Barebacking, Porn & Role Models

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Gosh, that sounds exactly like what Ad rian used to say to me

>whenever I asked him to specify the source of some position

>for which he had claimed there were many sources. Quite a

>coincidence, isn't it?

 

Well, then, given that you obviously are opposed to this sentiment, and wouldn't want to be like Ad rian, how about this:'

 

You claim that if a guy watches bareback videos, it's more likely that he'll bareback. Please site 5 studies which support your view.

[taylorky]

RE: Barebacking, Corn & Pole Models

 

hey hawk i might be wrong.......being the illiterate 3 year old that i am!........but i don't think doug69 likes me.

 

 

taylorcrushed@17:51-07/29/03

[woodlawn]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>You've misleadingly mixed two compeltely distinct concepts

>here.

 

It's not my fault that you're not bright enough to see the relationship, is it?

>

>What it means to be an adult is that one has the absolute

>right to choose to engage in whatever activities one wants as

>long as it does not directly result in harm to others, i.e.,

>the first category I described.

 

What it means to be an adult according to YOU, isn't that what you mean?

 

>If you do not agree,

 

How does possessing a concealed weapon "directly result in harm to others"? And yet that is a felony in most states. Seems like the principle you've enunciated above isn't shared by many.

 

>then please let me know if you favor laws

>making it illegal to engage in any or all of the activities I

>described in the first category. Most of them kill way more

>people than barebacking does, and all of them have at least an

>equal chance of resulting in serious injury to the person's

>health.

 

I favor laws making it illegal to engage in private behavior that has major negative public health impacts. And that seems to be the trend in this and other industrialized nations. The antismoking movement, for example, began with a few lawsuits on behalf of individual smokers that were soon dismissed. Now it has reached the point at which it will soon be impossible to smoke anywhere but in the privacy of one's home, and the tobacco industry is mainly a conduit for money going to reimburse various governments for the public health costs of smoking. Eventually tobacco consumption will be banned.

 

 

 

>The problem with this thinking is that there is no end to

>it

 

Of course there's an end to it, dummy. It will go exactly as far as the voters want it to go and no farther. At present they are willing to place severe restrictions on the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and various psychotropic drugs. But not to ban cheeseburgers. In time they may change their minds about the latter.

 

 

and to the severe infringements on privacy and liberty

>which it will necessarily entail.

 

 

Whoa! You Republicans are constantly pretending that you are strict constructionists who don't believe in "reading into" the Constitution things not written there. Well, let me remind you that the Constitution does not say anything about a right to privacy. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent a state from prohibiting the drinking of coffee with cream, if the citizens of that state feel this practice is pernicious. Right?

 

 

>How do you justify limitations against barebacking but not

>favor limitations on eating Doritos and Cheeseburgers

 

But the fact is that I DO support government efforts to discourage both practices. No inconsistency here.

 

>One can argue that if we are going to have a

>Government be our daddy when it comes to taking care of us,

>then it must be our daddy when it comes to telling us what we

>can and can't do.

 

But that is already the case, and that's how we Americans want it. How many people want to give their children medicines NOT approved by the FDA? Or fly on an airline that does NOT obey FAA safety regs? Or have surgery performed by someone who is NOT licensed by their state medical board? Not me.

 

>But I don't think that adults should have daddies. That's

>what it means to be an adult.

 

Nope. What it means to be an adult is to recognize the myriad ways in which your actions affect people around you and to take responsibility for those effects, not pretend, like a little kid, that you are Robinson Crusoe living on a desert island.

 

>your immunity level is higher than mine

>is, given your daily, uninterrupted visits here.

 

Oh knock it off, Ad rian. You're not fooling anyone. You were kicked off this message board twice for creating posts that others found repugnant, and you're still coming back to plague us. Where the hell do you get off suggesting that anyone else spends too much time here? You couldn't last more than a day or two without this place.

