confessions of a bigot

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Asher

He's saying not all paedophiles have sex with children, or molest them, or touch them, etc.
There are many more paedophiles that are aroused by naked children, but don't act on them. That's still wrong by almost all accounts, but allegedly they can't help they way they feel. I wouldn't know one way or the other, but as long as they don't hurt any children I don't think they should be lynched.

Not all paedophiles are child abusers and rapists.

IMO very few paedophiles limit themselves to just thinking about children in a sexual way, pictures and videos (that is taken for a sexual purpose and depicts children in a sexual context) is in itself a violation of the child = child abuse.

[Zoid]

Logical R

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Assur

And because of political reasons, paedophilia is still considered a disease

What are you saying? Do you think it shouldn´t be? Do you want paedophilia to be as socially accepted as homosexuality?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I told you before, the only people that I hate are based on their personality. Giancarlo is probably at the very top of my on-line list. He has no purpose on this planet except to make sure everyone else has as horrible a time as he is having. When he looks back on his life, provided he makes it to that age, if he does not see failure, he has certainly never reached maturity, adulthood, or the intelligence level of a human being.

And I dislike ignorant snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals and seem to think they have a solution to long standing issues. Horrible time I am having? Listen to me you commie, the only problem I am having is people like you trying to infiliitrate my freedoms. Trying to steal my right to defend myself and my right to speak! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SILENCED BY THE IMPUDENT MINORITY.

On the standing issue of paeophila I think those whom committed the unspeakable acts should be executed. Since I am existentialist, execution is a very harsh punishment because the time on earth is all we get in my opinion.

[drake]

[Zoid]

You have the rigt to your opinion, but we (commies, anti-fascists, etc) also have the right to our opinion; and if that opinion is that we don´t like your fascist ideas, we´re entitled to making our voices heard in this matter. After all this IS what democracy is all about...

Comprende?

Edit: You have to separate the person from the opinions though...

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
You have the rigt to your opinion, but we (commies, anti-fascists, etc) also have the right to our opinion; and if that opinion is that we don´t like your fascist ideas, we´re entitled to making our voices heard in this matter. After all this IS what democracy is all about...

Comprende?

Yes but trying to silence and insult me with petty remarks is the wrong way.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
What are you saying? Do you think it shouldn´t be? Do you want paedophilia to be as socially accepted as homosexuality?

He thinks that homosexuality should be as socially accepted as paedophilia.

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Homophobes and hypocrites

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Yes, they are allowed to criticize gays all they want up to the point of harassment. But that doesn't mean we can't criticize or dislike them for that. I also have a right to dislike Kaak's homophobia as much as Kaak has a right to dislike homosexuals. Kaak should realize this when he posts...

You can criticize him as much as you want.
I think he understands it as well.

also aren't yu being a bit hypocritical? ('') You are saying that those criticizing Kaak are being harsh,intolerant of Kaak's dislikes and yet you got very critical on me when I seemed to be criticizing your precious theism and saying I don't like Christians as a group.

I'm saying that IMO they criticize the wrong points.
Instead of arguing why his opinion of gay people is wrong, people argue why he is a bad person if he has this opinion of gay people.

And that's exaclty why I said that christianity has nothing to do with it. Because it hasn't.

He said : i think sodomy is icky, and i dislike gay people because they practice it

Most of you say : you are evil. you are also very religious and the bible is evil.



I'm saying that you should deal with the issue, not things sorrounding it, like Kaak's right to dislike people.

Show him why he shouldn't care, not why he isn't allowed to think like he does.

Well if you can't judge hates how much more so can you judge dislikes?

That's the whole point.
He doesn't ask you to judge his dislike as good or bad.
He asks you to comment on it and say why should he change it.
General points like "it makes you an evil person" are idiotic.

If I were arguing with a person who dislikes jews, telling him that it makes him a nazi and how hating people is wrong would be stupid and pointless.

I would tell him how jews are just like everyone else, and what good things they have contributed to society, and how their relgious rituals and their unity doesn't hurt him.

which case, how come you are so willing to criticize my dislikes? Because they include you in a partial way most likely. See how different it is when you feel targeted?

I don't criticize anyone for his dislikes.

I'm saying that you are arguing about useless points. By saying "thinking like you do is bad" you do nothing to change his mind.

I don't feel threatened nor do I feel targeted. I simply notice how you are chasing your own tail, convincing yourself, but not convincing him.

Such dislike,epecially when one is so vocal about it inspires discrimination.

He isn't so vocal about it.

He simply posted it here to talk about it.

Being vocal would in my opinion be trying to crush gay rights or something. Or yelling "kill gays" or something.

Also anyone gay cares as Kaak said they were "disgusting". I imagine had someone said Jews were "disgusting" you would care.

I would care.

But if I had come and said "you're not entitled to this p.o.v. because it's evil" it would be useless.

Instead I would explain to him why jews are ok and shouldn't bother him.

I wouldn't criticize him for hating jews, because he can if he wants to. I would try to convince him he shouldn't, but logically. I don't think that 'hating jews' is wrong because it's an immoral opinion or something. It's wrong because I don't see logical reasons to hate jews.

And even then, if a person hates jews - as long as he doesn't act upon it, he's welcome to hate me.

As do I, because such bigotry has negative consequences and is baseless. I despise all irrational dislikes based on superstition, as well as such strong dislikes over something as petty and private as a person's sex life.

I don't judge dislikes.

