Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on October 04, 2006, 02:12:27 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM
-
Simple typo maybe? :doubt:
-
yeah... right
MSNBC calls out the right wing noise machine on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCSm90eSiE
-
I think John Stewart had the best commentary on the reaction from the right-wing windbags:
"By the way, equating a 52-year-old congressman who preys on 16-year-olds with being gay may be one reason the GOP is accused of gay-bashing."
Seriously, how old is Newt Gingrich? Twelve? Because that's about how old I thought you had to be in order to confuse preying on minors with homosexuality.
-
Gotta love faux news. Changing people's parties when it suits 'em ;)
"In other news, Hillary Clinton is now a Republican after she had a conversation with Rupert H. Murdock and now he likes her..."
Now I understand how Voltaire felt- 'God granted me one wish, and that was to make my enemies rediculous.'
-
Because that's about how old I thought you had to be in order to confuse preying on minors with homosexuality.
In all fairness, they were male minors.
-
Indeed, but it's not the fact that they were male that forced him to resign, though, no doubt, had they been legal males, the party would still have rounded on him.
-
In all fairness, they were male minors.
Yes, and someone who thinks that a 52-year-old man cybering with a 16-year-old boy is part of a normal behavioral pattern for homosexuals has some catching up to do. So, Gingrich and the other geniuses who are using this asinine argument are either completely out of touch, or terribly obtuse. (Probably both.)
-
the gender of victims of pedophiles has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the pedophile - don't like that fact try arguing with the entire pyschological community
99% of minors victimized are victimized by hetereosexual males, irreguardless of gender of the victim
-
the gender of victims of pedophiles has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the pedophile - don't like that fact try arguing with the entire pyschological community
99% of minors victimized are victimized by hetereosexual males, irreguardless of gender of the victim
But respectable, christian Republicans just don't do that! He must have been an Democratic atheist gay. It's the only logical conclusion.
-
Hahahahaha right wing discussion forums and commentators are so confused now. Somehow they manage to blame democrats about this (Republican congressman doing something stupid). Favourites right now are "this is a non-issue" (well lolll) and "this is a diversion" (loffff), also something about "jumping the shark" (wtf) and "liberal media blitzkrieg" (that's awesome, i mean fox is only the most watched cable network in usa or something).
-
So...how long until the Democrats drop the ball on this one and it's completely forgotten?
-
the gender of victims of pedophiles has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the pedophile - don't like that fact try arguing with the entire pyschological community
99% of minors victimized are victimized by hetereosexual males, irreguardless of gender of the victim
Go argue with the State of New York, son. You know, folks who have actual legal authority.
16 is legal age there. So had it occurred in the State of New York, he'd be merely gay instead of pedophilac. Let's be honest here; the difference in maturity between 16 and 18 is not that much, physically or mentally.
Also, I would point out that the bit about heterosexual males is nonsensical; if the victim is male then, frankly, they are at least bisexual; being attracted to another male is what being homosexual is, nobody's ever tried to attach an age requirement to it until you showed up.
This came up in my philosophy class yesterday; we draw a distinction between pedophilia commited on a boy by a mature male, and being homosexual, that is artifical at best. Perhaps because we have a societal need to vilify pedophilia, but we don't vilify homosexuality anymore. The same can be said of drawing a distinction between heterosexual behavior and pedophilia. Pedophilia represents a subset of either or both behaviors, not a totally seperate thing.
-
you go argue with the Journal of Pediatrics, because quite frankly your laymen's opinion means jack**** in comparision.
The sex of the victim of molestation has NOTHING to do with the sexual orientation of the adult. If you are incapable of understanding how it is such that is because you don't know **** on the subject.
-
*Wanders into thread*
*Remembers that he is not allowed to antagonize Kazan*
*Wanders back out of thread*
*Snickers to self*
-
the gender of victims of pedophiles has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the pedophile - don't like that fact try arguing with the entire pyschological community
99% of minors victimized are victimized by hetereosexual males, irreguardless of gender of the victim
Go argue with the State of New York, son. You know, folks who have actual legal authority.
