• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Should there be consequences for PACs that don't stand up for free speech?

4aea440db2a9258b39e8e591930ae72a.jpg
 
RJKarl said:
This is not so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/18/903178/-

"Sexual violence and abuse is about power, domination, and control. It's not about sexual attraction."

" The answer is no. Because , for one, sexual orientation isn't about behavior alone. For example, when Governor Jim McGreevy feigned heterosexuality most of his life and formed a heterosexual family, and presumably engaged in heterosexual behavior was he a heterosexual all of that time? Or was he simply a closeted gay man? Behavior isn't always consistent with sexual orientation and attraction."

" Margaret Smith reported back to the Bishops on early findings from their study. From the USA Today:

We do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now ... It's important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior. Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity."

"Perhaps this is why Pope Benedict XVI himself, en route to the United States for his visit in 2008, responded this way to a question about the abuse crisis: "I do not wish to talk about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is a different thing." ~ Rev James Martin, SJ, It's Not About Homosexuality: Blaming the Wrong People for the Sexual Abuse Crisis, Huffington Post"
Click to expand...

Come on, RJ, read more closely.
 
Yeah I'm gonna stop engaging. I liked WakePhans language in describing JHMDs posting habits and can't top it. Should've learned this lesson a while back and listened to all the rep telling me to stop responding.
 
Shooshmoo said:
The Republican President is...the Republican President. This eludes you?
Click to expand...

He's just the President. We don't have more than one. He doesn't run the party. That's somebody else. Keep trying, though. You will get something right eventually. Not winning elections. We can build to that, maybe. Aim for something in your skillset.

I know you guys are hurting, but you've got to pull out of this spiral of sadness. It gets better.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah I'm gonna stop engaging. I liked WakePhans language in describing JHMDs posting habits and can't top it. Should've learned this lesson a while back and listened to all the rep telling me to stop responding.
Click to expand...

If you were good at learning lessons, you'd already be a Republican. I expect several more years of failure from you before the light comes on. Gainful employment will help, as will actual responsibility. Soon you will get wisdom from your experiences, rather than from internet reputation left by people you may have never met. Don't give up on your dreams.
 
Last edited:
This is like Tetris and all JHMD has is those stupid L's while he keeps waiting for an I
 
Like your wife, albeit with different symptoms, it appears you are suffering from BOBS disease, JHMD. Sadly, there is no cure, just a long, sad downward spiral.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
This is like Tetris and all JHMD has is those stupid L's while he keeps waiting for an I
Click to expand...

_ouis Gossett Jr. got shot down by an unarmed plane from a made-up country. Chappy Sinclair was a friend of mine. You, Sir, are no Chappy Sinclair.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Like your wife, albeit with different symptoms, it appears you are suffering from BOBS disease, JHMD. Sadly, there is no cure, just a long, sad downward spiral.
Click to expand...

Since you apparently don't, is there anyone in your household that knows the difference between the Executive branch of the Federal government and a private political organization? Maybe start there, and work your way back to the boards.
 
wakephan09 said:
Come on, RJ, read more closely.
Click to expand...

You posted:

"Are there such things as "straight pederasts"? I don't think there are. Pederasty is an inherently homosexual institution."

"ped·er·as·ty
ˈpedəˌrastē/Submit
noun
sexual activity involving a man and a boy."

I did read closely and you are wrong. There are plenty of pedarasts who commit the heinous acts based on power not for homosexual reasons. It's no different than other sexual crime.

There are plenty of Articles that dispute your premise.
 
RJKarl said:
You posted:

"Are there such things as "straight pederasts"? I don't think there are. Pederasty is an inherently homosexual institution."

"ped·er·as·ty
ˈpedəˌrastē/Submit
noun
sexual activity involving a man and a boy."

I did read closely and you are wrong. There are plenty of pedarasts who commit the heinous acts based on power not for homosexual reasons. It's no different than other sexual crime.

