Current Events > Trump nominee: protecting gay people will mean protecting pedophiles

(+) Yeah! (+)

pinky0926 posted...

*Googles*

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cd3vJwJUYAENbgo.jpg

He looks even more like what I thought he would look like

He looks like a Mii.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

nobody takes idiots like the alt-right seriously

President goes on Alex Jones and praises his "amazing reputation" and hires Steve Bannon as his chief strategist.

But hey, no one on the right takes them seriously. The House of Representatives has The Donald subreddit help write legislation, but hey, no one takes them seriously...
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I don't normally say this, but where are all the Trump supporters on CE now? I don't see any in this topic.

The Admiral posted...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think the gay rights rhetoric (especially the "born that way" nonsesnse) has crept into the pedophile acceptance movement. We have several users here who defend it all the time as an alternative sexual preference. Even before the disgusting Salon articles, more moderate left-wing publications like The Atlantic had articles like this one painting pedophiles who've looked at child porn as sympathetic victims:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/i-pedophile/278921/

Mal_Fet posted...

Meanwhile, on leftist news sites,

---

-Gavirulax- posted...

MrMallard posted...

There are people in the community who feel the same way, to my knowledge. TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, are one such group.

I'm not big on the gay community in general.
Besides the extremely obvious (sucking dick and taking it up the ass) I don't really "act" gay though lol.

That's cool. I talk insistently and incessantly about the community, but it's not a requirement to like or talk about it and it comes with its own stereotypes and unwanted labels that I can see people disliking. I kinda talk about it like it's the be-all end-all, sorry if it got super heavy-handed and presumptuous.
---

DreadedWave posted...

Sounds exactly like the sort of person Trump would nominate for something.

MrMallard posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

MrMallard posted...

There are people in the community who feel the same way, to my knowledge. TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, are one such group.

I'm not big on the gay community in general.
Besides the extremely obvious (sucking dick and taking it up the ass) I don't really "act" gay though lol.

That's cool. I talk insistently and incessantly about the community, but it's not a requirement to like or talk about it and it comes with its own stereotypes and unwanted labels that I can see people disliking. I kinda talk about it like it's the be-all end-all, sorry if it got super heavy-handed and presumptuous.

I feel like you can't really fault the "Gay community" for being a thing and "acting gay" when half the world wants them dead and the other half doesn't give the equal rights.

Used to have this debate with a Christian Preacher who was offended by Gay Pride Parades.
---

"Nobody takes the alt right seriously." How boneheaded can you get.

-Gavirulax- posted...

MrMallard posted...

That's cool. I talk insistently and incessantly about the community, but it's not a requirement to like or talk about it and it comes with its own stereotypes and unwanted labels that I can see people disliking. I kinda talk about it like it's the be-all end-all, sorry if it got super heavy-handed and presumptuous.

As I said I'm all for identifying as gay (I'm a slut, bit hard to not notice that) - but for the most part I still act like a straight guy.

gross
---

Statistically, most male pedophiles, identify as heterosexuals and lead heterosexual lives, often with a wife and kids of their own.

Stupidity is a hallmark for Trump's cabinet.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Admiral is VERY wrong in his statements about homosexuality.

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality. I simply pointed out that the pedo acceptance movement definitely did try to ride on the coattails of the gay rights movement.
---

Wow, no it isn't. Then again, I don't care at what pedophiles or what gay/lesbian people do.
---

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Admiral is VERY wrong in his statements about homosexuality.

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality. I simply pointed out that the pedo acceptance movement definitely did try to ride on the coattails of the gay rights movement.

I mean literally your first sentence is a direct statement about homosexuality: "You're kidding yourself if you don't think the gay rights rhetoric (especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)..."
---

Please don't feed The Admiral.
---

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Admiral is VERY wrong in his statements about homosexuality.

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality. I simply pointed out that the pedo acceptance movement definitely did try to ride on the coattails of the gay rights movement.

I mean literally your first sentence is a direct statement about homosexuality: "You're kidding yourself if you don't think the gay rights rhetoric (especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)..."

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

The Deadpool posted...

President goes on Alex Jones and praises his "amazing reputation" and hires Steve Bannon as his chief strategist.

Wouldn't call Alex Jones alt-right.
He's a nut, but not alt-right.

As explained, both extremes are shit.

A simple explained, one extreme is denounced but its more reasonable members. The other extreme is embraced.

That's why the example of the pro pedophilia leftist was some idiot no one has heard of in some site no one visits. While the example of the guy who thinks homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia is appointed by the president to join the executive branch.

See the difference?
---

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.
---

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.
---

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

The best justification for gay rights is that consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't put others at risk and/or impose. Anyone against gay rights is a legit moron. In general, not referring to anyone ITT in particular as I haven't read through it all

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

Are you trying to say what you're against is using "born this way" as an argument for gay rights? Or are you trying to say you don't think gay people are born that way?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

The Deadpool posted...

A simple explained, one extreme is denounced but its more reasonable members. The other extreme is embraced.