 

>By extreme and painfully obvious contrast, what I said about

>the NCM pimp was based exclusively on what NCM said

>about his pimping activities

 

Well I must have missed the posts where he said he is acting as agent for a hooker and taking a cut of the earnings. Where are those posts? The only ones I have read are those in which he recommends one of the hookers to other johns. If that's enough to make one a pimp, then anyone who writes a review here is a pimp.

 

 

>Surely you see the fundamental difference without my having to

>explain it further?

 

I'll see it if you can direct me to those posts. I sure won't be able to find them on google. LOL!

 

>>The fact is that an artist who

>>depicts dangerous or antisocial behavior in a way that

>>glamorizes it is taking the risk that his work will

>influence

>>others in harmful ways.

 

>So what?

 

So nothing. I didn't say an artist who glamorizes violence should be arrested, merely that he should be regarded as someone who glamorizes violence.

 

 

>Adults who choose to smoke knowing the risks are the

>only ones who bear responsibility for their lung

>cancer. Do you actually disgaree with that?

 

Of course I do. And saying, as you do, that people who knowingly and deliberately try to persuade others to engage in activities that are dangerous to them bear no responsibility for doing so is totally at odds with the concept of personal responsibility you claim to cherish.

 

>Oh, what a great trend this is. Let's bankrupt all of our

>food industries because adults can't refrain from eating junk

>food in excess and shoving it down their children's throats

>and causing them to get heart disease.

 

 

Let's give big business the choice of either taking responsibility for their actions or going out of business. If they won't do it voluntarily we'll have to call in Trent Lott's brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs to rough 'em up until they change their minds.

 

>Same thing here with barebacking - if some guy watches Aaron's

>video and then goes out and chooses to bareback and

>gets AIDS, it's obviously Aaron's fault. The guy who chose to

>bareback is the victim.

 

In fact, both are at fault, and both should take responsibility for what they are doing.

 

>That's the hell to which this road leads.

 

Look, Ad, if you want to live according to the law of the jungle, then why don't you go live in a fucking jungle? We civilized people want to live in a community, not a jungle, and in a community people act together for the common good. In the jungle it's every man for himself and only the strong survive. In a community each member has his strengths and weaknesses and each uses his strengths to supply the deficiencies of the others. That's the way we like it. You and Jack London have a good time in the wilderness, though.

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Oh, Doug isn't ad rian. There's a certain tone to Auntie S's posts that certainly isn't there. Truth to tell, i can't imagine WHO Doug might be...lol

[Doug69]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

>Oh knock it off, Ad rian. You're not fooling anyone.

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll respond to the rest of what you wrote later (if you're a good boy), but I just had to scream out my hysteria and fucking glee over the fact that all of these dark foreboding hints that have been drooling out of the mouth the last couple of days from your little pygmy underlings (BoN, Lucky, VaHawk, et al.) about how they know who I [whispered gravity] really am and what other names I have used here has, all along, been based on the belief that I am Ad rian. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

I mean - I've never mistaken you for Einstein or anything, but I had thought that you were at least a level above, say, Lucky and taylor. Have you seen what I've fucking advocated regarding the war on Iraq and terrorism?

 

Do you think that Ad rian/Axhebia would ever - even in order to conceal who he is - advocate the Bush Doctrine with regard to the Middle East, and thereby violate his central religious principles which hold that these wars are the root of all evil as they are nothing more than a Jewish plot to promote Israel?

 

I think you need to re-convene a Pygmy meeting where you ask Lucky, VaHawk, taylor, and the rest of the Pygmy Council to look into things a little more carefully. Maybe you can get BoN to conduct some more of that super-duper, high-level, top-secret "research" which causes him to hold himself in such high regard. Something - anything - you need it!!

 

Ad rian!!! HAHAHAHA.

 

I know - I know - you don't give a "rat's ass" who I really am, because I'm stupid, irrelevant, and just some asshole on the Internet. Save it; I've heard it before.

 

But - Ad rian - GOOD ONE!!!!

[BewareofNick]

RE: Cajun Breakfast

 

Oh please, no one seriously thinks that you are Auntie S. In fact, I psoted well before this one (the prior post) that you were not Auntie S. You really need to stop providing us with even further examples of why you just can't keep up.