16 is legal age there. So had it occurred in the State of New York, he'd be merely gay instead of pedophilac. Let's be honest here; the difference in maturity between 16 and 18 is not that much, physically or mentally.
Also, I would point out that the bit about heterosexual males is nonsensical; if the victim is male then, frankly, they are at least bisexual; being attracted to another male is what being homosexual is, nobody's ever tried to attach an age requirement to it until you showed up.
This came up in my philosophy class yesterday; we draw a distinction between pedophilia commited on a boy by a mature male, and being homosexual, that is artifical at best. Perhaps because we have a societal need to vilify pedophilia, but we don't vilify homosexuality anymore. The same can be said of drawing a distinction between heterosexual behavior and pedophilia. Pedophilia represents a subset of either or both behaviors, not a totally seperate thing.
Word. :pimp: Basically, this guy is both a pedopheliac and a homosexual, or at least has homosexual tendencies. Having sex with underage boys doesn't make it "hey he's a pedo, but not a homo." Just because the people he had sex with hadn't yet hit the magical age of 18 doesn't change the situation. Show me a 16 year old side-by-side with an 18 year old and give me proof that you can physically tell which one is which, because you can't. As ngtm1r said, there's not much difference, really.
-
and you're COMPLETELY ignoring the psychology of pedophilia -
Simple Fact - published in the foremost peer reviewed journal on pediatrics in this country - 99% of all victims of molestation, both male and female, are victimized by hetereosexual males. The psychology of pedophilia is independant of the psychology/drives of homosexual/bisexual/homosexual trichotomy - you can score a ZERO on the Kinsey Scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) and still victimize children of the same sex.
-
Allow me to summarize: IRREVELANT.
If one is attracted to little boys, then they are still attracted to males, and if they are male themselves, that fits the dictionary and the pyschological definitions of homosexuality, does it not? You can twist and dodge and toss red herrings right and left, but it doesn't matter. It still conforms to the definition. Why, then, is it not considered that way? Why does it recieve preferential treatment? Why should we not consider it a subset of homosexual behavior?
If your testing methods say this is wrong, then I'm afraid your testing has a problem. Specifically, it needs to bridge the gap between the definition of homosexual behavior it's testing for and the totality of such a behavior. It is too narrowly defining the subject.
-
So, just to clarify. If they catch a farmer having sex with his animals, he's gay cause the cow's a guy? K, got it.
(On a side note.. ewwwwwwwwww)
-
no ngtm1r, NOT irrelevant.
Listen VERY CAREFULLY
it's NOT MALES they're attracted specifically - to it's pre-pubesent children - both male and female - \
that's the definition of pedophilia, so technically being attracted to 16-year-old males ISN'T pedophilia strictly speaking
it's not the testing methods that are the problem, it's your STUBBORN IGNORANT JACKASS REFUSAL TO ENGAGE YOUR BRAIN.
**** ngtm1r you're a goddamn moron
-
Succinct.
-
You ever notice how one side of an argument, however justifiable, is ignored because the guy arguing it is going about it the wrong way? That just came to me for some reason.
-
or because no matter what way it was presented ngtm1r wouldn't listen anyway
-
And yelling and calling names won't help then, will it?
-
it makes me feel better :D
-
That's why we have video games!
-
i'm at work
-
....
That's why we have
http://www.widro.com/throwpaper.html
:nervous:
-
it makes me feel better :D
And look worse.
Your choice, I guess.
-
Okay, we're getting our wires crossed now.
I think we're all clear that sexual conduct with a sixteen-year-old is not the same as pedophilia. However, regardless of whether we consider this "normal" or not, it is a fallacy to look at this as a "subset of homosexuality", because this implies that it's a characteristic of a specific sexual orientation. If a 52-year-old man were caught having sex with a 16-year-old girl, we would not be having the discussion of whether his behavior was a "subset of heterosexuality". This hypothetical man was probably heterosexual, but that doesn't matter, because the concern is over the fact that the girl was sixteen. Likewise, Foley may be homosexual, but when Newt Gingrich argues that if they had removed him they would have been accused of gay-bashing, he is the one who makes it an issue of homosexuality, and not about age-related sexual misconduct.