That's why the example of the pro pedophilia leftist was some idiot no one has heard of in some site no one visits. While the example of the guy who thinks homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia is appointed by the president to join the executive branch.

See the difference?

Sure, the right (all branches, no matter how extreme) is much more likely to coalesce with each other as opposed to the left - which is what pretty much got Trump elected.

It also tends to be one area that the right has over the left with moderates (being the whole free speech thing).

The lack of self awareness is unreal.

Alright, fair enough. I guess the difference people need to critically think about is that simply being born a certain way doesn't mean we should allow you to hurt other people.

On the topic of sympathy for pedos, I'm interested to know how project dunkelfeld works out. Would you feel the same way if it was discovered that proactive, compassionate help for pedophiles was the most effective way to combat potential child predators?
---

The Admiral posted...

And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

As if they wouldn't use it regardless.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Admiral is VERY wrong in his statements about homosexuality.

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality. I simply pointed out that the pedo acceptance movement definitely did try to ride on the coattails of the gay rights movement.

I mean literally your first sentence is a direct statement about homosexuality: "You're kidding yourself if you don't think the gay rights rhetoric (especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)..."

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

I disagree with both of your statements.

1. You're attempting to simply and discredit the nature of sexuality with your statement. It isn't just a simple explanation.
2. It is a knock to homosexuality because of #1 above. The sort of statements you've made point to you thinking that sexuality (homosexuality or otherwise) is not inherent.

It is inherent, but it's nonsense that just being born a certain way is an argument for why that thing should be accepted. I always said that was the weakest argument the LGBT made in favor of expanding gay rights, and I stand by that.
---

_RETS_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

The best justification for gay rights is that consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't put others at risk and/or impose. Anyone against gay rights is a legit moron. In general, not referring to anyone ITT in particular as I haven't read through it all

Doesn't that argument only make sense in giving them rights when it comes to things like marriages or the actual sexual acts
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Meanwhile, on leftist news sites,

Mealwhile, Mal_Fet deflects to liberals with a strawman in an attempt to "not defend" his Orange Messiah.

i missed you, bud!
---

emblem boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

The best justification for gay rights is that consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't put others at risk and/or impose. Anyone against gay rights is a legit moron. In general, not referring to anyone ITT in particular as I haven't read through it all

Doesn't that argument only make sense in giving them rights when it comes to things like marriages or the actual sexual acts

What argument are you referring to?

And @Asherlee10, not that I think it will happen, but all it takes is a change in the definition of "consent". Who knows what sort of mental gymnastics "progressives" in the future will go through to say "well age of consent is an arbitrary standard, but consent is actually...."

Age of consent, afaik, is a modern standard and has been around for a much shorter time than it has not.

That argument?
---

_RETS_ posted...

emblem boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

The best justification for gay rights is that consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't put others at risk and/or impose. Anyone against gay rights is a legit moron. In general, not referring to anyone ITT in particular as I haven't read through it all

Doesn't that argument only make sense in giving them rights when it comes to things like marriages or the actual sexual acts

What argument are you referring to?

And @Asherlee10, not that I think it will happen, but all it takes is a change in the definition of "consent". Who knows what sort of mental gymnastics "progressives" in the future will go through to say "well age of consent is an arbitrary standard, but consent is actually...."

Age of consent, afaik, is a modern standard and has been around for a much shorter time than it has not.

Maybe I should ask first what you mean by equal rights.

You're saying the best argument for equal rights for gay people is that they're consenting adults. Isn't that only an argument for why sexual acts and lifestyle choices like marriage should be protected?
---

The Admiral posted...

I always said that was the weakest argument the LGBT made in favor of expanding gay rights, and I stand by that.

But given that many anti-LGBT laws are/were based around the idea that one's sexual orientation is a choice, "born this way" negates those. So it's less the "expansion of gay rights" and more the "nullification of anti-gay statutes"
---

Asherlee10 posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And @Asherlee10, not that I think it will happen, but all it takes is a change in the definition of "consent". Who knows what sort of mental gymnastics "progressives" in the future will go through to say "well age of consent is an arbitrary standard, but consent is actually...."

Age of consent, afaik, is a modern standard and has been around for a much shorter time than it has not.

I don't think we are at risk of the age of consent or the definition changing. Extremists are always going to extremists and they hold no weight in their stances. I'm not worried.

I'm not worried about it either and don't think we are at risk for it. But if the main wall between what we have currently and active pedophilia being normalized is an arbitrary definition, it can at least be considered a possibility that that definition can change and devolve over time depending on the flavor-of-the-generation social outrage movements.

emblem boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

emblem boy posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The Admiral posted...

pinky0926 posted...

The Admiral posted...

And that's true. But it isn't a knock on homosexuality.

If you're saying that people are talking nonsense when they suggest that genetics plays a part in homosexuality that is totally a knock on homosexuality. Or more specifically, gay people will perceive it as an offhanded dismissal of genuine grievances they experience.

That part isn't nonsense, but the "born this way" rhetoric was always the weakest and most useless justification for expanding gay rights. And it opened the door for pedos to use the same rhetoric.

