Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by MCon From dictionary.compedophilen : An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.Hmm... says nothing about 'gay' in there, so I guess it's non-sexual orientation specific.Next. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SkidMarx Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc Dude, they can CALL it whatever they want, but the FACT is that a child is INCAPABLE of consenting mutually AS AN EQUAL TO AN ADULT to a sexual encounter. The vast differences in power, both physical, mental, emotional, and social, make it IMPOSSIBLE for an adult and a child to come together as EQUALS. The child is in all cases and in every way subordinate to the adult. That makes anything sexual the adult does to the child a VIOLATION, which is an act of violence against the child, even if it draws no physical blood or leaves no physical bruise. They can try to legalize it all they want, but it's absolutely no different whatsoever than trying to legalize rape. I'm not sure what you hope to prove by repeatedly invoking the name of an organization of individuals who advocate the sexual exploitation of minors. WTF?!?!?!? to higlight the fact that these men are simultaneously pedophiles AND gay. Furthermore, they are not looking to "rape" young boys, they want loving, consentual relationships with them to be legalized. You said "rape" is a violent act. These men are not about violence. How do you justify this when you repeatdly insist that pedophilia is "rape"? In this case, it IS pedophilia, but it is NOT rape in the sense that it is based on violence. See what I mean?Let's move on to the recent Catholic priest scandal. Everyone who has mentioned it has called it "pedophilia". Here's the big secret liberals who are on board with the radical gay agenda don't want you to know. A full 95+% of those victims were POST- pubescent teenage BOYS. Almost none of them were girls and even fewer were PRE-pubescent boys. The definition of pedophilia is having sex with children. The clinical definition of a child is PRE-puberty, not post puberty. So does the Catholic Church have a pedophilia problem, or is it the stautory rape of underaged teenage boys by gay men? I'd say it's the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Do you need everything in life spelled out to you in a book? Live your life and LEARN SOMETHING along the way and then you won't need the dictionary so much. Don't get me wrong though for I always have a good book on hand. Are you now suggesting that one should "live" pedophilia in order to understand what the word means? WTF??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc LMFAO~ Game, set, and match. Nicely played. Actually, I have to concede. But it wasn't my fault. A defensive knee-jerk response got the better of me and forced me to molest that sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Because Grammar lessons as we all know is a last ditch effort when you have been pwn3d. Yes. Very good. The grammar "lesion" I flung at Draelyc was obviously absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc You need treatment, if your "understanding" of sex includes forced violation . . . or young children. Look idiot. When rape happens a sexual act also occurs. If you to dumb to see that then WAKE THE HELL UP!It makes no difference what the hell my "understanding" of sex is. A sex act is a sex act is a sex act. It doesn't matter because obviously if it was rape a {censored}ing sex act had to occur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx to higlight the fact that these men are simultaneously pedophiles AND gay. Furthermore, they are not looking to "rape" young boys, they want loving, consentual relationships with them to be legalized. You said "rape" is a violent act. These men are not about violence. How do you justify this when you repeatdly insist that pedophilia is "rape"? In this case, it IS pedophilia, but it is NOT rape in the sense that it is based on violence. See what I mean?Let's move on to the recent Catholic priest scandal. Everyone who has mentioned it has called it "pedophilia". Here's the big secret liberals who are on board with the radical gay agenda don't want you to know. A full 95+% of those victims were POST- pubescent teenage BOYS. Almost none of them were girls and even fewer were PRE-pubescent boys. The definition of pedophilia is having sex with children. The clinical definition of a child is PRE-puberty, not post puberty. So does the Catholic Church have a pedophilia problem, or is it the stautory rape of underaged teenage boys by gay men? I'd say it's the latter. All of this is rendered moot by the FACT that there can be no mutual consent between unequal partners, and a child can never be the equal of an adult. Which is what I've been saying all along. {sentence fragment included for emphasis} The men in that organization may desperately want to believe that such consent is possible, but it ain't. The damage will still be there. I could *want* to believe that I could leap off the Empire State Building and fly, but that believe ain't gonna help me when I hit the ground and die of deceleration trauma or cement poisoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead A dork? Why? What's your objection? At least Draelyc has the majority of grammarians behind his preference. Can you say pompous much? I knew you could;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead Yes. Very good. The grammar "lesion" I flung at Draelyc was obviously absurd. No {censored}. That's anothe reason you're a dork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead Actually, I have to concede. But it wasn't my fault. A defensive knee-jerk response got the better of me and forced me to molest that sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members draelyc Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Look idiot. When rape happens a sexual act also occurs. If you to dumb to see that then WAKE THE HELL UP! If that's your "understanding" of sex, you need treatment, as I said. Do some research. The experts all agree: rape is NOT a sexual act. