unfair, it's still illegal. Whine, cry, protest, complain, whatever, it is and will remain illegal. You don't even have to accept it, it's still illegal.
Well yes, Faux is certainly the only person alive that knows how to accurately calibrate a thermometer and the only person that fully understands the sustainability of crude oil...And for sure, a person of many other bold claims of educational and intellectual excellence.
So like any other remote digital acquaintance one must take them at face value, and also with a pinch of salt...Though in some instances, the necessary ratio of salt to face value is oftentimes easier to guess at.
Man, he really has to be needy to be so desperate for the approval of strangers on the internet.
