T1B

Diego in Seattle wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

The whole nature vs environment debate is irrelevant to begin with.

Whether a trait is inborn or learned has nothing to do with whether it should be socialy acceptable or even tolerated, let alone encouraged by the public educational system. Pyromanics, pederasts and psychotics all were "born that way" yet society doesn't excuse them acting out on their natural proclivities. Alcoholics are "born that way", as are bipolor disorder sufferers.

Should we tolerate the diversity of NAMBLA?

Should we respect the lifestyle choices of the habitual drunkard?

And toleration and acceptance are not synonymous.

We tolerate alcoholics, but we don't try to teach them to embrace their inner drunk in high school, let alone grade school.

Maybe our educational system can teach our next generation of alcoholics to feel good about their alternative lifestyle choice and educate non-alkies on the nessecity to stop the hate.

Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is asinine.

As far as alcoholics go, their condition is harmful to themselves (at the very least) and potentially to others (if they're abusive or drive drunk). Last time I checked, homosexuals didn't pose a direct danger to themselves or others.

Game, set, match.

Just mention NAMBLA, and look who shows up......

And actually I was comparing homosexuals to drunkards, as having inborn traits which society tolerates, but shouldn't encourage or mainstream.

I compared pedos (sorry Diego, nothing personal) with pyromaniacs as having inate tendancies society doesn't and shouldn't tolerate period.

Diogenes wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote: Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is asinine.

As far as alcoholics go, their condition is harmful to themselves (at the very least) and potentially to others (if they're abusive or drive drunk). Last time I checked, homosexuals didn't pose a direct danger to themselves or others.

Game, set, match.

Just mention NAMBLA, and look who shows up......

And actually I was comparing homosexuals to drunkards, as having inborn traits which society tolerates, but shouldn't encourage or mainstream.

I compared pedos (sorry Diego, nothing personal) with pyromaniacs as having inate tendancies society doesn't and shouldn't tolerate period.

Pryromaniacs can kill people & destroy property with their tendancies. Nobody gets hurt & no property is damaged by two people of the same gender having sex.

No suprise that Diogenius can't decipher the difference.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Game, set, match.

Just mention NAMBLA, and look who shows up......

And actually I was comparing homosexuals to drunkards, as having inborn traits which society tolerates, but shouldn't encourage or mainstream.

I compared pedos (sorry Diego, nothing personal) with pyromaniacs as having inate tendancies society doesn't and shouldn't tolerate period.

Pryromaniacs can kill people & destroy property with their tendancies. Nobody gets hurt & no property is damaged by two people of the same gender having sex.

Diego comes to the defense of NAMBLA.

Now which mod is going to come to his defense and delete this again?


Just highlighting his own words, bitch.

I don't see where NAMBLA comes into play. You inferred it.

And personal insults aren't welcome in this forum, BTW.

Take the overplayed pedo concept to Main street.

Mister Bushice wrote:I don't see where NAMBLA comes into play. You inferred it.

No, he implied it.

I mearly pointed it out by highlighting his own words.

I compare pyros and pedos and he comes back with.....

Pryromaniacs can kill people & destroy property with their tendancies. Nobody gets hurt & no property is damaged by two people of the same gender having sex.

And BTW, the "nobody gets hurt" claim is straight out of the NAMBLA playbook.


What's with the hate?

"two people of the same gender having sex"
Does not imply NAMBLA. It implies homosexuality.

You compare pyros and pedos? Where exactly is the connection?

And exactly how do you know so much about the NAMBLA playbook, one wonders?

and for the record, pedophilism and homosexuality are not the same.

Mister Bushice wrote:"two people of the same gender having sex"
1Does not imply NAMBLA. It implies homosexuality.

2You compare pyros and pedos? Where exactly is the connection?

3And exactly how do you know so much about the NAMBLA playbook, one wonders?

4and for the record, pedophilism and homosexuality are not the same.

1)Not in the context of my prior post.

2)Inate tendencies that society does not tolerate the acting out on

3)I read a lot.
The subject came up when the APA was trying to decide wheteher pederasty was actually beneficial to minors.

4)Which is why I not only didn't compare them, I differentiated between modes of inborn behavior society does not tolerate (pedos and pyros), with those it tolerates but doesn't and shouldn't endorse (homosexuality and habitual drunkedness was the example).


Did you even read this thread or did it just go over your head?


And until NAMBLA fan says that he either A) tried to misrepresent or B) didn't fucking understand my post (more likely both in his case) you can stop defending the little bitch and stick to the subject.

Hater.

And the difference between homosexuality & habitual drunkedness is? Anyone? Bueller?

Diogenes wrote:
Did you even read this thread or did it just go over your head?

Hater.[/b]

I rarely read your posts. I hate the boldface aspect, I find it annoying to read.
PLus, you generally tend to insult to much, which was why I jumped in here i the first place. Your last post to DIS - the one that was cut - was just a useless personal insult.

But I will ask him a question:

Deigo you DO see the difference between pedos and homos, and that the kind of sex pedos have is wrong in a completely different moral and social way - don't you?

Because I can see where diogenes could think you support Pedo sex based on the above response. But if you didn't read his stuff either, I can't say as I blame you. :)

But answer the question anyway.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Did you even read this thread or did it just go over your head?

