FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > How embarrassing...
How embarrassing...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." No it just proved that a small guy looked like a child and shouldn't be going into an adult venue which strictly speaking may not be totally obvious to all  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." The general public don't need to be educated about swingi g but I'm glad they know what to do if they think a child might be in danger Ring the cops. Cops check its an honest mistake and swingers go back to swinging | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is.No it just proved that a small guy looked like a child and shouldn't be going into an adult venue which strictly speaking may not be totally obvious to all " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." What makes them narrow minded x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." I’m lost as to how you even get to that conclusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." were they truant officers was it daytime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is. I’m lost as to how you even get to that conclusion." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is. I’m lost as to how you even get to that conclusion." Indeed, I have actually seen very tiny women in swingers clubs (i.e. Well below five feet) and if you weren't able to see their faces you would assume they were children. Thus, anyone seeing someone looking like that going into a sex club (assuming faces aren't visible) is entirely right to alert the police. As someone above says, all it takes is for the police to look at the person concerned, confirm they are are an adult and then leave. This won't have been a big raid or anything. An officer would have politely described the person of concern to the owner and asked to see them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me." why are you tiny? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." Not at all. It's reassuring there are people out there watching out for the welfare of kids. False alarm with good intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny? "Genetics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny? "A little. Big gob little legs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me." I thought it was lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny?
A little. Big gob little legs "awwww but from behind you look younger...... Yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me. I thought it was lol" I had heels on that day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny?
A little. Big gob little legs awwww but from behind you look younger...... Yes? "How the fuck do I know? I can't see what I look like from behind  I ain't got a bendy long giraffe neck | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny?
A little. Big gob little legs awwww but from behind you look younger...... Yes?
How the fuck do I know? I can't see what I look like from behind I ain't got a bendy long giraffe neck"Ha hey I'm looking at you from behind and all I can say is you are an arresting sight | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Was it Jeanette (wee Jimmy) Krankie ? " many a true word said in jest! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"many a true word said in jest!" That’s not really the sort of situation that phrase is used for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. " Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm."  the battle of the one who write a better essay has started | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm." No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. " #thechildsaver #myhero #  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. #thechildsaver #myhero # "Btw that wasn't a #sarcasm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No..." So, you seriously think that the general public think that swingers are paedophiles? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. " People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. " Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? " They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No... So, you seriously think that the general public think that swingers are paedophiles?" That's not what I said is it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. " Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. " Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm waiting for this to happen to me.why are you tiny?
A little. Big gob little legs "Massive troublemaker....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." On a funny note, this is so funny  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. " You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. " Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what I said is it" It was heavily implied. And if you don’t mean that at all, then your entire argument has zero substance. Not that that’s a first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? " Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? " Typical Brokenbrainfart argument, that one. Say something ridiculous to start, then contort yourself into as uncomfortable a position as possible trying to defend it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J Not at all. It's reassuring there are people out there watching out for the welfare of kids. False alarm with good intent." This ^^^
Plus, maybe she was in uniform for role play?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. " Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what I said is it It was heavily implied. And if you don’t mean that at all, then your entire argument has zero substance. Not that that’s a first." Don't beat yourself up about the fact that nuance goes over your head. There's only so many hours in the day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's not what I said is it It was heavily implied. And if you don’t mean that at all, then your entire argument has zero substance. Not that that’s a first. Don't beat yourself up about the fact that nuance goes over your head. There's only so many hours in the day. " Tbh you two would do a great couple | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J Not at all. It's reassuring there are people out there watching out for the welfare of kids. False alarm with good intent. This ^^^
"Thanks, I'm always on the look out for man-bear-pig. We'll get that sneaky bastard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. " Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. " Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. " You just contradicted yourself! I give up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. You just contradicted yourself! I give up. " How? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible?" Thought you were doing that as well
