So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[JimL]

Abnormal mental functioning. Mental illness.

And how do you define abnormal mental functioning?

[JimL]

What would Tweb be without him?

Boring!

[Sparko]

And how do you define abnormal mental functioning?

Is this one of those kiddie things? "Because why?"

You suck at debating JimL.

You are defending pedophilia as normal. You realize that right? How sick are you?

[Cow Poke]

Is this one of those kiddie things? "Because why?"

You suck at debating JimL.

You are defending pedophilia as normal. You realize that right? How sick are you?

Is this a surprise? He defended NAMBLA in the ILGA thread.

[Sparko]

Is this a surprise? He defended NAMBLA in the ILGA thread.

I am starting to worry about him.

[Cow Poke]

I am starting to worry about him.

Starting?

[Sparko]

Starting?

When he did the NAMBLA thing I just figured he was bad at arguing and had no clue what he was doing. But now he is doing it again, defending pedophilia, and I am starting to worry about him. Either he is sick, or he is so stupid he doesn't realize what he is doing.

[Cow Poke]

When he did the NAMBLA thing I just figured he was bad at arguing and had no clue what he was doing. But now he is doing it again, defending pedophilia, and I am starting to worry about him. Either he is sick, or he is so stupid he doesn't realize what he is doing.

I think it's a case - just like Tassman - where, no matter what we're FOR, he's against, and no matter what we're AGAINST, he's for. Kinda like some of our Twebbers do with Trump. When you're driven by hate, you make really dumb choices and arguments.

[Sparko]

I think it's a case - just like Tassman - where, no matter what we're FOR, he's against, and no matter what we're AGAINST, he's for. Kinda like some of our Twebbers do with Trump. When you're driven by hate, you make really dumb choices and arguments.

That's just like the democrats and Trump. He only has to be for something in order for them to suddenly be against it, even when they were for it before. Like the sanctuary cities. :rof:

So if we say that God doesn't exist, will JimL suddenly argue that he does?

[Cow Poke]

That's just like the democrats and Trump. He only has to be for something in order for them to suddenly be against it, even when they were for it before. Like the sanctuary cities.

So if we say that God doesn't exist, will JimL suddenly argue that he does?

I think he's too mad at God to change his mind on that one -- driven by what he's against, not what he's for.

But, yeah - all those liberals who were FOR the wall before Trump was, so now they have to be against that, AND border security!

[Tassman]

and anyone who has desires to have sex with children would be at risk of acting upon them, making them ALL mentally ill. So your claim that not all pedophiles are mentally ill is useless.

By this standard anyone desiring to have sex with beautiful women would be at risk of acting upon them, which is demonstrable nonsense. Most of us control our urges. If and when we feel unable then this is the time to recognize that we are mentally ill and seek professional help.

[Sparko]

By this standard anyone desiring to have sex with beautiful women would be at risk of acting upon them, which is demonstrable nonsense. Most of us control our urges. If and when we feel unable then this is the time to recognize that we are mentally ill and seek professional help.

You were the one claiming someone who desired to have sex with children was at risk of acting on it so they would have a mental illness. Now you are saying you were wrong? That my initial example was correct after all?

Make up your mind Tassman.

[JimL]

Is this one of those kiddie things? "Because why?"

You suck at debating JimL.

You are defending pedophilia as normal. You realize that right? How sick are you?

I'm not defending pedophilia you idiot. I asked you a simple question, and you answer with nonsense. I'll ask again. See if you can answer directly. How would you define abnormal mental functioning?

[Tassman]

You were the one claiming someone who desired to have sex with children was at risk of acting on it so they would have a mental illness. Now you are saying you were wrong? That my initial example was correct after all?

IF someone who was attracted to children was at risk of acting on it, then they would be categorized as a potential danger to the community and probably mentally ill. Where did I say otherwise?

[Sparko]

I'm not defending pedophilia you idiot. I asked you a simple question, and you answer with nonsense. I'll ask again. See if you can answer directly. How would you define abnormal mental functioning?

Not functioning normally.