The best justification for gay rights is that consenting adults should be able to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't put others at risk and/or impose. Anyone against gay rights is a legit moron. In general, not referring to anyone ITT in particular as I haven't read through it all

Doesn't that argument only make sense in giving them rights when it comes to things like marriages or the actual sexual acts

What argument are you referring to?

And @Asherlee10, not that I think it will happen, but all it takes is a change in the definition of "consent". Who knows what sort of mental gymnastics "progressives" in the future will go through to say "well age of consent is an arbitrary standard, but consent is actually...."

Age of consent, afaik, is a modern standard and has been around for a much shorter time than it has not.

Maybe I should ask first what you mean by equal rights.

You're saying the best argument for equal rights for gay people is that they're consenting adults. Isn't that only an argument for why sexual acts and lifestyle choices like marriage should be protected?

Equal rights meaning they have the same opportunities as everyone else and access to the same things. Marriage and lifestyle choices of course included. The fact that they are gay doesn't affect anyone else in any way at all and with things like that, people should be able to do or be whatever they want.

philsov posted...

The Admiral posted...

I always said that was the weakest argument the LGBT made in favor of expanding gay rights, and I stand by that.

But given that many anti-LGBT laws are/were based around the idea that one's sexual orientation is a choice, "born this way" negates those. So it's less the "expansion of gay rights" and more the "nullification of anti-gay statutes"

A better counter would be that even if it is a choice, it has no negative affect whatsoever on anyone, and thus they should be able to "choose" whatever they want. No one should be able to dictate how anyone else lives their lives if they aren't harming or imposing.

With marriage specifically, is not being able to get married going to make me not "want" to be gay anymore? I just don't understand the end game.

As far as choice vs. nature. If I was in the Middle East why the fuck would i choose to be gay and get myself brutalized and thrown off a building? None of it makes any sense

The Admiral posted...

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality.

The Admiral posted...

(especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)

The Admiral posted...

And that's true.

...Are you doing a Rick James impression here?

Rick James posted...

What I'm gonna do just all of the sudden just jump up and grind my feet in somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that.

Rick James posted...

...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.

---

That_Happened posted...

The Admiral posted...

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality.

The Admiral posted...

(especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)

The Admiral posted...

And that's true.

...Are you doing a Rick James impression here?

Rick James posted...

What I'm gonna do just all of the sudden just jump up and grind my feet in somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that.

Rick James posted...

...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.

If your reading comprehension was better, you'd see that I was referring to "born that way" as a line of rhetoric, since being born a certain way doesn't mean anything in terms of why it should be accepted or given new rights. I never questioned that homosexuals are actually born that way.
---

I think there's a chicken and egg link between the 2, in some cases.
---

My bigger problem is he's not a scientist. How can someone so scientifically ignorant be "chief scientist." Assign a real scientist to the job please.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"If a man sucks another man's dick that means he wants to fuck children."


Erm... i er... i don't follow

This. I never really have understood how people make that leap. It doesn't make any sense at all.

It's also never made sense to me how straight guys always seem to be worried that a gay guy will hit on them simply because they're in the same room together. Just because a guy is attracted to guys in general doesn't mean he wants to fuck YOU specifically.
---

The Admiral posted...

That_Happened posted...

The Admiral posted...

I didn't make any statements about homosexuality.

The Admiral posted...

(especially the "born that way" nonsesnse)

The Admiral posted...

And that's true.

...Are you doing a Rick James impression here?

Rick James posted...

What I'm gonna do just all of the sudden just jump up and grind my feet in somebody's couch like it's something to do? Come on, I got a little more sense than that.

Rick James posted...

...Yeah, I remember grinding my feet into Eddie's couch.

If your reading comprehension was better, you'd see that I was referring to "born that way" as a line of rhetoric, since being born a certain way doesn't mean anything in terms of why it should be accepted or given new rights. I never questioned that homosexuals are actually born that way.

What? That's generally a major reason why someone's rights should be protected. If you didn't have a choice in the matter and the way you are doesn't actually harm anyone else, why shouldn't you have the same protections that other people have?
---

_RETS_ posted...

If I was in the Middle East why the fuck would i choose to be gay and get myself brutalized and thrown off a building?

I mean even if you were born gay in the Middle East, it wouldn't make sense to choose to do gay actions at the penalty of death. But people still do so...who knows?
---

ChaoticKnuckles posted...

The Admiral posted...
And that's true.

If your reading comprehension was better, you'd see that I was referring to "born that way" as a line of rhetoric, since being born a certain way doesn't mean anything in terms of why it should be accepted or given new rights. I never questioned that homosexuals are actually born that way.

What? That's generally a major reason why someone's rights should be protected. If you didn't have a choice in the matter and the way you are doesn't actually harm anyone else, why shouldn't you have the same protections that other people have?

Because being born a certain way means literally nothing. People are born sociopaths, psychopaths, and pedophiles, as we've established here. That's not an excuse for any of those groups to be accepted.

Gay people absolutely do deserve equal rights, but the fact they were born with their orientation is not an argument for why they should get them.
---