• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If someone only molest young boys is he gay, a pedohile or both. [W:417]

If someone only molests young boys is he gay, a pedohile, or both


  • Total voters
    68
To anybody who would like to get back on the topic I am more than willing to discuss this like an adult.

I have been busy last few days. Is that guy one who thinks incorrectly he knows about evolution, or is he a bible says type?
 
More of an "I am right because i am me" type. He is pretty insistent on that old biology argument.

Those are fun. It involves a lot of ignorance to try a biology argument.
 
And apparently I conceded 12 times. That i don't get.

Just another bull headed person that just can't accept the reality that people can disagree.

Uh… the correct count is 13 concessions… counting that one.

FTR: Disagreement is fine… nothing wrong with it. But while you're perfectly entitled to disagree, you're not entitled to offer fallacious, non following, disembodied emotional deflection and demand that such is substantive argument.

Here's a tip: Words mean things. When one uses a word, one should be sure that one understands what it means. And where one is corrected, one should recognize the error and readily admit such, and where the stated position is inalterably crippled by the new information, one should adjust one's position to reflect the new found understanding.

This is how we learn and grow, it is how civilization PROGRESSES… through sound, open and honest communication.
 
Last edited:
LOL!

Would you be so kind as to provide the board with other exceptions, wherein the meaning of a term, such as: "Sexual Orientation" is wholly isolated from the words of which the phrase is otherwise intrinsically rooted?

Does it not occur to the member that, where one must go to such lengths as to detach the meaning of the words used to describe something, that the concept being conveyed MUST be fraudulent?

For Instance, I like to race. I truly enjoy the competition of one Rocket Ship against another. MAN! I am telling you that I can't get enough of flying through space at incredible speed, particular at low altitude, feeling the wind against my face… Rocket ships, or "Missiles" if ya will, just get my juices flowin'. The thrill of feeling the engine power up, as the tension of the launch mechanism stresses to hold back the fury of the machine which I have built with my own two hands, is like no other.

Now having said that I'd like to show you a photo of my Rocket Ship…

photo_11819042_the-cheerful-girl-and-tricycle-cartoon.html


But please understand, that the term "Rocket Ship" does not convey the ideas which would otherwise be asserted through the use of "Rocket" and "Ship"… I just think that when I use that term, people will get the idea passed along by the defining traits of the term, which is somewhat more flattering than TRICYCLE!

Now does that make me a dishonest person, just because I use a term which has no correlation to the words used to comprise the term? No.. I don't think so, because for you to conclude otherwise makes YOU judgmental of me and THAT IS YOUR problem, not mine…

I am an "HONEST" person… which FTR: when I use the word "Honest" I mean to convey the idea of being free of deceit and exuding truthfulness, despite knowing that I am full of deceit and practice untruthfulness.

.
.
.

Now with that said… is there ANYTHING getting through at all, in terms of the calamitous nature of your position, wherein you claim a given term, which you further claim has no correlation to the words used in the term?

If you want to make a straw man argument in order to make YOURSELF look silly be my guest. Saves me the trouble of MY making you look silly.

I never said the two words have nothing to do with entire concept. What I said was that the concept is more than just the combination of the two words. A rocket and a ship are different from a rocketship.

There. You have now been educated on the concept of language.
 
"Sir, do you know why I pulled you over?

"No sir Officer, I can't imagine… please tell me, cause I am late for an appointment."

"Well, you were doing 140 MPH through that school zone, posted at 25mph"

"No Sir, I was not. I was doing no such thing. You see, I do not use a numeric scale as an indicator of speed. I prefer the use colors. I was right at the edge of pink and I feel that THAT was about right for me. So, you may feel that I was speeding, but you are wrong."

"Get out of the car, hands first… You're under arrest."

"Oh HOW wonderful, I love to arrest… I was arrested last night several times and enjoyed it very much. I am actually on my way to meet a fella who also wants to arrest me."

"Get out of the car Sir…" [This is tango 7, I need a tow-truck and an ambulance at this location…]"

In other words, you have nothing. Good to know.
 
Normal, in the instance of sexuality, is established by the design of the human species… which provides for the male to be attracted to females.

No it isn't... not unless you are discussing sexuality in a statistic sense.

This specific and wholly incontrovertible fact, serves the purpose of the biological imperative… which FTR: is an objective standard, established by nature and is not subject antiquity due to popular whimsy.

Since we know that procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation, your point is irrelevant. I suspect I will be saying this to you a lot as you seem to be having a lot of difficulty with this rather basic concept.


Procreation is a function of sexual behavior, which serves the biological imperative… which is served through the normality wherein the male is oriented toward sexual gratification through coitus with the female.

Tell us the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation.

Again, this is sexuality 101, but it always amazes me at how many are unable to make this distinction.

