Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Alia
« on: May 03, 2009, 06:05:14 pm »

Also if that's the kind of thing acceptable on here, I'll be leaving permanently.

Then I apologize. If it's that important to you, I will refrain from - and in fact if I post a future article that is similar I will edit out - any reference to homosexuality.

However, I still welcome associations of heterosexuality as possibly being associated with paedophilia. I will not look the other way. If straight people **** little boys, I will be willing to admit it's a behaviour associated with heterosexuality.

I would, however, also welcome a complete list of necessarily nonassociated characteristics, those that can never be linked through inductive reasoning.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 06:01:15 pm »

You don't have to, as long as you point out he belongs to the NAACP.

That's the point I'm making here, omitting the fact that he is gay out of political correctness is wrong. I'm not saying the fact that he is gay should be highlighted. Now the fact that he heads a gay rights group, that is important because it shows he abused a trusted position.

That point was already in the article, thus no reason to point out he was gay in the title which is again completely irrelevant to the fact he **** a 12 year old boy. I don't care about political correctness. I care about what's factual. This wasn't factual so I changed it.

The change was fine, I made you a mod so you could do that. The rant in this thread about this is my problem, You aren't acting responsibly.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 06:00:13 pm »

Don't get so testy, I approve of the changes you made to the title. As long as the fact that he is gay is not intentionally hidden.

My position in this is both fair and rational. Don't omit, but don't exaggerate.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:58:56 pm »

You don't have to, as long as you point out he belongs to the NAACP.

That's the point I'm making here, omitting the fact that he is gay out of political correctness is wrong. I'm not saying the fact that he is gay should be highlighted. Now the fact that he heads a gay rights group, that is important because it shows he abused a trusted position.

That point was already in the article, thus no reason to point out he was gay in the title which is again completely irrelevant to the fact he **** a 12 year old boy. I don't care about political correctness. I care about what's factual. This wasn't factual so I changed it.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:57:25 pm »

I agree with Alia, the fact that he is in charge of a gay rights group makes his crimes even worse because this enforces negative stereotypes, and is a flagrant abuse of a trusted position.

I don't think there was any intention to claim he committed these crimes because he was gay, which is an absurd suggestion for anyone to make.

How about I make a bunch of threads with titles like "Straight man **** little girl" or how about "Straight man **** little boy".

I wouldn't have a problem with it. If they are straight, and you're just telling the truth, what would be the issue?

The issue would be that I was intentionally pointing out a secondary characteristic irrelevant to the **** in order to associate the two. You know damn well that was your intention as do I, because you've made similar statements in the past.

I changed them, he can change them back if he feels that strongly about it but I won't be lifting a finger to help you associate homosexuality and pedophilia.

Also if that's the kind of thing acceptable on here, I'll be leaving permanently.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:56:42 pm »

I agree with Alia, the fact that he is in charge of a gay rights group makes his crimes even worse because this enforces negative stereotypes, and is a flagrant abuse of a trusted position.

I don't think there was any intention to claim he committed these crimes because he was gay, which is an absurd suggestion for anyone to make.

How about I make a bunch of threads with titles like "Straight man **** little girl" or how about "Straight man **** little boy".

I wouldn't have a problem with it. If they are straight, and you're just telling the truth, what would be the issue?

Don't Omit, but don't highlight. Use common sense.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:55:40 pm »

You don't have to, as long as you point out he belongs to the NAACP.

That's the point I'm making here, omitting the fact that he is gay out of political correctness is wrong. I'm not saying the fact that he is gay should be highlighted. Now the fact that he heads a gay rights group, that is important because it shows he abused a trusted position.
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:53:35 pm »

I agree with Alia, the fact that he is in charge of a gay rights group makes his crimes even worse because this enforces negative stereotypes, and is a flagrant abuse of a trusted position.

I don't think there was any intention to claim he committed these crimes because he was gay, which is an absurd suggestion for anyone to make.

How about I make a bunch of threads with titles like "Straight man **** little girl" or how about "Straight man **** little boy".

I wouldn't have a problem with it. If they are straight, and you're just telling the truth, what would be the issue?
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:51:47 pm »

No, I would ban you for doing what you just accused her of doing, but what I just explained to you by giving you an example is not what I feel she did.

So I can point out in the future when a member of the NAACP **** a woman that he's a black man? Even though it would be totally irrelevant to the fact he **** a woman?

You understand how completely illogical and ludicrous that is?
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:48:56 pm »

No, I would ban you for doing what you just accused her of doing, but what I just explained to you by giving you an example is not what I feel she did.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:48:02 pm »

I would ban you.

But if you made a thread about an anti gay marriage preacher that **** a boy, girl, or did anything wrong. That would be fine. In fact it would be irresponsible for you to ignore his agenda in such a report.

You'd ban me for doing the exact same thing she just did on the opposite side of the spectrum? Hypocritical much?
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:47:09 pm »

I agree with Alia, the fact that he is in charge of a gay rights group makes his crimes even worse because this enforces negative stereotypes, and is a flagrant abuse of a trusted position.

I don't think there was any intention to claim he committed these crimes because he was gay, which is an absurd suggestion for anyone to make.

How about I make a bunch of threads with titles like "Straight man **** little girl" or how about "Straight man **** little boy".

This is not the first time she's attempted to equate pedophilia with homosexuality. And it is not only factually inaccurate but it's also offensive to anyone who is gay since this is a long time used tactic to show how gay = wrong.

Didn't she admit finding women attractive and probably being a lesbian?
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:46:11 pm »

I would ban you.

But if you made a thread about an anti gay marriage preacher that **** a boy, girl, or did anything wrong. That would be fine. In fact it would be irresponsible for you to ignore his agenda in such a report.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:44:47 pm »

I agree with Alia, the fact that he is in charge of a gay rights group makes his crimes even worse because this enforces negative stereotypes, and is a flagrant abuse of a trusted position.

I don't think there was any intention to claim he committed these crimes because he was gay, which is an absurd suggestion for anyone to make.

How about I make a bunch of threads with titles like "Straight man **** little girl" or how about "Straight man **** little boy".

This is not the first time she's attempted to equate pedophilia with homosexuality. And it is not only factually inaccurate but it's also offensive to anyone who is gay since this is a long time used tactic to show how gay = wrong.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 03, 2009, 05:44:43 pm »

It doesn't matter whether he's straight or gay, pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We've been over this.

I must here conceed that. I must also aver than men **** no more than women do. It's against the TOS to say otherwise.

However, why hide the fact that he's gay? No one here would draw the conclusion that it has anything to do with his sexual orientation. In fact, they are forbidden to do so.


Yes, yes they are.