I even got confused to distinct who wrote what | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. You just contradicted yourself! I give up. " You've drawn me in now. Where's the contradiction? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible?" As I say I know of two club owners who were sent to prison for sex offences. One involved under age sex. I have also been to some distinctly dodgy clubs where I pretty certain that if a 15 year old girl turned up with a fake ID, the owners wouldn't look too closely at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible?" Again, you accept there's a reasonable probability that paedophilia was or does go on in swinging clubs. Otherwise nothing you just said makes any sense. The question, which you are quick to forget, was whether this highlights the how uneducated the public are. The answer is obviously yes, either they don't know that there are no swinging clubs with facilities for paedophiles or they don't know that you have to be 18 to get in. Either way, uneducated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. You just contradicted yourself! I give up. You've drawn me in now. Where's the contradiction? " Nah you didn't, I misread the first read through. You're basically arguing that the owners are either unwilling or unable to refuse children entry, which seems to be an extrapolation of your comment about 15 year olds. I don't think that's a reasonable probability and that's where we differ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible? Again, you accept there's a reasonable probability that paedophilia was or does go on in swinging clubs. Otherwise nothing you just said makes any sense. The question, which you are quick to forget, was whether this highlights the how uneducated the public are. The answer is obviously yes, either they don't know that there are no swinging clubs with facilities for paedophiles or they don't know that you have to be 18 to get in. Either way, uneducated. " For fucks sake. Even, for the sake or argument, conceding your point that paedophilia cannot possibly go on in swingers clubs, the mere entry of a child into a club is troubling and a matter for the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. You just contradicted yourself! I give up. You've drawn me in now. Where's the contradiction? Nah you didn't, I misread the first read through. You're basically arguing that the owners are either unwilling or unable to refuse children entry, which seems to be an extrapolation of your comment about 15 year olds. I don't think that's a reasonable probability and that's where we differ. " This is embarrasing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible? Again, you accept there's a reasonable probability that paedophilia was or does go on in swinging clubs. Otherwise nothing you just said makes any sense. The question, which you are quick to forget, was whether this highlights the how uneducated the public are. The answer is obviously yes, either they don't know that there are no swinging clubs with facilities for paedophiles or they don't know that you have to be 18 to get in. Either way, uneducated. For fucks sake. Even, for the sake or argument, conceding your point that paedophilia cannot possibly go on in swingers clubs, the mere entry of a child into a club is troubling and a matter for the police. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." I think all it proves is that an upstanding member of the public raised concern for who they believed to be a child and the police did their job. End result, false call good intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible? Again, you accept there's a reasonable probability that paedophilia was or does go on in swinging clubs. Otherwise nothing you just said makes any sense. The question, which you are quick to forget, was whether this highlights the how uneducated the public are. The answer is obviously yes, either they don't know that there are no swinging clubs with facilities for paedophiles or they don't know that you have to be 18 to get in. Either way, uneducated. For fucks sake. Even, for the sake or argument, conceding your point that paedophilia cannot possibly go on in swingers clubs, the mere entry of a child into a club is troubling and a matter for the police. " Ok so you think there's a reasonable probability that swinging club owners are stupid enough to accidentally allow a child access? Again, I don't. It's ok, you're allowed a different opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes it's a good example. When people venture outside the fab echo chamber then they'd realise that the general public are inclined to lump swingers in with all sexual deviants, including paedophiles. Of to be clear, average Joe thinks there isn't much difference between a swinger and a paedophile. The mind boggling level of ignorance you need to have to think a child could enter a swinging club and you'd be the only person to pick up on it, certainly shows how narrow minded and uneducated the caller is about what the lifestyle actually is. Oh my. I hope that’s one massive bout of sarcasm. No, this is sarcasm. Once I was walking past a school and I'd forgotten I'd taken acid. I saw a man-bear-pig walking into the school and so i called the police. They told me not to waste their time, but if i saw it again then I'd call them because if i save one child from man-bear-pig then it's worth it. People know there's a local sex club. People also know that there are some illegal sex events that have underage participants. Pretty giant conflation at this point that undermines the entire point. Are paedophiles hosting parties at this swingers club? They see someone going into the sex club of a height which lots of children and very few adults have. What does the rational person do? I would suggest the rational person thinks it's possible it may be a very small adult, but it's also possible it might be a child. . The rational person then calculates the harmful effect that would accrue if the person is a child and he does nothing. (very large) against the harmful effect if it is an adult and he calls the police. (very small). The rational person therefore decides to call the police. Yes. Because paedophiles always state clearly where their parties are being held... Someone who looks at first glance to be underage is seen going into a sex club. It's checked out and found to be all ok. I really can't see your problem. Because for there to be a plausible risk then you have to believe that paedophilia is somewhat likely in a swinging club. You wouldn't phone the police to say you just saw a kid going into a sweet shop would you. You've really jumped the shark on this one. I will make this very simple. . It's not illegal for children to go into sweet shops. Hence you wouldn't call the police if you saw a kid going into a sweet shop. It is illegal for children to enter swingers club, so if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. If the person had been a child the offence was committed once they entered. It matters not what might happen thereafter in terms of whether or not the police should be involved. Yes and if man-bear-pig had gone into that school then the police would have been sorry they didn't believe me. So now you're saying that it's not that the person thought there was a paedophile orgy going on, but that a child was using a fake ID to enter an over 18s venue? Sorry, your argument has just got so ludicrous it's gone below my usually quite high tolerance for nonsense. Someone else if they can be bothered will now have to take up the baton. Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Right one last try. It's illegal for children to enter swingers clubs whether it is for a Paedo orgy or because they have scammed the owner with a fake ID. Hence if you see someone who looks like a child entering a club, the public spirited thing to do is to call the police. Calling the police on one particular occasion implies no judgement on what swingers are like generally. No more that reporting a pub landlord who looks like he is serving underage drinkers implies a belief that all pub landlords are corrupters of youth. You just contradicted yourself! I give up. " Hurrah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing you said makes any sense without the realistic possibility of paedophilia going on in swinging clubs. The question was whether the example shows the public are uneducated. Clearly, if you think there is paedophilia going on at swinging clubs then you are poorly educated on the subject. Hope that clears it up for you. Is it impossible to imagine that, even knowing that it’s not commonplace, it is POSSIBLE that someone could use room designed for having sex in to have sex with underage people? Even putting the paedophilia aspect to one side, is it possible that the caller never imagined paedophilia, and just thought that it would be bad for a child to accidentally be in that environment? And, even if we DID know -exactly- what the callers thoughts on the subject were, would this one incident be evidence of widespread ignorance? Finally, is there even the slimmest chance that, next time you say something earth-shatteringly stupid, you won’t subject us all to your ludicrous goalpost-shifting and point-perversion as you try to defend the indefensible? Again, you accept there's a reasonable probability that paedophilia was or does go on in swinging clubs. Otherwise nothing you just said makes any sense. The question, which you are quick to forget, was whether this highlights the how uneducated the public are. The answer is obviously yes, either they don't know that there are no swinging clubs with facilities for paedophiles or they don't know that you have to be 18 to get in. Either way, uneducated. For fucks sake. Even, for the sake or argument, conceding your point that paedophilia cannot possibly go on in swingers clubs, the mere entry of a child into a club is troubling and a matter for the police. Ok so you think there's a reasonable probability that swinging club owners are stupid enough to accidentally allow a child access? Again, I don't. It's ok, you're allowed a different opinion. " As I say I have known owners of swingers clubs sent to prison for sex offences, one involving underage people. So yes, it is possible. Are you saying there is absolutely no possibility that an underage person might enter a swingers club with or without the connivance of the owners? If so, why would they differ from people who sell alcohol or fags or run betting shops, plenty of whom have sold their goods to underage people despite the fact that if they are found out they will lose their livelihoods. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As I say I have known owners of swingers clubs sent to prison for sex offences, one involving underage people. So yes, it is possible. Are you saying there is absolutely no possibility that an underage person might enter a swingers club with or without the connivance of the owners? If so, why would they differ from people who sell alcohol or fags or run betting shops, plenty of whom have sold their goods to underage people despite the fact that if they are found out they will lose their livelihoods. " Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brokenbrontosaurus, you really need to learn the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. It’s a fairly simple one, but you seem determined to misrepresent mine and KLP’s arguments with that ignorance. Your strawmanning is strong in this thread. You’re a joke." So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brokenbrontosaurus, you really need to learn the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. It’s a fairly simple one, but you seem determined to misrepresent mine and KLP’s arguments with that ignorance. Your strawmanning is strong in this thread. You’re a joke." The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As I say I have known owners of swingers clubs sent to prison for sex offences, one involving underage people. So yes, it is possible. Are you saying there is absolutely no possibility that an underage person might enter a swingers club with or without the connivance of the owners? If so, why would they differ from people who sell alcohol or fags or run betting shops, plenty of whom have sold their goods to underage people despite the fact that if they are found out they will lose their livelihoods. Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. " Changing the goalposts alert. The locals may very well have it in for that club, but we were actually discussing in the abstract as to whether it was reasonable for someone seeing a person who might be a child entering a club to report it to the police. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As I say I have known owners of swingers clubs sent to prison for sex offences, one involving underage people. So yes, it is possible. Are you saying there is absolutely no possibility that an underage person might enter a swingers club with or without the connivance of the owners? If so, why would they differ from people who sell alcohol or fags or run betting shops, plenty of whom have sold their goods to underage people despite the fact that if they are found out they will lose their livelihoods. Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. Changing the goalposts alert. The locals may very well have it in for that club, but we were actually discussing in the abstract as to whether it was reasonable for someone seeing a person who might be a child entering a club to report it to the police. " Lol, there's a question at the start of the thread. The idea of the thread is to answer it. That's not changing goalposts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brokenbrontosaurus, you really need to learn the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. It’s a fairly simple one, but you seem determined to misrepresent mine and KLP’s arguments with that ignorance. Your strawmanning is strong in this thread. You’re a joke. The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. " The problem is you make yourself look daft with the obviously inappropriate sweet shop and bear pig analogies. Your argument now appears to be that there is long running bad feeling between this club and the locals so this particular complaint may have been malicious. If that were your point from the start no one would have disagreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brokenbrontosaurus, you really need to learn the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. It’s a fairly simple one, but you seem determined to misrepresent mine and KLP’s arguments with that ignorance. Your strawmanning is strong in this thread. You’re a joke. The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. The problem is you make yourself look daft with the obviously inappropriate sweet shop and bear pig analogies. Your argument now appears to be that there is long running bad feeling between this club and the locals so this particular complaint may have been malicious. If that were your point from the start no one would have disagreed. " No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes. That is my opinion and nothing you said makes me feel I should revise it. I'm just wondering if the fact that the police have been out 20 times, we don't know how many calls there were, makes you reconsider whether the public isn't a bit narrow minded about this club? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As I say I have known owners of swingers clubs sent to prison for sex offences, one involving underage people. So yes, it is possible. Are you saying there is absolutely no possibility that an underage person might enter a swingers club with or without the connivance of the owners? If so, why would they differ from people who sell alcohol or fags or run betting shops, plenty of whom have sold their goods to underage people despite the fact that if they are found out they will lose their livelihoods. Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. Changing the goalposts alert. The locals may very well have it in for that club, but we were actually discussing in the abstract as to whether it was reasonable for someone seeing a person who might be a child entering a club to report it to the police. Lol, there's a question at the start of the thread. The idea of the thread is to answer it. That's not changing goalposts "The question was does this one incident show how narrow minded and uneducated some people are about the lifestyle. It clearly doesn't. Now you have given us more information about the background it shows that a particular group of people have an ongoing feud with this particular club and this particular complaint may not have been made in good faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. " Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brokenbrontosaurus, you really need to learn the difference between ‘possibility’ and ‘probability’. It’s a fairly simple one, but you seem determined to misrepresent mine and KLP’s arguments with that ignorance. Your strawmanning is strong in this thread. You’re a joke. The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. The problem is you make yourself look daft with the obviously inappropriate sweet shop and bear pig analogies. Your argument now appears to be that there is long running bad feeling between this club and the locals so this particular complaint may have been malicious. If that were your point from the start no one would have disagreed. No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes. That is my opinion and nothing you said makes me feel I should revise it. I'm just wondering if the fact that the police have been out 20 times, we don't know how many calls there were, makes you reconsider whether the public isn't a bit narrow minded about this club? " Isn't it entirely possible that the club and its patrons behave in a way that is a nuisance to the locals (noise, hanging around outside in skimpy clothing perhaps) and hence why they are pissed off with it? We don't have enough information to know who is at fault here, the club, the locals or a mixture of both. The problem here is that you have once again approached the issue with a particular dogma. ("the general public opinion is that swingers are disgusting pervs") and made the facts fit into that dogmas Procrustean bed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. " For the record, twenty calls to a premises in three years is nothing. By that metric, the public are more naive and uneducated about what goes on in pubs and nightclubs. . "The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. " Bully for you. That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to back up your opinion with a single reasonable or accurate argument. You’re flailing. . "No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes." No, the question was whether this one incident proved that. As usual, you’ve answered the question in your head. Which you also got wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. For the record, twenty calls to a premises in three years is nothing. By that metric, the public are more naive and uneducated about what goes on in pubs and nightclubs. . The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. Bully for you. That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to back up your opinion with a single reasonable or accurate argument. You’re flailing. . No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes. No, the question was whether this one incident proved that. As usual, you’ve answered the question in your head. Which you also got wrong." Good point. . You're right. . About 6-7 complaints a year about a public entertainment venue is pretty low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned." To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said"." Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All's well that ends well. Better waste a couple of hours of the police's time than risk a child being subjected to a sex club eh. "
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out " Someone had to.....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. For the record, twenty calls to a premises in three years is nothing. By that metric, the public are more naive and uneducated about what goes on in pubs and nightclubs. . The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. Bully for you. That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to back up your opinion with a single reasonable or accurate argument. You’re flailing. . No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes. No, the question was whether this one incident proved that. As usual, you’ve answered the question in your head. Which you also got wrong." I don't need to justify my opinion to you. I put absolutely zero stock in what you think about my opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. " You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Since 2015, the police have been called to that club 20 times. If that doesn't convince you that the public are "uneducated" about what goes on in there then i can't help you. For the record, twenty calls to a premises in three years is nothing. By that metric, the public are more naive and uneducated about what goes on in pubs and nightclubs. . The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. Bully for you. That doesn’t change the fact that you’ve failed to back up your opinion with a single reasonable or accurate argument. You’re flailing. . No, the question has always been about whether the public were "uneducated" and "narrow minded" and I've answered yes. No, the question was whether this one incident proved that. As usual, you’ve answered the question in your head. Which you also got wrong. I don't need to justify my opinion to you. I put absolutely zero stock in what you think about my opinions. " It does baffle me when someone asks for an opinion and gets one, that someone else blows a fuse telling them their opinion is wrong. It's an opinion. Belly buttons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if they searched the whole place thoroughly, looking for the kid, or asked for any small persons to be brought out to see them. " I'd have called the pied Piper in to draw any kids out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is." In answer to the question, in my experience the general public do think swingers are perverts and have a complete failure to understand the lifestyle. They can group all non vanilla sexual activities as deviant regardless of whether they are legal and consensual or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab." Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. " It’s curious, then, that you should so often try to guess at my opinion, if it doesn’t interest you, and also that you should get it wrong with such frequency, if they are so predictable. . "I don't need to justify my opinion to you. I put absolutely zero stock in what you think about my opinions. " You don’t need to justify it to me, no, but you do look silly when you can’t justify your opinions full stop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. "We need Jeremy Kyle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. It’s curious, then, that you should so often try to guess at my opinion, if it doesn’t interest you, and also that you should get it wrong with such frequency, if they are so predictable. . I don't need to justify my opinion to you. I put absolutely zero stock in what you think about my opinions. You don’t need to justify it to me, no, but you do look silly when you can’t justify your opinions full stop." How about I discuss my opinions with people whose opinions i respect and you can discuss yours with whoever else wants to talk to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The OP asked a question and i gave my opinion, which you jumped on. For clarification, none of your opinions interest me and i find them predictable and manufactured. It’s curious, then, that you should so often try to guess at my opinion, if it doesn’t interest you, and also that you should get it wrong with such frequency, if they are so predictable. . I don't need to justify my opinion to you. I put absolutely zero stock in what you think about my opinions. You don’t need to justify it to me, no, but you do look silly when you can’t justify your opinions full stop." No one actually needs to justify their opinions to anyone as far as I'm aware. They can be asked or challenged, but there's no legal compunction to. Well, only on Fab obvs.