confessions of a bigot

[MrFun]

Homosexuals is one of the few remaining minority groups today that can be legally persecuted under the law in some states.

There was a time when people thought burning black people alive was okay and even moral, because after all, the state law allowed lynching until the late 1940's.

And Kaak -- you stated that if we accept and legitimately recognize homosexuals as a minority group, then we have to do the same for pedophiles. That is a strawman argument.

The reason is that a person's sexual orientation is not directly linked to pedophilia behavior. Pedophilia involves manipulating naive children into engaging in sex acts with adults.

Healthy homosexual relationships, or healthy sex acts between two men or two women involve two mutually consenting adults.

Quit using the strawman argument that if we accept homosexuality as legitimate, then we have to accept pedophilia as legitimate.

[Gibsie]

Some say homosexuality is okay because they have no choice... most say it's because it's between two consenting individuals, and hurts no-one. Can my previous sentence be reconciled with Kaak's comparison of homosexuality to child molestation?

[Richelieu]

Sorry about that.

[Kaak]

G; who said anything about child molestation? I was only talking about people who are turned on by people that are underage. I was not talking about abuse or any action. don't try to equivocate.

dictionary.com:
pedofile

n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children

It does not say one who molests children, or abuses them. merely attracted to.

If both are inherent, and neither causes harm, why should we accept one and not the other?

[Kaak]

and bugs, that comment was taken out of context. The point there was whether or not, baylor, as a PRIVATE christian university could or could not expel homosexuals. The fact is, that as a private university, they can do anything they please

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

.....and you chose to applaud the notion of excluding homosexuals, to the extent of adding a "WOOOOT!" as you, presumably, squirted in self-righteous glee. The context is fine, my boy.

[Kaak]

the wooot was more of an agitating factor. sorry it was hidden from the simple-minded, my boy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

....and you're still not distancing yourself from it or rephrasing it. Well you were the one who called yourself a bigot, so why not let it stand. You don't like the idea of gay sex so you don't want gays on your campus.

If your knee was jerking any harder it would be confused with epilepsy.

[Kaak]

*sigh*

....and you're still not distancing yourself from it or rephrasing it. Well you were the one who called yourself a bigot, so why not let it stand. You don't like the idea of gay sex so you don't want gays on your campus.

and here i thought this entire thread was a statement of exactly how i felt on the matter, a "rephrasing" if you will...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's just not convincing enough. You could take the opportunity to (dare I say it?) apologise for your comments in the frat thread. If you genuinely feel they are not representative of your true views, then surely it's a logical and painless step?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Siro, you see to be unable to separate anti-zionism from anti-semitism. I am a anti-zionist but I´m NOT a anti-semite or anti-Israeli. There´s a difference there.

Let's say, there've been a few incidents where I was lead to think you cross the line.

I remind you again that Ramo for instance is very anti zionist and i don't recall even suspecting him of racism.

And if you don´t see the difference you´re the bigot.

Perhaps you should learn to demonstrate the difference better

I also find it peculiar, to say the least, that you accept similar views as mine in other people just because they´re more eloquent. Would that mean you would respect a nazi if he presented his view in a "civilized" manner?

First, I respect people who are capable of individual thought, no matter what conclusion they reach. I respect a jew-hater who has reached this following some of his own conclusions more than I would repsect a jew-hater who simply read that jews killed jesus or some other cheap propoganda. I hope you understand it's a bit of an awkward example, as people usually don't hate jews based on their own conclusions.

Second, I repsect the ability to converse logically and in a civilized manner, and try to uphold to such standards myself.

Finally, it's all about appearance. Part of what I'm trying to achieve on apolyton, is training for myself. Being all worked up and emotional is not very productive or logical. It may get sympathy points from those who support your opinion, but it will only annoy those who don't.

My goal is to learn to discuss things and convince people, and make arguements.

My other goal is to promote my understanding of the current situation in the ME, although I admit I sometimes skip parts of my view which I think would be too hurting to my general pro-israeli view. However I also note I often leave out things which are too hurting for the arab-palestinian side.

For instance, I don't usually report all the nonsense they do which doesn't get covered by international press. I normally wouldn't report Arafat claiming Israelis use parts of palestinian children. But I really needed that for a point, so I did,

And Siro, it´s Kamrat, not Karmat. If you want you can call me KX for short...

I noticed that right after I posted, but I was too tired to edit

Plus, Kamrat just sounds wierd. Karmat is so much better

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
Homosexuals is one of the few remaining minority groups today that can be legally persecuted under the law in some states.

There was a time when people thought burning black people alive was okay and even moral, because after all, the state law allowed lynching until the late 1940's.

And Kaak -- you stated that if we accept and legitimately recognize homosexuals as a minority group, then we have to do the same for pedophiles. That is a strawman argument.

The reason is that a person's sexual orientation is not directly linked to pedophilia behavior. Pedophilia involves manipulating naive children into engaging in sex acts with adults.

Healthy homosexual relationships, or healthy sex acts between two men or two women involve two mutually consenting adults.

