confessions of a bigot

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Kaak
Guy: there is no factual evidence pointing to homosexuality being wrong, and it was never proposed that there was. This thread started with an opinion, and the assertion that my opinion my be wrong.

Okay. Now, kindly explain why you hold this opinion. Thanks.

[Kaak]

I have. Repeatedly. Please see the previous 15 pages

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Kaak
I have. Repeatedly. Please see the previous 15 pages

No no. Hell no. In your own words, as clearly and as precisely as you can, state, unequivocably, why you believe homosexuality is wrong, and why it should be regarded in the same light as pedophilia.

[Kaak]

you can see what kind of loop that would get into if i repeated myself for every person to come to the thread.

Not going to do it. as for homos and paedophilia, the thought process is simple. SOME people argue that homosexuality is okay because it is not a choice, it is a product of nature or nurture.

IF that makes homosexuality okay, then why would it not make paedophilia okay? Do you think paedophiles have more choice as to what turns them on than do homosexuals?

And don't try to throw the "age of consent" arguement. That term is relatively infantile in the human history. Until a couple hundred years ago, 12-15 was a common age for marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kaak
Not going to do it. as for homos and paedophilia, the thought process is simple. SOME people argue that homosexuality is okay because it is not a choice, it is a product of nature or nurture.

IF that makes homosexuality okay, then why would it not make paedophilia okay? Do you think paedophiles have more choice as to what turns them on than do homosexuals?

Please dont tell me that, even after this thread, you still don't understand the difference between homosexuality and paedophiles?

Paedophiles exploit children.
Homosexuality is between consenting adults.
There is a clear and distinct difference here, please...please...please apply yourself, think really hard, and figure that out for yourself.

And don't try to throw the "age of consent" arguement. That term is relatively infantile in the human history. Until a couple hundred years ago, 12-15 was a common age for marriage.

It's a known fact that a child cannot make those types of decisions properly. Their brains just haven't developed that far yet.

Please don't turn it into an age of consent thing though, that's not what it is. In the vast majority of paedophilia cases, the child does not consent and is forced into it by an adult.

[Kaak]

asher, i wasn't refering to child abuse. I was talking about people being turned on by children. Looking at pictures of 16 and 17 YOs != abuse. Lots of 16 and 17 YOs are very sexually active as well.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kaak
Looking at pictures of 16 and 17 YOs != abuse.

It's not a symptom of pedophilia either.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kaak
asher, i wasn't refering to child abuse. I was talking about people being turned on by children. Looking at pictures of 16 and 17 YOs != abuse. Lots of 16 and 17 YOs are very sexually active as well.

So maybe why I'm confused here is I fail to see how it's relevant.

If the pedos do not touch anyone, do not harm anyone, why the hell do you care?

[Kaak]

*sigh* i'm not on a crusade to change anyone. Have you seen me post anything that would lead you to that conclusion? But I don't think it is right. I don't have to agree with it, and I don't have to like it.

[Kaak]

If the pedos do not touch anyone, do not harm anyone, why the hell do you care?

Why does the gov't? screw it, lets just go ahead and legalize teen pronography...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kaak
Why does the gov't? screw it, lets just go ahead and legalize teen pronography...

The government cares because the people who make laws are usually older men who don't want people taking pictures of their daughters.

And if the child is any less than 13 in the pictures, you can pretty much guarantee the kid was forced into them rather than doing it on his or her own free will.

[Kaak]

i don't think 13 is the age tho, i think 18 is the age. Also, the kids probably don't know any thing is wrong... I spend most of my childhood running around naked on my farm before i married my sister

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Let me give you an example.

Karmat X has presented his views, often in a very blunt fashion, which to me seemed a bit too anti-israeli to be coming simply from a political disagreement. I'm not sure though. Possibly he's just read too much propoganda

One Israeli quickly snapped at him and called him names etc. while I didn't. This "show" didn't add anything to the Israeli claim and I purposefully distanced myself from the outcry, no matter whether I shared the views or not.

It took several more pages for me to accuse Karmat of reading nazi porn, as I believe I called it. I was quite tired at that time, and decided I've had enough, since I can't continue serious conversation. So I "banned myself" from that forum for some time.

Because, whether Karmat is a Nazi or not, if instead of arguing with him I start get raving mad - I lose. It's as simple as that.

There are Imran and Ramo and Chegitz whose views are very very conflicting with mine, and they criticize Israel alot, and still I respect their right to do so, and I have never suspected any of them of anti-semetism, even though their views often coincide with Karmat's views.

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

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

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Kaak
you can see what kind of loop that would get into if i repeated myself for every person to come to the thread.

Not going to do it. as for homos and paedophilia, the thought process is simple. SOME people argue that homosexuality is okay because it is not a choice, it is a product of nature or nurture.

IF that makes homosexuality okay, then why would it not make paedophilia okay? Do you think paedophiles have more choice as to what turns them on than do homosexuals?

And don't try to throw the "age of consent" arguement. That term is relatively infantile in the human history. Until a couple hundred years ago, 12-15 was a common age for marriage.

:sigh: Well folks, I tried. I really, really tried to bring this thing full circle, to try to get somewhere before we hit the big 500, and to do it without ad hominems. Rather silly of me, I suppose.

You see Kaak, I'm not angry anymore. Just sad. Sad that, here in 2002, people are still PROUD of their ignorance. I really wanted to help. Too bad.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Darthmolar- much as I have enjoyed your little portrayal of yourself as a bastion of free thought against the evil forces of liberal repression, I'd point you to this quote. It's by Kaak, and it's what really got this going.

Should homosexuals be allowed on campus? I don't really think so. People get kicked out for all kinds of things that go against christian morality, and that is one of them. And sodomy still gets prosocuted in TEXAS WOOOOOT!

If you want to explain how Kaak's philosophy fits in with the notion of "no repression" then feel free. He's had enough time to distance himself from it or amend it, so I suppose he still wishes to stand by his view that homosexuals should be excluded from his campus. It doesn't really seem to fit with your own views, does it? Is he still a good man who is fighting for truth, justice and the American way?

Incidentally, you obviously had fun belittling and patronising Asher for the unforgiveable sin of being young and presumably lacking life experiences. Please feel free to attempt the same with me. I could do with a laugh.