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion." No, no, you didn’t get jumped on for having an opinion. You got called out for (once again) talking shite which you (once again) couldn’t back up. "The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. " The irony is that you’re saying it’s simple, and then getting it wrong. Still making that basic mistake of not understanding the difference between probability and possibility. Even after it’s been pointed out. That’s weapons grade ignorance right there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder if they searched the whole place thoroughly, looking for the kid, or asked for any small persons to be brought out to see them. " Everyone must stand to attention | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out Someone had to..... "Are you talking about the part where I asked him to clarify what his point was? Nice try, boys, but no banana. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. " And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. No, no, you didn’t get jumped on for having an opinion. You got called out for (once again) talking shite which you (once again) couldn’t back up. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. The irony is that you’re saying it’s simple, and then getting it wrong. Still making that basic mistake of not understanding the difference between probability and possibility. Even after it’s been pointed out. That’s weapons grade ignorance right there." There's not much probability of a plane being hijacked by terrorists so I suppose we can dispense with airport safety precautions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now." I don't think that warrants a time out. It's pretty tame compared to some of the comments on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now." Actually some of us enjoy the process of debate. Those who don't don't need to take part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out Someone had to.....
Are you talking about the part where I asked him to clarify what his point was? Nice try, boys, but no banana."No. I'm talking about the actual post that I responded to. The one you completely misquoted. If I was quoting a different comment I'd have er, quoted it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about I discuss my opinions with people whose opinions i respect and you can discuss yours with whoever else wants to talk to you. " How about you don’t dictate what I respond to? Once again, though, you’re only addressing me, and not my points. If you’re right, it would surely be easy to counter my points. Is it, perhaps, that you can’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just picked up this quote from the Newcastle chronicle online. "Police were called to a swingers’ club after reports a child had entered. But when officers swooped on ClubF they were left red-faced - after realising the ‘child’ was in fact just a really small swinger." Does this prove that some people can be so narrow minded and uneducated about what the lifestyle actually is. In answer to the question, in my experience the general public do think swingers are perverts and have a complete failure to understand the lifestyle. They can group all non vanilla sexual activities as deviant regardless of whether they are legal and consensual or not. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now." Well it won't be me that reports you for having an opinion! But the green arrow doesn't seem to show you creating many threads to have interesting discussion and yesterday one of mine quickly filled up to the ~178 limit... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about I discuss my opinions with people whose opinions i respect and you can discuss yours with whoever else wants to talk to you. How about you don’t dictate what I respond to? Once again, though, you’re only addressing me, and not my points. If you’re right, it would surely be easy to counter my points. Is it, perhaps, that you can’t?" That's one possibility. Another is that i don't think you're worth responding to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now. Well it won't be me that reports you for having an opinion! But the green arrow doesn't seem to show you creating many threads to have interesting discussion and yesterday one of mine quickly filled up to the ~178 limit..." With waffle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this the right room for an argument?" Half hour or 60 minutes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out Someone had to.....
Are you talking about the part where I asked him to clarify what his point was? Nice try, boys, but no banana.
No.
I'm talking about the actual post that I responded to. The one you completely misquoted.
If I was quoting a different comment I'd have er, quoted it."I didn’t misquote it. It’s exactly as it was written. And, given that the ‘so are you’ was in response to a post where I pointed out that Brokenbrickabrack was strawmanning, I’m unclear as to how it wasn’t fair to assume that that was being levelled at me. So, still a nice try, still no banana. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now. Actually some of us enjoy the process of debate. Those who don't don't need to take part. " That's his way of showing affection. Can i get that fist bump now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out Someone had to.....
Are you talking about the part where I asked him to clarify what his point was? Nice try, boys, but no banana.
No.
I'm talking about the actual post that I responded to. The one you completely misquoted.
If I was quoting a different comment I'd have er, quoted it.
I didn’t misquote it. It’s exactly as it was written. And, given that the ‘so are you’ was in response to a post where I pointed out that Brokenbrickabrack was strawmanning, I’m unclear as to how it wasn’t fair to assume that that was being levelled at me.
So, still a nice try, still no banana."Why do you keep changing his name like that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now. Actually some of us enjoy the process of debate. Those who don't don't need to take part. " It's not a debate when people start calling each other names is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's one possibility. Another is that i don't think you're worth responding to. " And yet you keep responding. But still, only to dig at me and not my arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So are you tbh. You should both try to learn how to talk to people without being arrogant and full of yourself. Point to where I’ve made fundamental errors in my arguments. Point to where I’ve strawmanned. To quote your own post; "that's not what he said". Haha thank you I was too lazy to point that out Someone had to.....
