Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Viti · 07-15-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
No, you will let him NOT respond to that. My gnats you will tirelessly strain out, but his camels you will swallow uncomplaining.

The thread and specific quote in your opening post had nothing to do with your later comments. I am limiting my comments to that thread and that quote...it's called staying on topic. I am not dredging up every post Fr. Andrew has ever made.

yguy · 07-15-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree
If this is between you and Fr. Andrew, then why didn't you take it to PM? Or email?

What the hell are you talking about? I called him out on something he posted. I should do that in private? Why?

Quote:

Or Formal Debate & Discussion?

If he dodges my question here, why would he do otherwise there?

Quote:

Besides, it's the pot-kettle-black thing again: people have asked you questions and you have politely (and not so politely) flipped them off as well, so to speak.

I have that right. So does he. Others have the right to draw inferences from my silence. Likewise, I have the right to draw inferences from Fr. Andrew's; and, rules and mods permitting, I have the right to state them.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with what you did. I'm just curious as to why you are so interested in this topic (and in one particular poster) and yet refuse to seek out the answers to the questions that you have.

I answered that above.

Quote:

You seem to be perfectly happy to maintain the status quo, the position that you currently hold - so why continue to ask questions? Why this thread?

ASK questions? Most of this thread I've been answering them. Why do YOU keep asking?

Quote:

I would love to branch this discussion out and see how many homosexuals (or "homosexual advocates") really care about the credibility of the gay rights movement. Like I said earlier, 99.99% of the gays and lesbians I know are more worried about their everyday, plain-ol'-boring lives than what's going on in San Francisco.

Does that mean you don't care about the credibility of the "gay" rights movement? If that's the case, I'm arguing with the wrong person. I thought advocates of homosexual rights cared about said credibility. How could you not?

Quote:

And what makes you think that homosexuals aren't "helping themselves" just because they refuse to band together and publicly decry a fringe movement? The same could be said about heterosexuals, and a lot of fringe movements among the heterosexual community, couldn't it?

Sure could. That's why the RCC is in such big trouble. Somebody should have screamed bloody murder when the first kiid got molested. After all, silence = death, right?

Quote:

Personally, I think that homosexuals are "helping themselves" more by just being themselves, period. It's strange, but people seem to remember the NAMBLA floats and S&M leather gear in these pride parades and forget about the boring moms pushing strollers at the end of them. Maybe that's because they don't look so good on TV, eh?

So you consider it the responsibility of observers to ignore NAMBLA and focus on the moms?

contracycle · 07-15-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by contracycle
{Personal attack deleted-AV}

Why has this post been deleted? I posted a well known equivalent of yguys spurious challenge - an explanation please.

AquaVita · 07-15-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by contracycle
Why has this post been deleted? I posted a well known equivalent of yguys spurious challenge - an explanation please.

You may PM me or start a thread in the Bugs, Problems, and Complaints forum if you have any questions regarding this.

Questioning a moderator's actions is OK, just not in the thread those actions were done in.

Thank you

Aqua-MF&P Mod

Godless Dave · 07-15-2003, 10:28 AM

I haven't read through the study linked to by Fr. Andrew, but I'm curious about what their definitions of "children" and "intergenerational sex" are. Do they include 16-year-olds who had sex with 19-year-olds? If so I think that would skew the results. Usually when we think of child molestation we think of younger, more vulnerable children being raped (even if the child does not actively resist) by an older, physically more powerful adult. I'm sure there are plenty of cases of 19-year-olds raping 16-year-olds, but they would count for proportionally less of the "intergenerational sex" for that age group, thus a lower percentage of respondants reporting negative consequences

Speaking as a homosexual rights advocate, I don't have a study to reference, and I'm not going to guess at percentages, but I feel pretty confident that almost all of child victims of rape and sexual molestation (as opposed to consensual statutory rape between teengars) suffer harm.

There, a homosexual rights advocate distanced himself from the content of Fr. Andrew's post. Satisfied, yguy?