There are plenty of Articles that dispute your premise.
Click to expand...

Where, RJ, did I imply that pederasts act specifically out of sexual desire? I didn't. I was simply pointing out to PhDeac that pederasty, as an institution, specifically refers to relationships between men and boys. And that pedophilia and pederasty were not in fact synonyms. (although pederasts might very well be pedophiles. And vice versa).

The problem with how you post on the boards is that you many times read into other people's posts something that isn't there. Just admit you were wrong, and we can move on.
 
How on Earth can this "Pederasty is an inherently homosexual institution" not mean "that pederasts act specifically out of sexual desire"

I am NOT wrong here. You are.

My bad, you are never wrong.
 
RJKarl said:
How on Earth can this "Pederasty is an inherently homosexual institution" not mean "that pederasts act specifically out of sexual desire"

I am NOT wrong here. You are.

My bad, you are never wrong.
Click to expand...

You are impossible. First of all, your intervention has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation we're having. It is an interruption, and even if you were correct -- which you aren't -- your contribution wouldn't be useful.

When I said "homosexual" I didn't imply anything about sexual desire. The word is an invention of the late 19th century which literally means "same sex". I used the word because I was trying to point out to PhDeac that pederasty is something that only dudes can do. I realized that that might be confusing because many people typically use the word "homosexual" to specifically refer to desire -- which is fine and correct -- so I immediately clarified, in my very next post this:

wakephan09 said:
Or more correctly, a man-boy institution. I guess you could be straight and into abusing little boys, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.

Either way, Republican hypocrisy noted.
Click to expand...

It makes sense that you might see the word "homosexual" and think only desire. That's not wrong. What is wrong is that you didn't pay enough attention to read closely the next three posts where I clarified what I was talking about. And you're going on about how sexual abuse is about power and not desire. Which we all know.

I'm wrong all the time, RJ. I don't mind being wrong. I actually like being wrong, because it means I've learned something.

I've defended you for years on here, even despite the number of times you have argued outrageously with me about something I know quite a lot about (nb: not pederasty). You should take a little bit of time and reflect on why people treat you the way they do on these boards. You are utterly without self-awareness. You treat your opinions as fact. You react to trolling like a madman. And you aren't even considerate enough of your fellow posters to proofread once in a while. Like I said yesterday, this is a message board and you can do whatever you want. But don't be surprised when people call you out on it.
 
For a couple of months now, you have started from the position that RJ is 100% wrong and you are 100% right about everything.

Here are you EXACT osts from above when I posted:

"Are there such things as "straight pederasts"? I don't think there are. Pederasty is an inherently homosexual institution."

AND

"Or more correctly, a man-boy institution. I guess you could be straight and into abusing little boys, but I'm not sure that's what you meant.

Either way, Republican hypocrisy noted."

I did address the Republican aspect.

However, you are doing your best PH in taking both sides of an issue.

If you deconstruct your first post you say there is no such thing as a "straight pederast"-this is patently false if you believe this statement by you "And you're going on about how sexual abuse is about power and not desire. Which we all know" -

If it is about power "as we all know", by the definition of that many pederasts are acting out of power and are straight.

How silly of me to look your words.

But you act in a condescending way towards me again. I get that.

It's not about me being "self-aware". it's about your posts.


Also, in posts I make a typo or drop a word, I'm being "inconsiderate" but when others do it, they are committing a human error...got it.
 
Got it: you're caught up on a single clause, in a single post, which I clarified in no fewer than four different and discursive posts afterwards.

With a very small edit to your first sentence you got one thing just about right: "RJ is 100% right and you are 100% wrong about everything." That just about sums up your contributions to the boards.
 
Also, just to make something clear to you: I didn't call you out. You came out of nowhere to correct me.

Like I said in my very first response to you, you interrupted a conversation to which you weren't invited.
 
Damn. Do not question wakephan's pederasty expertise. He takes that super serious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top