Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#566070 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually laugh.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage. As only gays will do it, it's a special right. Special just for gays.
The first answer was perfect.

The second answer is ridiculous. SSM doesn't stipulate that you have to be gay.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#566071 Nov 26, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
The first answer was perfect.
The second answer is ridiculous. SSM doesn't stipulate that you have to be gay.
But a straight person would never marry the same sex. It'd be a law tailored exclusively for gays...

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#566072 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually laugh.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage. As only gays will do it, it's a special right. Special just for gays.
.. in most states, only a man can marry a woman so males have a special right. That's unconstitutional ..

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#566073 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic was about pedos, which would have to be adults, thus if kids know more about how computers work than their parents, how would pedos be more capable than those kids? That's the contradiction in your assertion.
Thanks Kitten, now I remember. The answer is that pedos can use the net, and it has already been happening, and many have been caught, of attracting children to them through various ruses, such as pretending to be another kid, or even pretending to be an adult but with something to give to the child that they must do something to get. Since in most cases we have no idea if the person we are communicating is truthful or a 100% fake, so these people can get a lot of kids simply due to the very large numbers who they can access.

Yes kids in general do have a better grasp of computers and the net than most of their parents do, but it is the adults who invented and use the computers on their jobs etc, and amongst these you don't need many knowledgeable pedos to make up for a lot of naive parents, which gets kids into trouble.

As an adult in one year I met about 8 ** women through an on-line popular dating site, and I am now married to one of them. As it turned out, none of the women misrepresented themselves, and turned out to be a gay man or an ugly woman who had posted a picture of an attractive woman, etc., but from a woman's point of view I understand that many have been misled by unscrupulous people to meet them or do things, which when it was too late they found out they had been fooled.

One thing with all of the women I met from online sites is we both insisted on meeting at a very public restaurant where, if anything had been misrepresented, one or either could have walked away with no harm done. I guess the exception to that is my current wife who I met at the entrance to a large public museum type place in a large city, and at the moment of meeting we each saw each other from a distance, and in her case she could have turned and walked away if she felt that I was not the person she had seen online, but she did not have the protection of being in the company of other people, as at that moment, if I recall correctly, no other people were in the immediate vicinity.

Fortunately that didn't happen to me, though I must admit I was fooled online in one or two cases in thinking that the person I was talking to was someone other than who they were (not in the online dating thing though). In fact how many times has that happened just on this site, and is still happening daily?

** Not wanting to sound like a real lady's man, as those were 8 of about 12 women that I dated in my whole life, and about 6 of them including my wife, were all located in a matter of a couple of hours online on one day and I saw all of them in the course of about 8 days, whereas 2 others were found earlier in the year, and I was still visiting one of them platonically at the time I met my wife (she had insisted on only a platonic relationship because I was still trying very hard to keep my partner who had cheated on me. She didn't want to be the 'other' woman. My meeting my wife was more a comedy of errors than a deliberate attempt to find a spouse, but as it turned out, though we did things in a bit of an unorthodox fashion, the result has worked out just fine.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#566074 Nov 26, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
If the percentage of priests accused of rape is 1.8 %, what do you think the percentage is of sexual attraction to children? Do you think it would be higher than 4%. That statistic is also vague. Are they talking about America or the world? It's clear that the 4% represents people with the sexual attraction towards children. It doesn't say how many of those actually act on that attraction.
My contention that sexual repression increases the chance of unethical sexual behavior is sound. If priests were allowed to marry, they would be less likely to act on any underlying urges they might have. They would be less likely to develop urges that they never had to begin with.
<quoted text>
This link didn't take me to the specific page, but it came up on a page from the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. I wouldn't trust this source independently.
That was the original page but at the bottom they link all their sources like FBI databases and accredited places of study. Otherwise i would think it might be bias too

You are right, it does not make the distinction between pedophile and abuser. Although (and granted this is hardly a scientific method) I seriously doubt there are many pedophiles who don't try to abuse. They may not all get caught. But lets say half of them do. Then that puts you at the same number of Catholic priest accused. And maybe some of them are innocent?

This isn't an exact science and in no way is trying to defend the priests that abuse. But the numbers are close enough where we can see there probably is not much difference between the general population and priests. And we know for sure more teachers are guilty than priests. So all this tells me is again, pedophiles probably makes up about 4% of the population and will take jobs where they will have the best opportunity to abuse
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
It is for priests who are forbidden from having normal sexual relationships. For teachers, it wouldn't be a big factor.
<quoted text>
You have to apply the same way of measuring across the board. And if more teachers abuse than priests and teachers aren't repressed at all, then how can repression turn people into pedophiles?
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Does sexual repression help anything? I would only argue that repression makes all of this worse, whatever the causes might be. Repression could even be the root cause in some cases, like with Priests who are not allowed to have normal sexual relationships, but have easy access to children who are already conditioned to see them as authority figures. Allowing priests to have normal sexual relationships would decrease the amount of child rapes.
No sexual repression is not a good thing. But i would argue it only exasperates what is already there. A kid wanting to rebel will rebel harder. A person interested in sex will be all the more active. But it doesn't turn someone straight into a pedophile and it doesn't turn someone gay into a pedophile. Pedophiles are who they are either through genetics or systematic abuse imo.