Procreation is discouraged through the abnormal sexual orientation wherein an individual is sexually attracted to individuals of its own gender.

Since procreation is irrelevant to sexual orientation, this comment is irrelevant.

See? Told you.


Procreation is only possible through the standard established by nature which promotes such. Therefore, procreation is dependent upon sexual orientation. Ergo, your argument is spurious, and as such, it >FAILS<.

Since procreation is a function of sexual BEHAVIOR, not sexual orientation, it is irrelevant to the latter. Ergo, your argument is a failure.

Heck, I could have told you that posts ago.
 
Well, if you can find a point that remains debatable, bring it… I'm open to the discussion.

But just to recap, we've established that Homosexuality is a deviant, abnormal sexual orientation… that should never be encouraged where the goal is a viable culture.

What's left?

Actually, we have established several other things. We have established that you don't understand the difference between procreation and sexual orientation. We have established that you don't know the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. We have established that you have used the word "deviant" in an incorrect fashion. We have established that you don't understand basic biological processes in relation to who partakes in them. We have established that you do not understand that there are several different purposes to sexual activity.

All in all, we have established that you are quite uneducated on this topic and have been demolished in this debate. It has been quite interesting, though I would suggest that you bring a bit more to this topic the next time you attempt to discuss it. That way the discussion might be a bit more challenging.
 
Last edited:
Having intercourse after menopause imperils society, how again?

Well, according to AmericanbyChoice, any sexual behavior that does not fulfill the "biological imperative" of procreation is "abnormal." Elsewhere, he compares (by implication at least) any non-procreative sexual behavior to disease...and says we therefore shouldn't encourage it.

If my tone made me sound like I was espousing such lunatic ideas rather than mocking them, I'm glad to set the record straight!
 
And apparently I conceded 12 times. That i don't get.

He's not arguing with you in an honest fashion. So for example, when you use the plainly rhetorical "If I made a concession, then why are you still debating me"....he counts that as another concession.

This is by definition a dishonest rejoinder, even as he elsewhere remarks about debating with honesty.

Just shake your head.
 
He's not arguing with you in an honest fashion. So for example, when you use the plainly rhetorical "If I made a concession, then why are you still debating me"....he counts that as another concession.

This is by definition a dishonest rejoinder, even as he elsewhere remarks about debating with honesty.

Just shake your head.

I am done with his childish antics.
 
Whereas your opinion is rooted in bigotry and ignorance.


Why does it always fall back bigotry and ignorance with you Liberals? Why can't we have a difference of opinion on the issue? You have nothing to add so you throw that crap out there that we are homophobes and bigots which neither are true.
 
Why does it always fall back bigotry and ignorance with you Liberals? Why can't we have a difference of opinion on the issue? You have nothing to add so you throw that crap out there that we are homophobes and bigots which neither are true.

If you quack like a homophobic bigoted duck.....
 
And you have a long track record of mindless railing against inoffensive people who want to live their lives without interference from the ignorant.
 
And you have a long track record of mindless railing against inoffensive people who want to live their lives without interference from the ignorant.

Now when you got nothing else you attack me...........so sad.
 
Why does it always fall back bigotry and ignorance with you Liberals? Why can't we have a difference of opinion on the issue? You have nothing to add so you throw that crap out there that we are homophobes and bigots which neither are true.

It is thrown out there because it is true at least some what. why are you so concerned about gay people.
 
It is thrown out there because it is true at least some what. why are you so concerned about gay people.

Much of the time, males who project extreme homophobia do so because they are themselves unsure of their own sexuality.

I can't say that is necessarily the case for any particular individual, but it is a general rule of thumb.

Plus, such males often ignore female homosexuality completely, and only focus on males. It's an interesting phenomenon.
 
Much of the time, males who project extreme homophobia do so because they are themselves unsure of their own sexuality.

I can't say that is necessarily the case for any particular individual, but it is a general rule of thumb.

Plus, such males often ignore female homosexuality completely, and only focus on males. It's an interesting phenomenon.

I've wondered at this too.

I think it speaks to issues of masculinity. If there's one way (well, besides modes of dress) that men are actually more restricted than women, it's in the matter of intrusion into the body. The idea is that--unlike for a woman--it's a nearly sacred space, and to break this "taboo," and allow sexual intrusion inside oneself, is to shatter masculinity itself.

Meh...it's a theory! :)
 
Much of the time, males who project extreme homophobia do so because they are themselves unsure of their own sexuality.

I can't say that is necessarily the case for any particular individual, but it is a general rule of thumb.

Plus, such males often ignore female homosexuality completely, and only focus on males. It's an interesting phenomenon.



Here we go again. Some new talking points would be great.
 
Here we go again. Some new talking points would be great.

Well, since you keep bringing up the same failed talking points, you should expect people to use the same rebuttals.
 
Back
Top Bottom