WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

Italgato,

Homosexuality pedophilia

Hobit,

You were doing so well before the gratuitous argumentum ad can't-get-laidum

True. Feet are icky!
Just think...Athlete's Tongue!

Of course, who here writing this post is also sleeping alone tonight? (raises hand!)

JL Nobody said it best; Everyone needs to get laid.

I see that Hobitbob is not a playgoer. He has not been subjected to the Crap spewed out by Albee in "Who is Sylvia". If one were to listen to Hobitbob, there would be no more marriages. Just get your self a goat like the main character in Who is Sylvia.

After all, Hobitbob is all for experimentation.

Well, I can tell that Hobitbob is not a father. If he were he would not be so sanguine about Homosexuality and the fact that it is being lauded as just another life style.

Hobitbob writes as if he knows everything. I wonder if is aware that one of the most basic of human drives is to perpetuate one's line--to pass on one's genes.

Hobitbob certainly knows that Homosexuals( not bisexuals) do not propagate.

I hope that Hobitbob knows that there has not been a genetic cause established for homosexuality.

I hope Hobitbob knows that the large studies of Indentical( meaning same genetic inheritance) wins separated at birth and raised in separate households shows that while one might have adopted the Homosexual style, the other one has not.

I hope that Hobitbob knows that if Homosexuality were completely genitically based, both twins, not not just one, in the studies from Minnesota, would be homosexual.


I hope that Hobitbob knows that the inclination towards Homosexuality comes from both Nature and Nurture. Homosexuality comes from genes and environment.

Because this is so, I will continue to press my representatives in government to remove all classes which extol homosexuality from the public school classrooms. I will petition my representatives to screen people who work with young children to make sure they do not present Homosexuality as a viable lifestyle.

Hobitbob may not want grandchildren and great grandchildren, but I do.

Of Course, it is possible that Hobitbob is enamoured of the preverted societies such as the
one found in Lybia where the dung eaters keep boys in their seraglios instead of girls.

Well, each to his own taste.

Craven:

Can you point to studies that show that Homosexuals are never pedasts?

I would like to read that study or studies.

I never said homosexuals are never pedophiles.

I said that homsexual and pedophile are not equal, an equation you implied.

I can't be faulted for lapses in your reading compehension, since you are the only person here who has brought up the notion that homosexuals are never pedophiles I will leave it to you to find reading material on your creation herein.

Thank you for the correction, Craven.

Then some homosexuals are pedophiles.

I must confess that I am apparently not as informed as you are concering homosexuals and pedophiles.

Therefore, Can you help to answer my question?

If Homosexuals are sometimes Pedohiles, how can we take the word of a homosexual on faith that he can work with tthe Boy Scout Group or take care of the Third Grade if we know that he may indeed be a pedophile?

How can we protect our children?

Not even Hobitbob would want Pedophiles to work with innocent children.

Er - small problem Italgato.

Many paedophiles are heterosexuals.

Guess nobody gets to work with the boy scouts, eh?

Italgato

You are arising again a very interesting question:

since most convicted pedophiles are heterosexual (at least here in Europe), I wonder what advice you would give us for protecting our children.

Even more: 90% are from the neighnourhood, relatives, friends of family etc : what's about protection against them?

No problem.



Indeed.



This is typical of many subjects.



I shall do my level best.



Dear Italgato, since pedophilia is not restricted to homosexuals any person of any sexual persuasion posits the same dillema.

So, this question is better phrased as "how do we know if anyone is a pedophile?"

Simply put Italgato, we don't. And we don't have a way to know the heart of an individual as it relates to many other activities.

You don't know if someone is a rapist, a muderer.....

Such is life. The homophobic tend to focus on how to perfectly discern the hearts of homosexuals due to their inordinate interest in them.



I recommend taking care of your own children as much as possible. Good communication is also important to know what is going on in the child's life, this does not relate exclusively to sexual abuse.

Lastly, if pedophilia is your concern there are two simple things. The child must avoid strangers to avoid the aleatory attacks.

Scecondly the parent must follow the strong relationships the child builds with adults, if supervision is not posssble perhaps rotation can help. Pedophiles take time to "crack" a child's defenses. For the truly paranoid parent denying anyone sufficient familiarity with their child in unsupervised settings can help.

When all else fails you can probably order a child-sized chastity belt.



Perhaps, but then again we don't know Hobitbob's mind, or yours. Your question about how to tell if a homosexual is a pedophile is just as valid as a question asking how we can tell if you are.

<raises eyebrow>

I was listening to the harangues against the Massachusetts decision and was reminded of arguments about allowing Jews into country clubs -- back in the 'fifties. And the argument that marriage is such an ancient tradition that we must safeguard it -- like slavery, war, men's rights to own women, and all those other good things.

Have you been talking to Lott, Limbaugh and the FRC?

Lola

I can't think of anyone I would rather learn from than you----however----regarding politics -----there is this one problem that not even you seems capable of solving-----how the hell do you explode the other person's MISPERCEPTIONS so that we can start from zero? You see my positions as misperceptions and I see yours in the same light. Say just for a moment that Bush is proven to be correct on WMD, that there was a direct link from Saddam to bin Laden and that Iraq does become a secular Democracy and a strategic ally of the US----would you change your mind about Bush's motivations-----forget his cowboy style-----just consider his motivations which are to "Do the right thing for American interests as well as for the world economy" again forget the small annoyances of his style.
(they annoy me also)

Is there any way that you could or would change your mind?