Could pulling kids out of churches and schools be an option? Maybe. But wouldn't a better solution be just don't leave them unsupervised? Always have several parents there or teachers or priests as odds are they aren't all pedophiles. Just like the more practical solution here is just don't subject kids to genitals in their face and make them think it is ok for adult strangers to be around them naked. I mean I am not suggesting we over-react and go nuts but some solutions are easy and when there is no reason not to do them as there is no real plus side as we can teach kids not to be repressed without needing naked adults to do it, then we should find smarter ways.(T) Peace

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#566075 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Puleeze
It was simply some creative hyperbole to illustrate I would be pissed to have my God-child subjected to something I found that offensive and invasive of his personal space. Do you really think I would beat a man in front of a 4-year old child unless we were in physical danger? Clearly seeing a violent assault would do more damage to his psyche than seeing someone naked, even though both would be traumatic. All due respect but commons sense should made this obvious. If it didn't, you could have asked.
(T) Peace
you have the integrity of a christian

what skom

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#566076 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Your online activity can easily be traced, what better opportunity is there than a secretary?
Yes, but that is one person; online there are unlimited number of people. The one secretary may not be a willing possibility. In my years of banking, which I was in a marriage at the time, because I was usually working in an actual bank branch somewhere, there were always one or two men and sometimes 10 or 12 women in the office. I will admit that I developed very strong crushes on a few of them over the years, but it never got passed on to the woman, partly due to the fact I was married, but also I am rather a coward when it comes to pursuing a woman, and if I had made a proposal to one and been rejected, which would likely have been the case, it would have been devastating for me.

Dating through the net though takes away having to look a woman in the eyes when you ask her out, and of course you already know she is there for the purpose of dating, so the issues to overcome are not as great as just picking a woman who is married in your office who you happen to have the hots for. Or at least that is what I discovered in my two experiences of online dating, both in the same year, and both on the rebound from a broken heart, due to a cheating spouse.
feces for jesus

East Meadow, NY

#566077 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there are three different terms for hell. Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus.
Hades is from the original Greek word Gehenna which is translated "hell" or "the fires of hell,
Facts are your enemy it would seem
You do understand how words are translated do you not?
I know all about how Sheol, Tartarus, Gehenna and Hades are wrongly translated as hell. Why can't you understand that it is impossible for the word hell to be in the bible since the word hell (actually, a variant of it) didn't exist until 700 years later.

Seems to me you need to brush up on your Greek mythology as well as your understanding of linguistics and etymology.

Hades is not your christian lie of hell and it certainly is not "from the original Greek word Gehenna".

Hades has nothing to do with a realm fire, eternal torture, or a spooky devil figure.

In the Greek culture, all the dead go to Hades. Do all the dead go to "hell" in your religion?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#566078 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup.
You say obese. I say really really fat.
No dif
you are proud of your lack of education

how terribly christian of you

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#566079 Nov 26, 2012
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. in most states, only a man can marry a woman so males have a special right. That's unconstitutional ..
What?!?

In most states, only a woman can marry a man so femes have a special right. That's unconstitutional.

Crazy tawk.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#566080 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
If they didn't care, they wouldn't get all huffy puffy when they're called names & made fun of. They wouldn't "protest" and ask for special rights.
<quoted text>
I don't think I have any power over your life. Nor do I want any.
I didn't say I "do" cause you anguish, I said I think, if any harm I could cause you, that's all it's be. But again, I don't wish you any harm.
<quoted text>
No. I'll be me. Of you don't like it, tough shit.
You be you. If I don't like it, tough shit.
RR, are you for real? If you belonged to a segment of the population that has endured all sorts of abuse, some of them throughout their whole lives just because of who they are, do you not think you would have something to say about it, if the opportunity presented itself?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#566081 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
But a straight person would never marry the same sex. It'd be a law tailored exclusively for gays...
How many gay people do you know that want to marry the opposite sex? It's a law tailored exclusively for straights. Why do you want special rights?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#566082 Nov 26, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you are proud of your lack of education
how terribly christian of you
LMAO!!

Coming from the guy who can't capitalize or use punctuation. You are NOT one to criticize education.

Besides, why is using the word fat instead if obese uneducated to you?

Is it uneducated to be politically incorrect? To you?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#566083 Nov 26, 2012
boooots wrote:
<quoted text>
RR, are you for real? If you belonged to a segment of the population that has endured all sorts of abuse, some of them throughout their whole lives just because of who they are, do you not think you would have something to say about it, if the opportunity presented itself?
Yes, I'm for real.