Are you talking about the part where I asked him to clarify what his point was? Nice try, boys, but no banana.
No.
I'm talking about the actual post that I responded to. The one you completely misquoted.
If I was quoting a different comment I'd have er, quoted it.
I didn’t misquote it. It’s exactly as it was written. And, given that the ‘so are you’ was in response to a post where I pointed out that Brokenbrickabrack was strawmanning, I’m unclear as to how it wasn’t fair to assume that that was being levelled at me.
So, still a nice try, still no banana."Are you able to read what's written? Just read the full text of this post again. Try it slowly. Try not to think of it as an opportunity to prove your superiority and everyone else's stupidity. Go on, just this once. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Nothing kills a thread like two or three posters constantly point scoring, especially with the increasingly long quoted text. You said what i was thinking. It’s like Jeremy Paxman, Piers Morgan and Andrew Neil have joined Fab. Helps if people don't get jumped on for having an opinion. The issue seems quite simple, if you think there's a reasonable probability that a kid would get into a swinging club then they did the right thing. If you don't, then you think they were stupid for calling. And now I'm quoting a wall of text. Anyhow... You're all as bad as each other. None of you can state an opinion and just let it stand. you have to poke, prod, defend and point score. Its nothing but boring willy waving from people who like the sound of their own voice and in my opinion is one of the reasons why the forums have become so fucking dull and devoid of interesting threads. There you go. I'll probably get a few days on the naughty step now. Actually some of us enjoy the process of debate. Those who don't don't need to take part. It's not a debate when people start calling each other names is it?" Nope. Not in any way. It's childish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done" Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. " but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thread's name is perfect "You'll be misquoted on that in a minute...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The thread's name is perfect
You'll be misquoted on that in a minute...... " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along" KLP and i disagree on whether the probability is high enough that a reasonable person would call the police. Some people like to debate back and forth, some people like to write one sentence and leave it there. Sorry if you didn't like our debate but we wanted to see if there was a position we could agree, this time there wasn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along KLP and i disagree on whether the probability is high enough that a reasonable person would call the police. Some people like to debate back and forth, some people like to write one sentence and leave it there. Sorry if you didn't like our debate but we wanted to see if there was a position we could agree, this time there wasn't. " its not just me though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along KLP and i disagree on whether the probability is high enough that a reasonable person would call the police. Some people like to debate back and forth, some people like to write one sentence and leave it there. Sorry if you didn't like our debate but we wanted to see if there was a position we could agree, this time there wasn't. " And you managed to actually debate without misquoting or resorting to name calling. *adults..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along KLP and i disagree on whether the probability is high enough that a reasonable person would call the police. Some people like to debate back and forth, some people like to write one sentence and leave it there. Sorry if you didn't like our debate but we wanted to see if there was a position we could agree, this time there wasn't. " No. You said probability was the issue. I said that there's a trade off between (a) likelihood (b) possible consequences and (c) inconvenience to innocent people. Even if you are correct on the probability point, given the other two factors any police officer who just ignored the report would have been disciplined. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As far as i can see someone thought a child was at risk. It was investigated. Job done Yes and risk is expressed in probability. We've been debating whether the implied perceive risk means anything about the beliefs or prejudices of the caller. Sorry if that's an intellectual wank off but some people think it does and some people don't. but none of you are actually debating you just try and score points of each other while getting more and more childish as you go along KLP and i disagree on whether the probability is high enough that a reasonable person would call the police. Some people like to debate back and forth, some people like to write one sentence and leave it there. Sorry if you didn't like our debate but we wanted to see if there was a position we could agree, this time there wasn't. No. You said probability was the issue. I said that there's a trade off between (a) likelihood (b) possible consequences and (c) inconvenience to innocent people. Even if you are correct on the probability point, given the other two factors any police officer who just ignored the report would have been disciplined. " Let it go honey, just this one time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes and risk is expressed in probability. " Risk assessment isn’t just about the probability or likelihood of something, it’s also about how harmful that something is. Unless the chances of something are nil then there is, by defenition, a risk. And in the practical application of risk assessment (risk management) unknown risks should be treated as high risks. Or, in layman’s terms, ‘better safe than sorry’. So, given the ease with which this situation could be resolved, in which the risk is unknown, how is it at all unreasonable for it to be reported and investigated? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I never. Interesting topic. On review of the OP scenario, I would concur that my opinion is that from the phonecall of concern - even if due to local prejudice against the venue for reasons unknown - it does not follow on that this evidences that the general public have uneducated views on the swingers scene. That point does not however, mean the public don’t hold uneducated or narrow minded views on the scene, but the followup of concern does not provide the evidence for this for a number of logical reasons. At the most stripped back you could possibly hazard a guess (guess, you don’t know) that perhaps (meaning not definitely) the actual caller might (still uncertain) have an uneducated or narrow minded view but that’s still a guess. To extrapolate that to the whole public is ludicrous. Re the interactions on the thread, my opinion because I want to state it, is that some people enjoy a challenge/discussion/debate/row. They’ve as much right to do that as people have right to not like it. I actually find it quite interesting to read and it’s not every thread, you’re never going to please everyone. Re the accusations of being rude or arrogant or namecalling or telling others how they should and shouldn’t post - yeah, there’s some butting of heads and maybe people could be mindful but also if someone is being rude to another I think all of they key discussion members are robust enough to tell each other if they’re upset or whatever by it and each would stop if that was the case. I think actually, they probably all enjoy the opportunity to lock horns especially when it’s to point out valid instances of inaccurate comment presentation. For a few of the people that don’t argue the points of the OP but like to jump about gleefully pointing out how rude others are and sarcastically poking at people, to be honest those are the posters I think are rather sad. There’s an element of gloating about being able to tell someone off. I find that actually as rude a behaviour as the elements of interaction they’re proudly jumping around about. What’s the name of the little creature chained up by Jabba the Hutt, the one that is all excited about the torture about to be inflicted on others? Salacious Crumb. That’s what that kind of behaviour is representative of. My opinion. Take it or leave it. " So, a pissing contest? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well I never. Interesting topic. On review of the OP scenario, I would concur that my opinion is that from the phonecall of concern - even if due to local prejudice against the venue for reasons unknown - it does not follow on that this evidences that the general public have uneducated views on the swingers scene. That point does not however, mean the public don’t hold uneducated or narrow minded views on the scene, but the followup of concern does not provide the evidence for this for a number of logical reasons. At the most stripped back you could possibly hazard a guess (guess, you don’t know) that perhaps (meaning not definitely) the actual caller might (still uncertain) have an uneducated or narrow minded view but that’s still a guess. " Yes and I'm happy to make that leap. I'm not presenting it as a fact. " To extrapolate that to the whole public is ludicrous. " My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. " Re the interactions on the thread, my opinion because I want to state it, is that some people enjoy a challenge/discussion/debate/row. They’ve as much right to do that as people have right to not like it. I actually find it quite interesting to read and it’s not every thread, you’re never going to please everyone. Re the accusations of being rude or arrogant or namecalling or telling others how they should and shouldn’t post - yeah, there’s some butting of heads and maybe people could be mindful but also if someone is being rude to another I think all of they key discussion members are robust enough to tell each other if they’re upset or whatever by it and each would stop if that was the case. I think actually, they probably all enjoy the opportunity to lock horns especially when it’s to point out valid instances of inaccurate comment presentation. For a few of the people that don’t argue the points of the OP but like to jump about gleefully pointing out how rude others are and sarcastically poking at people, to be honest those are the posters I think are rather sad. There’s an element of gloating about being able to tell someone off. " Lol " I find that actually as rude a behaviour as the elements of interaction they’re proudly jumping around about. What’s the name of the little creature chained up by Jabba the Hutt, the one that is all excited about the torture about to be inflicted on others? Salacious Crumb. That’s what that kind of behaviour is representative of. My opinion. Take it or leave it. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So, a pissing contest?" No. That’s absolutely not my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. " How do you know that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that?" I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm amazed by this. No harm was done - either by the caller or the police response. Everyone presumably carried on with their shagging, including the little person. I must be missing something that it causes such agitation." Harm was done. I was offended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? " I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"many a true word said in jest! That’s not really the sort of situation that phrase is used for." Not sure if I'm allowed to say this. But a Scottish newspaper outed the Krankies as swingers some years ago. Stranger things have happened than mrs t going to a swingers club. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. " I do too.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. I do too. "Not in such words, but their "disdain" is all too apparent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. I do too. "The owner of one of the northern clubs was on a channel four show called "without prejudice". Basically a panel has to decide which of the contestants to give some money to after they learn about the contestants lives. The idea is to see if they can make that decision... without prejudice. Anyway, in the episode when they find out the guy is a swinger. He is immediately voted off and the panel openly asks why he is allowed to see his grandchildren, with the obvious implication that he must be a threat to him. Did the host or anyone correct them? Of course not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"many a true word said in jest! That’s not really the sort of situation that phrase is used for. Not sure if I'm allowed to say this. But a Scottish newspaper outed the Krankies as swingers some years ago. Stranger things have happened than mrs t going to a swingers club. " The Daily Mail ran an article too in which Status Quo are quoted as saying that they were wilder backstage than any rock n roll group. I loved them when i was younger. Took a few good years until i realised Jimmy was a woman  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? " So to clarify, it’s not necessarily what the average member of the public believes, it’s what *you* believe them to believe, based on some anecdotal evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? So to clarify, it’s not necessarily what the average member of the public believes, it’s what *you* believe them to believe, based on some anecdotal evidence." Yes, that's my opinion until such time as there's a representative opinion poll of what the average person thinks of swingers. Then I'll be happy to update my opinion if the poll says something different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? So to clarify, it’s not necessarily what the average member of the public believes, it’s what *you* believe them to believe, based on some anecdotal evidence." I’m just being clear on what basis info is being provided, I’m not saying what I think, whether I agree or not, just making sure we are being clear what we believe to be the robustness of our statements as we state them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. I do too.
