Daleth

Thanks. That makes sense now. I also don't recall the study qualifying the type of "good" this small minority felt it did them. (Could just be bad memory.) Perhaps they turned in the adult and they felt it taught them to stand up for themselves.

Autonemesis

That's funny. My first impulse upon reading your screed was to post a similar gratuitous insult at you. But in my case, rationality prevailed over emotion.

You cannot escape the logic of my argument, though. If your position on the relation between homosexuality and pedophilia turns out to be correct, then having repudiated Scalia's stance on masturbation, you must now be regarded as a supporter of bestiality and adult-incest, by the same logic that supports your position.

yguy

Can anyone explain to me how this makes a lick of sense?

Daleth

The exact same way your posting this thread made any sense. Advocates of one thing are thereby advocates of another. Scalia lumps bestiality and masturbation together as part of the same moral problem. If you disagree with him on one, then you disagree with him on the whole thing. Or yguy lumps homosexuality, pedophilia and overeating together as part of the same moral problem, therefore if you accept overeating or homosexuality you logically also accept pedophilia.

You're just oozing with insults today, aren't you, Cupcake? If you can't respond to the content of a post, just shut up.

john_v_h

Pedophilia advocates advocate homosexual rights.
Homosexual rights advocates advocate homosexual rights.
Therefore, homosexual rights advocates are pedophilia advocates.

Cats have four legs.
Dogs have four legs.
Therefore, cats are dogs.

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

The Other Michael

Folks, we like to run a nice quiet forum here that lets the moderators cruise along in undisturbed slumber.

All these personal comments make our rest uneasy, and cranky moderators are likely to just shut down threads that get to be more trouble than they are worth.

So try behaving better, especially those of you who have a tendency to be tendentious.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

yguy

I think Scalia's comments here are being taken somewhat out of context, as they relate more to states' rights than morality per se. His opinion wasn't meant to be a treatise on that subject.

No, if you accept homosexuality, you unwittingly accept the force behind it, which in my view is also the force behind pedophilia and gluttony. That, however, is irrelevant to the purpose of the thread, which was to encourage those who favor homosexual rights to speak out against apologists for pedophilia. If I thought homosexual rights advocates were necessarily pedophilia advocates, my request would have been disingenuous, as on that basis I could have reasonably expected stone cold silence at best - which would have justified the contempt you perhaps think I have for those on your side of this. Does my demeanor here suggest such a motivation to you?

Actually that wasn't meant to be insulting, but to be direct. I know you can identify, because that very directness is what I like about you. And I say these things knowing you can take a punch.

Surely you know by now that telling me to shut up is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

yguy

You guys are really getting to be a bore. If somebody doesn't attribute to me something I haven't said here 5 times a day, it's a bad day. You, john, have made it a "good" day.

Daleth

It is absolutely relevant. If you did not see the same driving force behind advocating these different issues, you'd never have started this thread.

Far as I can tell based on your demeanor, your motivation was to provoke people.

Surely a fellow with traditional morals like you can appreciate something like, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." In this case, it would be more like if you can't say anything on the topic of the post, don't bother to merely post insulting comments about the poster. You can yammer on all day about the subject at hand if you like.

yguy

Naturally. This is a bad thing?

Neither the prophets nor Christ held to that one.

Those insults bothered you? That surprises me, I must say. I mean, I actually backed off a tad on the second one by way of more civility, but I really thought it needed to be said.