Bree · 07-15-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Does that mean you don't care about the credibility of the "gay" rights movement? If that's the case, I'm arguing with the wrong person. I thought advocates of homosexual rights cared about said credibility. How could you not?

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm so busy living my own, normal, everyday life that I don't have the time to worry about what everyone else is doing. I don't advocate "homosexual rights" - I advocate the same set of rights for everyone. I didn't realise that believing in equal rights automatically meant it was my solemn duty to fight against fringe groups.

Do advocates of heterosexual rights care about said credibility? No, because they don't have to. And neither should homosexuals. If homosexuals start taking a stance on pedophilia specifically simply because homophobes think the two go hand in hand, then the homosexuals start sounding like apologists, which really muddies the waters.

Quote:

But they shouldn't have to, since they were never associated with it in the first place. Except in the minds of homophobes. And the only thing those people deserve is a big, fat, middle finger.

:notworthy

yguy · 07-15-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm so busy living my own, normal, everyday life that I don't have the time to worry about what everyone else is doing. I don't advocate "homosexual rights" - I advocate the same set of rights for everyone.

Then why did you respond to this thread?

Quote:

I didn't realise that believing in equal rights automatically meant it was my solemn duty to fight against fringe groups.

It's time you did.

Quote:

Do advocates of heterosexual rights care about said credibility? No, because they don't have to.

Actually they do, because every time the morality of sodomy is questioned, homosexual rights advocates invariably ask, and properly so, why sodomy is wrong for homosexuals but not for heteros.

Quote:

And neither should homosexuals.

Maybe not, but the reason they do is because of the political connection between homosexual rights acitivists and pedophilia acitivists, not because someone like me points out the obvious.

Quote:

If homosexuals start taking a stance on pedophilia specifically simply because homophobes think the two go hand in hand, then the homosexuals start sounding like apologists, which really muddies the waters.

You might sound like apologists, but at least you would shed the perception that you are tolerant of apologists for pedophilia.

yguy · 07-15-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave Speaking as a homosexual rights advocate, I don't have a study to reference, and I'm not going to guess at percentages, but I feel pretty confident that almost all of child victims of rape and sexual molestation (as opposed to consensual statutory rape between teengars) suffer harm.

There, a homosexual rights advocate distanced himself from the content of Fr. Andrew's post. Satisfied, yguy?

In your case, absoloutely.

JamesKrieger · 07-15-2003, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You might sound like apologists, but at least you would shed the perception that you are tolerant of apologists for pedophilia.

It would shed your perception. But since when does your perception equal the perception of everyone else? I have not perceived anyone on this board as being tolerant of apologists for pedophilia. You're the only one who has this perception.

Godless Dave · 07-15-2003, 11:00 AM

Yguy, I have a perception that you beat 50 small puppies to death every week. I can't understand why you're not doing more to fight that perception.

07-15-2003, 10:28 AM	#125
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	just to be pedantic I haven't read through the study linked to by Fr. Andrew, but I'm curious about what their definitions of "children" and "intergenerational sex" are. Do they include 16-year-olds who had sex with 19-year-olds? If so I think that would skew the results. Usually when we think of child molestation we think of younger, more vulnerable children being raped (even if the child does not actively resist) by an older, physically more powerful adult. I'm sure there are plenty of cases of 19-year-olds raping 16-year-olds, but they would count for proportionally less of the "intergenerational sex" for that age group, thus a lower percentage of respondants reporting negative consequences Speaking as a homosexual rights advocate, I don't have a study to reference, and I'm not going to guess at percentages, but I feel pretty confident that almost all of child victims of rape and sexual molestation (as opposed to consensual statutory rape between teengars) suffer harm. There, a homosexual rights advocate distanced himself from the content of Fr. Andrew's post. Satisfied, yguy?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2003, 11:00 AM	#130
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Yguy, I have a perception that you beat 50 small puppies to death every week. I can't understand why you're not doing more to fight that perception.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.