Jump to content

Societal Decline


stevenash

Recommended Posts

Since the propaganda piece you posted provided many quote attributions with no links, I googled the one that I figured would be easiest to prove/disprove, which was that a democratic Florida representative named Alcee Hastings stated that pedophilia should be protected under law as a sexual orientation.  This in fact has been circulated by several fake news sites (such as allenbwest.com), but I could find no links from legitimate news sources confirming it.  I also found several sites stating that this claim by these right wing sites was false, but they're the kind of sites you guys only believe when they say what you want to hear (such as allenbwest.com).  That being said, the incident in question occurred in 2009, not days after gay marriage was legalized as this "article" would have you believe.  

So to recap, you have a propoganda piece full of "research" with no links to any of that research, but the "news piece" wants to link legalized gay marriage to legalized pedophilia through said "research".  The one unattributed "fact" that I checked was dubious at best, and even if it wasn't an obvious misrepresentation by the right (which of course it is), it occurred 6 years before this article insinuates that it occurred, rendering the connection the piece is trying to make with it utterly false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Since the propaganda piece you posted provided many quote attributions with no links, I googled the one that I figured would be easiest to prove/disprove, which was that a democratic Florida representative named Alcee Hastings stated that pedophilia should be protected under law as a sexual orientation.  This in fact has been circulated by several fake news sites (such as allenbwest.com), but I could find no links from legitimate news sources confirming it.  I also found several sites stating that this claim by these right wing sites was false, but they're the kind of sites you guys only believe when they say what you want to hear (such as allenbwest.com).  That being said, the incident in question occurred in 2009, not days after gay marriage was legalized as this "article" would have you believe.  

So to recap, you have a propoganda piece full of "research" with no links to any of that research, but the "news piece" wants to link legalized gay marriage to legalized pedophilia through said "research".  The one unattributed "fact" that I checked was dubious at best, and even if it wasn't an obvious misrepresentation by the right (which of course it is), it occurred 6 years before this article insinuates that it occurred, rendering the connection the piece is trying to make with it utterly false.

Then, if I am understanding you correctly, all of the statements regarding the APA are untrue and never took place?  Additionally, the statements by Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Diamond are untrue as well and were never spoken?  The Harvard Health Publications stating that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change is also untrue?  And you personally do not believe, under any circumstance, that, in the future, there will be a movement to legitimize pedophiles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullets....what you fail to understand is this is some of the stuff I was referring to when I posted on gay marriage was that it was not about marriage, it was a step towards legalizing anything goes. Cant say pedophilia was high on my list, but I said it would have a snowball effect....which it already has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, stevenash said:

Then, if I am understanding you correctly, all of the statements regarding the APA are untrue and never took place?  Additionally, the statements by Mr. Van Gijseghem and Mr. Diamond are untrue as well and were never spoken?  The Harvard Health Publications stating that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change is also untrue?  And you personally do not believe, under any circumstance, that, in the future, there will be a movement to legitimize pedophiles?

The first and only statement in the article that I tried to verify proved misleading and false in both what actually happened and when it happened.  Forgive me for stopping there.  

As for the movement to legalize pedophilia, I have no doubt that pedophiles would love to have it legalized, but there will never be any traction.  I'm sure there are a handful of ultra liberals nutsos who would argue for its legality, but there's a handful of conservative nutsos with equally offensive views on other issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The first and only statement in the article that I tried to verify proved misleading and false in both what actually happened and when it happened.  Forgive me for stopping there.  

As for the movement to legalize pedophilia, I have no doubt that pedophiles would love to have it legalized, but there will never be any traction.  I'm sure there are a handful of ultra liberals nutsos who would argue for its legality, but there's a handful of conservative nutsos with equally offensive views on other issues

And who will draw that line to keep that from happening...those hypocritical Christians?

Seriously, who will stop them...you liberals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The first and only statement in the article that I tried to verify proved misleading and false in both what actually happened and when it happened.  Forgive me for stopping there.  

As for the movement to legalize pedophilia, I have no doubt that pedophiles would love to have it legalized, but there will never be any traction.  I'm sure there are a handful of ultra liberals nutsos who would argue for its legality, but there's a handful of conservative nutsos with equally offensive views on other issues

Then maybe the reason for concern, which was provided in parts of the article beyond the first statement, is not as invalid or preposterous as you implied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

Its ok to have an opinion on things, but facts don't seem to matter

Well sure facts matter.  Liberals have taken prayer out of school.  Created a Welfare system to perpetuate slavery.  Approved gay marriage.   Ordered High Schools to allow boys and girls to shower and change clothes together.   Those are the facts and they are irrefutable.   If you like all those things, you must be ecstatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

We do have a congress that is controlled by conservatives......thats right they are just in office for the free stuff, they do nothing, thats why their rating is so low

Wrong again nap, at least the first line.  But to be fair, you got some of it right.  Hopefully, if you hang out here long enough, you'll actually learn something (I know I do).   Congress is not controlled by conservatives.   It's controlled by Republicans.  Unlike the Dems, who have to be liberal, the Repubs are not all conservative, although I wish they were.  Of the original 16 vying for the Repub nomination, maybe half were conservative.   As for as the ratings, they're almost always low, regardless of which party's in power.   And in it for the "free stuff", I think you pegged the vast majority of Congress, R & D.  And isn't that sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

We do have a congress that is controlled by conservatives......thats right they are just in office for the free stuff, they do nothing, thats why their rating is so low

So if the Republican controlled Congress does nothing (as you say), why are they constantly blamed for blocking Obama's socialist agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I'm curious as to when the first person will sue, claiming they got a bladder infection, or maybe will just claim mental stress for getting "stage fright" in the restroom due to the other gender being present, preventing them from completing the task at hand.

When we are all "truly equal" ( and that glorious day seems to be getting closer) there will be no gender consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 11:32 PM, bullets13 said:

Believe it or not, one does not have to be a Christian OR a conservative to have a problem with adults raping children.

since your in law enforcement....when the laws change for pedophilia will you still enforce the law?  YES OR NO is all I need from ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

since your in law enforcement....when the laws change for pedophilia will you still enforce the law?  YES OR NO is all I need from ya.

I'm still in the process of trying to get in law enforcement, but seeing as the laws will not change for pedophilia, that will not be an issue I have to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2016 at 11:32 PM, bullets13 said:

Believe it or not, one does not have to be a Christian OR a conservative to have a problem with adults raping children.

But they are the only ones that will not allow groups like NAMBLA  to continue to gain ground.

Liberals are the ones that couldn't care less about young children being exposed to transgenders in locker rooms and bathrooms.

They have no firm "line in the sand" on morality so with each generation it continues to move.

Liberals have so much criticism for the Christian when Christians are the ones that travel all around the globe, at their own expense,  providing help to those in need.

Not directing this at you Bullets, but there is a growing numbers of liberals in this country that have the anything goes attitude when it comes to moral issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Can't answer a simple question?

Same thing people said about a lot of things 20, 30, 40 years ago. 

I did answer a simple question.  the answer to your simple question was "as the laws will not change for pedophilia, that will not be an issue i have to deal with".  That being said, your question was if the law changed on pedophilia, would i still enforce the law.  I'm not sure what law i would enforce if the rules changed making it legal.  I could not arrest a pedophile, and if i did, not only would I myself be breaking the law, but no jail would accept them for breaking a law that no longer exists.  But no worries, because like i said in my original point, the laws are not going to change on pedophilia, so i don't have to worry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...