Re: What's in the spelling of a word?
Monte Cargo wrote:dlowan wrote:
You know, the type you would like to see if someone accused you and yours of this stuff. EVIDENCE, not malevolent and bigoted (I assume you to be honophobic? If not, PROVE it...after all, you slime with the homophobes...and your standard of proof is slime and innuendo, not any actual evidence...) and irrational libel and slander. Evidence.
No, I don't believe I am
honophobic. I believe you meant to spell the word
homophobic. You are a very sloppy speller.
But, I do apologize for railing you on your particular alternate spelling of the word
pedophile and any inferences I made that stemmed from your spelling of the word.
Let's move beyond words, shall we?
The intensity and vitriol of your replies belies something strange. I will say that your unnatural level of overkill and zeal to defend Nancy Pelosi and rush to call anyone a homophobe who thinks otherwise about Pelosi is very curious to me.
I don't condemn gay people, but I believe that there is a higher statistical likelihood of buggery, concerning promiscuity and breaching boundaries of various types among gays than there is among heteros. Perhaps one solution is to provde a safe means for gay people to exist in society so that they are not so freaked out and secretive that they resort to much of the strange behavior. But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? A society that promotes, as a cornerstone, pedophilia is not a healthy society, by most people's standards. Perhaps the propensity for perversion is an incorrigible component of many of society's gays and the preferred course is to protect the vulnerable.
This is where you come in.
In my feeble mind, the gateway is much weaker between protection and exposure to vulnerable children, from a guardian who champions a leader who supports the advancement of special rights for gay groups like NAMBLA. I would be much more understanding of these strong sentiments if the poster had stated that their job is along the lines of protecting
gay rights than I understand the abnormally intense sentiments of your recent posts from anyone claiming themself to be and advocate of children's rights.
I can understand a reasoned approach to this discussion, but to revere Polosi practically to the point of Messiah worship does not jibe well with being part of the child protection field. As the protector of children, your top order is to ferret out the dangers in policymakers, with respect to the consequences that their policies might have on vulnerable children. I seriously question the judgement of anyone who radically defends and poo-poos any association Polosi has with these fringe nut groups like NAMBLA that are up for wrongful death suits. Condoning groups that have more likelihood of preying on children is not good for children.
You are defending LSM's baseless sliming of one she considers to be an opponent.
My calling you homophobic was an illustration of what you are defending..ie a baseless accusation. However, you DO appear to be so, unless you can give some properly researched evidence re your assertions about increased boundary breaches and increased paedophilia amongst gays. (Your charges of increased promiscuity and buggery I note as simply evidence that you have prejudices....I assume you do not like these things equally in heterosexuals, or do you only cavil at them in gays??? However, whatever your beliefs, how do you equate promiscuity and buggery between consenting adults with child abuse?)
It is certainly a common prejudice, and one often used by bigots to shore up their bigotry, and one often repeated by the more bigoted here, though I have never seen a single one of them come up with any evidence, and it is not borne out in my experience with paedophiles (which admittedly is anecdotal although reasonably extensive). Eg, the kiddy porn sites feature hapless little girls as much as they do little girls, or so the police whi take them down tell me; As far as we know, many more little girls than little boys are still being sexually abused.
Of course, the data re this stuff is, by its very nature, highly suspect, as it relies on discovery, disclosure by kids, and post fact disclosure by adults.
Paedophile rings are hard to break up, especially now that they have become so adept at using the web.....however, again, the ones here which HAVE been seem to feature mass exploitation of girls AND boys.
However, for you to make such an assertion requires you to have evidence, or to withdraw it.
(By the way, since you are determined to cast spelling stones, did you catch your spelling error in the very post where you made such a showing of your ignorance of spelling in your attack on mine?)
Once again, you remain determinedly stuck on your anti Pelosi thing AND on your anti gay stuff.
Your argument is that she supports "special" rights for gays. What special rights does she champion? Give me ONE "special" right she champions...one not afforded to hetersosexuals.
What I imagine she supports, unless and until you can give me a "special" right, is normal civil rights such as are extended to heterosexuals.
You then make a very strange leap to some sort of assertion that Pelosi is less likely to protect children based on a series of prejudices you hold. Well, I am sure your beliefs are fixed, but I doubt you will induce anything but amazed amusement from anyone not similarly prejudiced with such an extraordinarily ill founded argument.
Given that the great majority of abused kids I work with have been abused by heterosexual men, I could as well construct the argument that anyone supporting special rights for heterosexuals (which anyone attempting to deny civil rights for gays is in fact doing) is far less likely to protect children, given the heterosexual male's propensity for child abuse. By this equally founded argument, that means YOU, and certainly LSM, are a damn worry should you ever reach positions of influence.
My vitriol indicating something strange? Is this a more subtle attempt to slime someone who disagrees with you with some nameless perversion? Why not come out from the sliming shadows and name it?
When a slimer like LSM makes the accusation of someone supporting child abuse it DOES get over my threshold of tolerance, and I respond at her level.
Do you have no concern about such baseless accusations? What if we posted such a thing about Bush? Would you have no sense of a concerning cheapening of an already debased discourse? Do you have no care for the seriousness of such charges?
I would, on the evidence, say no, only if it affects your side, as I have seen you contort yourself here to defend the sliming.
Sigh. I am getting bored with rebutting your very silly "arguments".
I have little knowledge of Pelosi, and neither revere nor condemn her, nor do you have any evidence of my attitude towards her, only of my attitude towards those who slime their opponents with such unfounded libel.
Do you see the extraordinary logical contortions you then make? You have made no case that she supports Nambla, but, taking your totally unfounded belief that she does, plus your similarly unfounded belief that I fanatically support her, you then attempt to slime me with an accusation that I similarly support child abuse.
You are some piece of work.
Are all you rposts here similarly attempts to slime constructed of prejudice, falsities, and chains of faulty logic?