I really can't control my laughter when I hear/read views like that expressed by Italgato.....

To further enforce my views that the rule of the majority must be enforced in order to preserve the integrity of the nation for a bright future to exist I present the following frim Thomas Jefferson: Here is the link: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0500.htm

Here are some excerpts:

8. Majority Rule

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.

The Natural Law by which Self-Government is Exercised

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

The Only Source of Just Power

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808. ME 12:18

Living Majorities Decide for Themselves

"This corporeal globe, and everything upon it, belong to its present corporeal inhabitants during their generation. They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:43

"If this avenue [i.e., the expression of the voice of the whole people] be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on as other nations are doing in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation again; and so on forever." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:43

"That our Creator made the earth for the use of the living and not of the dead; that those who exist not can have no use nor right in it, no authority or power over it; that one generation of men cannot foreclose or burthen its use to another, which comes to it in its own right and by the same divine beneficence; that a preceding generation cannot bind a succeeding one by its laws or contracts; these deriving their obligation from the will of the existing majority, and that majority being removed by death, another comes in its place with a will equally free to make its own laws and contracts; these are axioms so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move something. They are axioms also pregnant with salutary consequences." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Earle, 1823. ME

When the Majority is Wrong

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1800.

"I readily... suppose my opinion wrong, when opposed by the majority... however, I should have done it with more complete satisfaction, had we all judged from the same position." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:99

"It is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. If they approve the proposed constitution in all its parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong. This reliance cannot deceive us, as long as we remain virtuous." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:392

"It is an encouraging observation that no good measure was ever proposed which, if duly pursued, failed to prevail in the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Coles, 1814.

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:27

The Rights and Duties of the Minority

"If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811. ME 13:51

"Every man's reason [is] his own rightful umpire. This principle, with that of acquiescence in the will of the majority, will preserve us free and prosperous as long as they are sacredly observed." --Thomas Jefferson to John F. Watson, 1814. ME 14:136

"It is a rule in all countries that what is done by the body of a nation must be submitted to by all its members." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to Miami and Delaware Nations, 1803. ME 16:398

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781. ME 4:417, Papers 5:566

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:318

Bush's style is funny, Perc, even more so when one lives in Texas: his imitation of a tough cowboy, his imitation of good ol' boy self-reliance, his mimicking of a righteous fundamentalist preacher make many of his fellow Texans uneasy. None of these are traits he can lay legitimate claim to.

But though we all laugh at his affectations, it's the substance of his policies which we're going after. His stated goals and his policies are turning out to be just as fake as his affectations. There ARE NO WMD's. He doesn't give a damn about democracy: he wants a friendly and obedient trade area. He talks up his support of vets; he signs a bill the next day reducing that support.

So we're beyond "perceptions" here and into fact. If many Bush supporters had their way, they would surely like to stop the flow of information -- now becoming a torrent -- showing that the administration determined that we would go to war without any supporting intelligence, that relied on the CIA and its dismissable boss who answers only to the president to provide them with support for policies which they wanted to carry out. We're not just "liberals," we're Republicans, we're centrist Dems, we're right-wing constitutionalists -- my god, I can't turn on the radio -- even here in Republican Texas -- without hearing devastating criticisms of the administration.

I understand that that embarrasses Bush's most ardent supporters, stimulating them to defend him even when that defense makes them look as though they hadn't read the papers lately. At some point we're going to have to come to terms with not the grave faults in our respective characters which make us either liberal or conservative (is anyone else fed up with the persistence and repetitiveness of those interruptions?) but with the fact that we have had for at least twenty years a habit of turning our eyes away from corruption. That corruption has gotten out of hand and it'll take both sides to recognize it, name it, label it, and get rid of it.

Some folks are clearly more comfortable where the society around them remains unchanging, where values and behavior and ideas are tightly proscribed.

"Tradition' tends to be viewed as sacred by these folks, and their rhetoric is remarkably similar to that of a Greek chorus, explicitly or implicitly suggesting that some contract with the gods is in danger of violation, and that whirlwinds and pestilences are most certain to now descend upon all.

Such folks pretty predictably set themselves against social elements which are likely to lead to change, eg., immigration, unfettered speech, Socratic investigations of assumptions, multicultural policies, etc. They pretty predictably tend also to subscribe to authority.

Whether such folks are a product of innate personality factors or indoctrination (or some combination of the two), they are illiberal and not overfond of the sort of freedoms which have evolved in western political traditions. Thus an institution, such as a court, which enforces an overarching principle (equal treatment of all) will be seen as subversive Presently, 'activist' means exactly that.

One might properly describe this mindset as primitive or regressive, rather than merely conservative, and it is profoundly at odds with liberty, in the sense of that word in western political thought.

All advances in liberty and equity for and among citizens has come as a consequence of a traditional notion being eclipsed. The Magna Carta was a move against tradition, as were the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.


ps...there's a poster above with whom some of you are engaged. I suggest that his presence is worthwhile in that he represents a certain component of society that ought to be noted. But are you sure you want to keep inviting him to dinner?

not you perc

Woody Allen