rationalskepticism.org

The_Metatron wrote:

Fallible wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The_Metatron wrote:

Fallible wrote:
I'm miles behind here, but in case anybody still cares, you've introduced the idea the girl has been tortured. You said nothing of how she came to be burned originally. You're embellishing.

You seem to know much more than I about sadism.

Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?

Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.

You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.

Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?

Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?

No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.

Well, the likelihood of a sadistic pedophile existing that has the resources and ability to prosecute an entire war just to drop napalm on nine year old girls seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

On the other hand, we do know of instances of sadistic pedophiles who actually did torture girls.

Bring it home. Go have a look at some of the shit Marc Dutroux did. To your little girl.

What the hell are you even talking about? I'm not saying there aren't any paedophiles who torture girls. I know who Marc Dutroux is, I don't need to look him up. I'm saying that you've changed your story. What's more, you made somewhat of a deal about clarifying that you weren't just wishing to kill any old run of the mill paedophile, no. You clarified:

Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.

No, you were NOT a fair bit more specific, this is either a lie or a mistake. YOU introduced torture of girls, later. You can't now try to make torture the big difference. It wasn't even spoken about until you added it.

Then tell us how you wouldn't pinch his neck shut if you had the chance.

Hello?? I haven't said I wouldn't. I haven't said I wouldn't think exactly the same as you. That was never my argument. I'm the one who said that WE ALL have unacceptable thoughts, remember? You then decided to tell me that no, you didn't have anything that came close to your burnt girl thing. Surprise, you did. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so emotionally involved in this topic that you're just seeing a red mist and aren't bothering to make the distinction anymore between who said what. It's all just a big lump of paedophile loving a-holes to you at this point, isn't it. I manage to have a child, and to have had a number of other experiences, without having dissolved into a pool of incandescent rage at the notion of people who get off on children in pain. I hope you wouldn't argue that that's because I'm a monster of some kind, because that's demonstrably rubbish.