Hater.

I rarely read your posts.

Why do you lie? :wink:

#1 don't steal Dr D's line

#2. I actually skim the short ones, and pretty much skip the long ones. The bold face bugs me.

Mister Bushice wrote:
But I think environment can be a factor that can also trigger latent homosexuality.

You just made my putter flutter :wink:

Mister Bushice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Did you even read this thread or did it just go over your head?

Hater.[/b]

I rarely read your posts. I hate the boldface aspect, I find it annoying to read.
PLus, you generally tend to insult to much, which was why I jumped in here i the first place. Your last post to DIS - the one that was cut - was just a useless personal insult.

But I will ask him a question:

Deigo you DO see the difference between pedos and homos, and that the kind of sex pedos have is wrong in a completely different moral and social way - don't you?

Because I can see where diogenes could think you support Pedo sex based on the above response. But if you didn't read his stuff either, I can't say as I blame you. :)

But answer the question anyway.

For the record, I consider pedophilia disgusting & should be outlawed. I have never advocated such behavior, and have known someone to be a victim of child abuse (& later murder by the same person). What you see from Dio is just a dead-horse beating of over-the-line crap from TOT that was completely unjustified. His spewing that shit has nothing to do with my response in this thread. I'd call it a personal insult, but I think it goes beyond that.

Bushice.....at first I didn't see where I gave you the impression that I supported pedophilia, but I guess I'm guilty of ommission & assumption in my earlier post. First off, there's no thought involved when it comes to whether pedophilia is either right or wrong. So I didn't think to mention it. Secondly, there's a huge difference between pedophilia & homosexuality. Any sex involving someone who is unable to give consent is wrong & rightfully illegal. But since that isn't the case with homosexuality there's no way to argue against it w/o going back to religious viewpoints. And this country isn't (and shouldn't be) a theocracy. If a muslim were somehow elected POTUS people would be up in arms if he governed by proposing curbing privileges of christians; shouldn't people who have different religious views be allowed to live their lives as they chose? Isn't that what Jefferson intended when he wrote about separation of church & state?

This thread goes back to the question I asked at the beginning. When it comes to legislation the nature or choice issue is irrelevant. If the holy rollers want to argue against giving homosexuals the same rights because of homosexuality being a choice then one could argue that we can take away the rights of christians because that's a choice as well.

Funny how republicans spew about wanting the government out of their lives, yet want the government to go into the bedrooms of other people. :?

Diego in Seattle wrote:And the difference between homosexuality & habitual drunkedness is? Anyone? Bueller?

Well one involves sucking cock, the other involves a deluded individual thinking the world cares that he's telling the world to suck his.

Glad I could help.

Mister Bushice wrote: #2. I actually skim the short ones, and pretty much skip the long ones. The bold face bugs me.

Coming from someone who hijacked and then deleted my thread for posting an article without an accompanying two word take.....

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
Did you even read this thread or did it just go over your head?

Hater.[/b]

I rarely read your posts. I hate the boldface aspect, I find it annoying to read.
PLus, you generally tend to insult to much, which was why I jumped in here i the first place. Your last post to DIS - the one that was cut - was just a useless personal insult.

But I will ask him a question:

Deigo you DO see the difference between pedos and homos, and that the kind of sex pedos have is wrong in a completely different moral and social way - don't you?

Because I can see where diogenes could think you support Pedo sex based on the above response. But if you didn't read his stuff either, I can't say as I blame you. :)

But answer the question anyway.

For the record, I consider pedophilia disgusting & should be outlawed. I have never advocated such behavior, and have known someone to be a victim of child abuse (& later murder by the same person). What you see from Dio is just a dead-horse beating of over-the-line crap from TOT that was completely unjustified. His spewing that shit has nothing to do with my response in this thread. I'd call it a personal insult, but I think it goes beyond that.

Bushice.....at first I didn't see where I gave you the impression that I supported pedophilia, but I guess I'm guilty of ommission & assumption in my earlier post. First off, there's no thought involved when it comes to whether pedophilia is either right or wrong. So I didn't think to mention it. Secondly, there's a huge difference between pedophilia & homosexuality. Any sex involving someone who is unable to give consent is wrong & rightfully illegal. But since that isn't the case with homosexuality there's no way to argue against it w/o going back to religious viewpoints. And this country isn't (and shouldn't be) a theocracy. If a muslim were somehow elected POTUS people would be up in arms if he governed by proposing curbing privileges of christians; shouldn't people who have different religious views be allowed to live their lives as they chose? Isn't that what Jefferson intended when he wrote about separation of church & state?

This thread goes back to the question I asked at the beginning. When it comes to legislation the nature or choice issue is irrelevant. If the holy rollers want to argue against giving homosexuals the same rights because of homosexuality being a choice then one could argue that we can take away the rights of christians because that's a choice as well.

Funny how republicans spew about wanting the government out of their lives, yet want the government to go into the bedrooms of other people. :?

So was the twit trying to mischaracterize my position or did what I posted just go over his head?





Seems unclear, I'll assume both.

Diogenes wrote:Seems unclear, I'll assume both.

Same here.

Don't tell MB or Diego though.