I simply try to explain to people why they shouldn't feel threatened. But I don't think of their view as plain wrong. They can hate anyone they (dis)like for any reason they (dis)like.

Again though to use your own standards against you...If I limit myself to disliking religion and do not descriminate against the religious, who cares? You seem to.

Sure I care.

And I would try to explain to you why you shouldn't hate relgion.

But nowhere will I say that you are not entitled to think so!

You totally took that out of context. DM was saying that Kaak doesn't care about other's statements, in that, he's not open minded about nor giving them a fair hearing nor willing to change.

I think most statements simply miss the rout of his dislike, which is disgust of sodomy.

Instead most people simply attack him for being an evil person, or attack the bible.

All Kaak is interested in is expressing hatred and trying to spread/justify it in a half-baked manner.

Not at all in my opinion.
He wasn't interested in expressing hatred nor in spreading it.

He simply wanted to have a discussion about this. Had he wanted to spread this he would have began a "gays are bad" thread.

Nowehre has he said so. He said that he dislikes them and in his opinion they sin. Nowehere did i notice him claiming he is the ultimate authority on it, nor calling for something to be done about this.

In other words, he cares about shouting his views from the top of the roof, but when anyone else diagrees, he doesn't care to listen.

You should attack his points and not him.

Yes, but it akes very few bigots to turn a gays life into a nightmare. Especially if those more rational and tolerant elements of soceity aren't willing to counter their influence.

But your attitude is wrong. Instead of shutting thier mouth, explain why they are wrong. That's my whole point.

Overall,lady,

Hi.

I'm siro
17/m/5'10/115lb

you strike me as very hypocritical. When it comes to Kaak shouting about how he dislikes gays...that's fine. Even if his reasoning is flawed.

Perhaps it is flawed.

I don't defend his opinion but rather his right to have one.

When it comes to me disliking something that YOU hold dear...you get very offended and sound off.

I don't think i got very offended.

I merely explained why i think she is wrong.

If she wants to go around hating religion or kaak or both, she is entitled to.

Even if I present good reasons. You practice double standards. Like a child, you think its OK to harm others all you want, or for someone else to, but if someone offends you in anyway...now they are bad people. You're a joke.

The joke is on you since you don't get what I'm saying.

I simply ask for reasonable debate.

I don't recall saying that DM is a bad person or that it's wrong to hate religion.

I said i think she is wrong, which is legitimate. And it's legitimate for her to think what ever she wants.

I may attack her opinion, but not her right to hold one.

[Kaak]

siro: atleast you can forward *logical* arguements

And you could also make that comparison with with heterosexuals, ie "one who is turned on by child pornos has no more choice as to what flips his lid than does a heterosexual person"

I agree. if you claim sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, then it isn't a matter of choice. I just think that homosexuality is as blatantly wrong and gross as paedophilia.

Kaak should realize this when he posts...

I never said that you didn't have that right of course i realize this.

yet you got very critical on me when I seemed to be criticizing your precious theism and saying I don't like Christians as a group.

The problem here was that it's great and all that you can quote a few verses, but you really don't understand what it is to be a christian, or how the verses impact one.

I imagine had someone said Jews were "disgusting" you would care.

apples to oranges...

Again though to use your own standards against you...If I limit myself to disliking religion and do not descriminate against the religious

hmmm...and i thought you posted something entirely different...

You totally took that out of context.

Much like the verses you think are so swaying

All Kaak is interested in is expressing hatred

*goes back to count the times he said there was no hate, only dislike* Have you been reading this thread? or are you just responding to it generally as you would a stereotype?

Even if his reasoning is flawed. When it comes to me disliking something that YOU hold dear...you get very offended and sound off. Even if I present good reasons.

The irony here is that I admitted I might be wrong in my original post, while a) you think your reasons are good and b) you think you are right

IMO very few paedophiles limit themselves to just thinking about children in a sexual way, pictures and videos

hmmm...any sources to support this? I would say, that as with many many other things, there are far more people who think about it than act on it.

Do you want paedophilia to be as socially accepted as homosexuality?

Actually, i don't think either should be socially accepted...

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
IMO very few paedophiles limit themselves to just thinking about children in a sexual way, pictures and videos (that is taken for a sexual purpose and depicts children in a sexual context) is in itself a violation of the child = child abuse.

Upon what basis would you claim to be able to understand how paedophiles think? The only people who can even begin to suggest whether or not most paedophiles can limit themselves to non-harmful activities are those that are either paedophiles themselves or have studied and surveyed them in detail. Since you are neither (correct me if I'm wrong), we will have to assume this is just a reflection of your own mindset, that if you were a heterosexual person who had no access to either a consenting partner or non-abusive imagery, you would look at porn created from the sexual abuse of women. I know that if I were a paedophile or a single straight guy whom only had access towards abusive pornography, I certainly would be able to confine my urges to my own head.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm still waiting, Kaak. What is it that disgusts you about sexual acts between consenting adults of the same sex?

[Kaak]

bugs. seriously. you wouldn't have to wait if you would read. I've heard of things like one consenting adult defacating on another. The fact that both were consenting has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the act is gross to me.

[Gibsie]

I'm still confused as to why finding an act disgusting leads one to dislike the people that does that..?

[Kaak]

People generally make decisions on who they like and who they don't on the actions and decisions the person makes. If people do things that I find disgusting, i don't like that person. If people have a crude mouth, i don't like that person.