And believe me, there's a lot of people like me out there.

I do NOT persecute gays in any way. I'm simply posting my opinion here. I don't see why that's such a big damn deal. I don't have to like or accept anyone or anything. Just because you don't like it doesn't make me wrong.

For example, look at how much you shit talk Christians. You berate us & voice your opinion on how foolish you think we are AND how strange we are to you. Should you stop?

No.

That would negate your God given & America protected right to speak your mind freely. That's all I'm doing, speaking my mind.

Why us that so wrong?

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#566084 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What?!?
In most states, only a woman can marry a man so femes have a special right. That's unconstitutional.
Crazy tawk.
.. you started the crazy tawk, I responded with the same idiocy. You know you're wrong, I know you're wrong. That's all that matters ..

.. now, be a good little pooper and tell me you're sorry. Might let you nuzzle up to my moniker ..

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#566085 Nov 26, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
How many gay people do you know that want to marry the opposite sex? It's a law tailored exclusively for straights. Why do you want special rights?
What has always been is "special"?

Why would anyone want to be gay?

What's the deal?

And why do I see so many so-called gay people dating someone of the same se that's trying to look like the opposite sex?

(gay men dressing & acting like women / gay women dressing & acting like men)

sup wit dat?

“What's left to defend?”

Since: Jan 11

Freedom

#566086 Nov 26, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
How many gay people do you know that want to marry the opposite sex? It's a law tailored exclusively for straights. Why do you want special rights?
He walked right into that one.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#566087 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What has always been is "special"?
Why would anyone want to be gay?
What's the deal?
And why do I see so many so-called gay people dating someone of the same se that's trying to look like the opposite sex?
(gay men dressing & acting like women / gay women dressing & acting like men)
sup wit dat?
Polygamy has always been.

Why would anyone want to be straight? What's the deal?

I don't know what you see. You'd have to ask them.

sup wit dat?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#566088 Nov 26, 2012
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Like RR, I too had a problem in ninth grade. Some moron I had never met was constantly messing with me on a daily basis in gym class. I tried to reason with him, even offered friendship, all to no avail. After a few weeks of this constant badgering, I finally lost it and surprised myself by beating the crap out of him. The bullying stopped immediately. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to stop violence is to use more violence.
My being bullied was when I was in a school with kids from 6 to 16 years of age, grades 1 to 8, in one room, and we all played together most days at breaks because of the small total number of people. The game on some days and sometimes lasting weeks at a time was 'let's pick on boooots'.

At 6, 7, 8, 9, etc., with the bullies, some of which were the big kids in grade 8, and all of them picking on just one little kid, what recourse to violence would I have had other than bringing one of my dad's guns to school and shooting one of them? But back in those days shootings in schools were not really a choice anyone had ever heard of, besides most of the bullies were also closely related to me.

As it turns out, though I probably didn't realize the connection at the time, the ringleaders were our nearest neighbors, a family of 6 children, and the ones we played with most in our early lives because we lived closest to, and they were the descendents of the eldest son of the person who had brought most of the settlers to our community, and I was a descendent of his sister the next eldest child in the family.

It could very well be that there was some adult family jealousy being expressed at home, which the kids were hearing and bringing to school to pick on me, as I was from one of the more respected churchgoing households, while the other family were not church going, and perhaps the parents resented the position in the community their cousins (actually the bullies' father, and my mom's father were 1st cousins) held. My mother's mom was our church organist, and held that position for 65 years.

I know that one of the things that I got bullied about a lot was that I went to church and wouldn't use profanity, and they wanted me to. In those days I would risk being picked on to save my soul. Today I wouldn't be so foolish. I was also the first kid in the school to wear glasses and that was likely from about age 7.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#566089 Nov 26, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You were raised to be a sissy?
pfffttt Canadians....
I think it does tremendous good to bully back the bully. It shows him that he can't pick on everyone. It's a great morale booster to the other kids, too. Because they know the school ain't gonna do shit about it.
It sounds like you were likely one of the bullies yourself, because that is really only effective in some very isolated cases, and usually in a case of a really weak bully who bullies because he is a sissy and when stood up to backs off. If the bully though is not one of those and he has strong allies, and you have none, fighting ain't going to do the trick.

Today though, if you are counseling your kids to hit other kids I think you should be stopped.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 5 min MUQ2 38,053
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 22 min Sridhar b 1,304
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 25 min Just Think 120,625
no strings sex in margate (Nov '10) 29 min Dave hernebay 50
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 48 min RADEKT 267,308
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Marlowe 442,004
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr hojo 567,383
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 2 hr Rosa_Winkel 97,429
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 hr Black Thunder 42 607,067
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 17 hr henk 175
More from around the web