Quit using the strawman argument that if we accept homosexuality as legitimate, then we have to accept pedophilia as legitimate.

Just in case people missed my comments.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kaak
G; who said anything about child molestation? I was only talking about people who are turned on by people that are underage. I was not talking about abuse or any action. don't try to equivocate.

dictionary.com:
pedofile

n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children

It does not say one who molests children, or abuses them. merely attracted to.

If both are inherent, and neither causes harm, why should we accept one and not the other?

I actually used the term "child molestation" rather than paedophilia quite deliberately. You have stated repeatedly that the part about homosexuality you don't like is the part where they put thought into action- i.e. a man sodomizing another. Thus, if we're going to compare a homosexual to a paedophile in the context of why you don't like them, we are talking about a practising homosexual, and a practising paedophile- i.e. a child molester.

Although I may have some twisted respect for a paedophile who can keep his urges in his head, we cannot expect society to be rational about paedophiles when many people have or know small children that paedophiles would undoubtedly like to be with, regardless of their actions. (Also, if homosexuals are allowed to get away with what they want, the end result is lots of gay gays. The end result of paedophiles getting what they want is many abused children) However, "we" should accept any person who does not hurt anyone by his actions, be it a pair of homosexuals who do utterly vile things to one another in private, or a paedophile who goes his entire life without harming a fly.

[MrFun]

Some of you are exploiting the fallacy type of argument called "slippery slope."

Slippery slope occurs when an arguer makes a claim that just because one thing happens, certain other things have to happen, without presenting evidence.

The slippery slope fallacy claim being used here is this one: If we accept homosexuality as legitimate, then we will eventually accept pedophilia as legitimate.

There is no evidence to support this predictive claim that is based on the slippery slope fallacy argument.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Utah, the best place to raise a family, best hospital care for children. However, has the worst drivers in the entire USA.

You must have forgotten about Massachusetts. Utah drivers may suck, but at least they aren't *******s about it.

I am a free citizen of the United States. However, I am trying to determine anything for you. Why do you feel threatened by me?

Doesn't give you the right to tell me what to think. I feel threatened by you because you feel so secure in your misjudgements. I fear for your children.

No I don't. Assumptions can be dangerous.

Especially when one doesn't realize they're making them

I have a sense of decency.

Certainly not human decency.

Not true. You should get your facts straight before you reply. I will not and do not support giving up my civil rights, regardless of the outcome. My beliefs state that the constitution should be upheld...always!

Uh, actually, it IS true. Remember, this is a generalization, as everyone has been doing in this thread. Conservatives will generally do this.

This is absurd. Conservatives do not disregard Persuit of Happiness, unless such happiness comes at the expense of the innocent. Case in point: Child molesters. Currently the American Civil Liberties Union is trying to get equal rights for pedophiles, allowing their sexual behavior to be legalized with consent of a child. This act by the ACLU truly shows that they are a renegade group of money grubbing attorneys. Liberals only care about the upper-class. The welfare programs in place right now keep those on such programs right were they are. These liberal programs don't encourage people to stand on their own two feet.

Now THIS is absurd. You countered what I said with the exact comment, only with "liberals" in its place. You're wrong. Liberals care about the poor classes. During the Depression, Hoover, a Republican, put all the money into the upper-class thinking it would trickle down. FDR, a Democrat, put it into the lower-classes, thinking it would push up. FDR was right. Liberals have made more programs to help the poor than any Conservative.

I do not support Pedophilia. I don't agree with the ACLU when the go to far. However, it does not change the fact that Conservatives are at the opposite far end, taking away necessary civil liberties. Case in point: Gay Unions. Homosexuality infringes on no one. Homosexuals are not allowed to become offical partners in the eye of the government, thereby limiting their persuit of happiness. Believe me, sex is not the only thing that homosexual couples want. They are like every other couple.

Where on earth do you get your information? Let me see here, drugs are illegal, yet easy for any one to get a hold of. Criminals have no troubla at all getting a hold of drugs, so why do you think by the same token that if guns were illegal that criminals would have a harder time getting their hands on them?

Because they wouldn't be able to just go into any gun store and buy them. Guns are a lot harder to buy, sell, and carry illegally than drugs are. I don't think they should be illegal, but the NRA is what gives criminals more freedom to accomplish their crimes. See, this is the only freedom granted by the Constitution that they will fight tooth and nail for.

Australlia outlawed firearms. Crime is now at an all time high in that country. Your reasoning skills are truly astounding.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Boy, I needed that...take a look!!!

My mother also had a miscarriage. One before me, three after. two were twins seven months along. I myself am a parent. I have far more experience than you.

What the hell does that have to do with what I said?! You assumed (like you have been all along) that I never thought about it. I never said your mother didn't have a miscarraige. I never talked about your parenthood. I stated my personal spiritual belief about miscarraiges and abortions. I told you that I had. So since I gave you a direct answer, you decide to tell me that you're "more experianced"???!

Take your head out of your ass please.

I think you should read the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. I have them both framed.

Feel special? I'm putting both to memory. I've read both NUMEROUS times. I think that, now that you've read them, try to understand them.