-
bingo
even if foley is gay, the gender of pedophilia victims is unreleated to the sexual orientation of the offender
that's a FACT, if a certain someone wants to disagree they can do a study and write a paper for the journal of Pediatrics.
-
it's more a matter of definition, if a guy is attracted to little boys but not little girls then they are both a pedophile and either gay or bisexual.
this is pertenent to the fact that they are atracted to members of the same sex, they are, by definition, either gay or bi.
I can accept that the gay aspect of there sexuality is linked solely to the pedophile aspect, but the word homosexual means "same sex", you cannot say that they are are not gay/bi if they are atracted to boys. the only way you could is if you redefine the word homosexual to mean something other than what the latan means. if you have tests of gayness that show you are 100% not gay, and yet you are atracted to childeren of your gender, then that test must be specificly geared to filter that out. for instance instead of asking "are you atracted sexualy to people of the same gender" it would say "are you atracted sexualy to adults of the same gender".
it's like saying up is down because you're inside a house, the two are on totaly diferent dimentions.
-
you still don't understand - they're not attracted to them because they're BOYS - it just happens that they are boys, they're attracted to them because they're prepubescent.
gah.... i'm sick and tired of arguing with people who don't understand medical and psychological distinctions.
-
it's more a matter of definition, if a guy is attracted to little boys but not little girls then they are both a pedophile and either gay or bisexual.
this is pertenent to the fact that they are atracted to members of the same sex, they are, by definition, either gay or bi.
I can accept that the gay aspect of there sexuality is linked solely to the pedophile aspect, but the word homosexual means "same sex", you cannot say that they are are not gay/bi if they are atracted to boys. the only way you could is if you redefine the word homosexual to mean something other than what the latan means. if you have tests of gayness that show you are 100% not gay, and yet you are atracted to childeren of your gender, then that test must be specificly geared to filter that out. for instance instead of asking "are you atracted sexualy to people of the same gender" it would say "are you atracted sexualy to adults of the same gender".
it's like saying up is down because you're inside a house, the two are on totaly diferent dimentions.
Nobody's arguing that he's not gay, and we've already established that being attracted to a 16-year-old is not pedophilia, despite the fact that acting on such an attraction is ethically questionable and usually illegal. The original argument was that it's infantile to make this an issue of homosexuality, because the sex of the kid has nothing to do with it, even if you do consider it pedophilia.
Honestly, I hate it when Kazan loses his temper but sometimes I understand his frustration.
-
ok, what if I rephrase it, a guy who is attracted to little girls only is heterosexual, in addition to being a pedophile.
there is no link between sexual orientation and pedophelia, but gender preference is gender preference.
-
I don't know enough about sexual psychology to judge whether that's a sensible description or not. I'm pretty sure that gender preference is a minority characteristic among pedophiles. Whether that says anything about the ones who do have a gender preference, I don't know. My only point was that with regards to Congressman Foley, it's a non-issue.
And that Newt Gingrich is a ****head.
-
yes
-
ok, what if I rephrase it, a guy who is attracted to little girls only is heterosexual, in addition to being a pedophile.
there is no link between sexual orientation and pedophelia, but gender preference is gender preference.
then you're STILL wrong - because gender preference of the perpretator and the sex of their victims is unrelated
-
only if you have defined it as such (and in a way that diverges from the linguistic meaning of the word/phrase)
-
But gender preference for this type of relationship is related to the gender of the person.
And learn to distinguish between pedophilia and ephebophilia, people.
-
Well that would be my guess too, but at sixteen it could be a gray area, since developmental rates can vary widely.
-
I wouldn't say a 50sh person being attracted to a 16 year old, would per-se be truely pedophelia, but it is the consistant attraction to them that warents it being a sickness.