The owner of one of the northern clubs was on a channel four show called "without prejudice". Basically a panel has to decide which of the contestants to give some money to after they learn about the contestants lives. The idea is to see if they can make that decision... without prejudice.
Anyway, in the episode when they find out the guy is a swinger. He is immediately voted off and the panel openly asks why he is allowed to see his grandchildren, with the obvious implication that he must be a threat to him. Did the host or anyone correct them? Of course not. "Good grief that's awful!! Sounds like they got him on the show knowing full well what the reaction would be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? So to clarify, it’s not necessarily what the average member of the public believes, it’s what *you* believe them to believe, based on some anecdotal evidence. Yes, that's my opinion until such time as there's a representative opinion poll of what the average person thinks of swingers. Then I'll be happy to update my opinion if the poll says something different. " Super, it’s just I wasn’t clear initially from your statement at top of this quoted post. Thanks for being clearer, that helps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? " Ah OK. No, I'm good. Just wanted to know if there was an independent survey or similar that you'd seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? Ah OK. No, I'm good. Just wanted to know if there was an independent survey or similar that you'd seen." No but please see my comment above about the channel four episode of "without prejudice". I think you can still watch it on 4 on demand. I accept it's totally anecdotal but nobody felt at all inclined to support the guy. If anyone had said gay men / trans men / black men shouldn't be allowed to see their grandchildren then i bet someone would have spoken up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. I do too.
The owner of one of the northern clubs was on a channel four show called "without prejudice". Basically a panel has to decide which of the contestants to give some money to after they learn about the contestants lives. The idea is to see if they can make that decision... without prejudice.
Anyway, in the episode when they find out the guy is a swinger. He is immediately voted off and the panel openly asks why he is allowed to see his grandchildren, with the obvious implication that he must be a threat to him. Did the host or anyone correct them? Of course not.
Good grief that's awful!! Sounds like they got him on the show knowing full well what the reaction would be. "He was allowed to say something before he left the stage. He went down the dignified route and conducted himself well. Personally i think it was the hosts job to call that out though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the average member of public, on seeing what looked like a child going into what they knew was an adult club, used for sex and nudity, would call the authorities. Now, we may have differing opinions on who the average public are, of course. " I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that point. Or are they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the average member of public, on seeing what looked like a child going into what they knew was an adult club, used for sex and nudity, would call the authorities. Now, we may have differing opinions on who the average public are, of course. I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that point. Or are they?" On here? Fuck knows what they are arguing about. I lost track half an hour ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the average member of public, on seeing what looked like a child going into what they knew was an adult club, used for sex and nudity, would call the authorities. Now, we may have differing opinions on who the average public are, of course. " to be honest if i thought id seen a child going into a swingers club id go and investigate. We dont know the circumstances of what was seen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the average member of public, on seeing what looked like a child going into what they knew was an adult club, used for sex and nudity, would call the authorities. Now, we may have differing opinions on who the average public are, of course. I agree. I don’t think anyone’s disputing that point. Or are they?" I am | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? Ah OK. No, I'm good. Just wanted to know if there was an independent survey or similar that you'd seen. No but please see my comment above about the channel four episode of "without prejudice". I think you can still watch it on 4 on demand. I accept it's totally anecdotal but nobody felt at all inclined to support the guy. If anyone had said gay men / trans men / black men shouldn't be allowed to see their grandchildren then i bet someone would have spoken up. " I'm sure I read on here of a swinging couple losing custody of their children for having guests at their home. Is that implying the children were at risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the average member of public, on seeing what looked like a child going into what they knew was an adult club, used for sex and nudity, would call the authorities. Now, we may have differing opinions on who the average public are, of course. to be honest if i thought id seen a child going into a swingers club id go and investigate. We dont know the circumstances of what was seen" I would too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" " My comments relate to the average member of public. For whom swingers are about one or two notches better on the deviant scale than paedophiles. Not the same but certainly in the same category. How do you know that? I don't know for a fact, it's my opinion based on my experiences. I could give you many anecdotes if that would satisfy your curiosity? I know people who think swingers are pond scum perverts. I do too. The owner of one of the northern clubs was on a channel four show called "without prejudice". Basically a panel has to decide which of the contestants to give some money to after they learn about the contestants lives. The idea is to see if they can make that decision... without prejudice. Anyway, in the episode when they find out the guy is a swinger. He is immediately voted off and the panel openly asks why he is allowed to see his grandchildren, with the obvious implication that he must be a threat to him. Did the host or anyone correct them? Of course not. Good grief that's awful!! Sounds like they got him on the show knowing full well what the reaction would be. He was allowed to say something before he left the stage. He went down the dignified route and conducted himself well. Personally i think it was the hosts job to call that out though. " I'll look it up online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