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the russ Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx "no other religion has priests that molest yong boys"? Are you kiddng me? Do your research before you say something so stupid. once again, skid misses the entire point. it was an analogy set up to expose the many faults in your reasoning. not only with the catholic church = homosexual rape conclusion, but also with the "no other religion has priests that molest young boys" conclusion. you caught the second fallacy in your logic, but missed the first. i'm sure the clergy of other religions have also molested young children, however, people seem to ignore that the same as you ingore the fact that straight men molest young girls. because really all you're doing here is attacking NAMBLA, not molestation in general, in an effort to somehow make a conclusion about all homosexuals based solely on the existence of NAMBLA. It's a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". I can tell you're fond of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler Look idiot. When rape happens a sexual act also occurs. If you to dumb to see that then WAKE THE HELL UP! It makes no difference what the hell my "understanding" of sex is. A sex act is a sex act is a sex act. It doesn't matter because obviously if it was rape a {censored}ing sex act had to occur! No offense dangler but youre missing a crucial point here; Rape really isnt about the sex per se, regardless of the fact that sexual bits are involved. However they are called Sex Offenders and I dont have a problem with that verbageI will also agree that a pedophile can be gay. It denotes a preference in their prey and Im more than fine with that as well. of course your detractors will go back to the rape isnt sex argument but I see where you are coming from. Im not so sure if you do though... You made a great argument with your NAMBLA example, you just didnt defend it wellKage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by STEEL KAGE Can you say pompous much? I knew you could;) I can say it four times quickly without getting bored. Want to see me do it? Here you go:Pompous, pompous, pompous, pompous.Pompous is always what I'll become when I have to suffer fools who think that there is a difference between pedophilia and child molestation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by hairydangler No {censored}. That's anothe reason you're a dork. Two reasons? How is the second different from the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc If that's your "understanding" of sex, you need treatment, as I said. Do some research. The experts all agree: rape is NOT a sexual act. End of story. You're one sick {censored}. You force me to use the dictionary I scolded another member for using. Damn you!Rape- The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SkidMarx Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc I'm not angry -- I'm amazed that you seem to have so much trouble seeing the difference between acts of violence & exploitation and sexual orientations. and I am amazed that you cannot understand that one can simultaneously be homosexual AND a pedophile. If a man who EXCLUSIVELY chooses young boys to rape isn't also homosexual, I don't know who is. Let's try it this way, what if the man rapes ONLY young boys and also has consentual sex with adult men? Wouldn't that make him both a homosexual AND a pedophile? Gotcha' again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SkidMarx Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by MCon From dictionary.compedophilen : An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.Hmm... says nothing about 'gay' in there, so I guess it's non-sexual orientation specific.Next. ok, I can play that game too. Also from Dictionary.com: ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by STEEL KAGE No offense dangler but youre missing a crucial point here; Rape really isnt about the sex per se, regardless of the fact that sexual bits are involved. That's my point. It may not be about the sex but sex is surely involved. Draelyc was trying to say rape doesn't involve sex at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hairydangler Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Gotta run begatchges. Hope you miss me. Good night sweethearst. Get your stories straight for when I check this thread again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 I'm willing to bet that a whole bunch of people are looking up the word "sex" right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead I can say it four times quickly without getting bored. Want to see me do it? Here you go:Pompous, pompous, pompous, pompous.Pompous is always what I'll become when I have to suffer fools who think that there is a difference between pedophilia and child molestation. No argument here but throwing out the Grammarian thing is a bit grandiloquent Kage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dark Angel Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by Loghead I'm willing to bet that a whole bunch of people are looking up the word "sex" right now. Clinton is still looking for an appropriate definition to appease Hillary;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MCon Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by SkidMarx ok, I can play that game too. Also from Dictionary.com:ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dark Angel Posted May 20, 2005 Members Share Posted May 20, 2005 Originally posted by draelyc If that's your "understanding" of sex, you need treatment, as I said. Do some research. The experts all agree: rape is NOT a sexual act. End of story. Generally, I agree, but it's a grey line. Rape is about domination, intrusion, all that {censored}... but... Sex is about domination for many men who never resort to rape. Sadists, preference for doggy style, A2M, wanting to restrain women, men AND women with rape fantasies that they play out. In my relationship, sex is VERY much about control. Sure, ther's lovey dovey sex, but there's a lot more that goes on, and more frequently, because of non-sexual or affection driven motivation. At what point does it not become "about sex"? Obviously you don't rape someone just because you're tired of beating your meat and want some ass, but there is a sexual component. Otherwise no sex would be involved, and victims would merely be beaten or kidnapped and kept in basements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.