Crime Mother of 9 shot and killed for selling pride flags.

[Horse Style]

I think if you cant leave your children alone with a leader of an institution, it might be best to avoid that institution entirely.

One of the most foolish statements made on this forum.

 

[44nutman]

One of the most foolish statements made on this forum.

Yea, all they have to do is not leave their kids alone with church officials. Easy fix since the priests are stripping and twerking during service.

And that's clearly a "no" on you having proof that the broader church community is okay with the sex crimes.

You said all you have to do is not leave your kids alone with Church Officials.
I was just pointing out, I would try to avoid places that if you think if you leave your kids alone with a leader of that institution, you think they will be molested.

Imagine if I told you, I really love my church, but if there is one drawback, the priest molests children. I recommend you take your family there, just don't leave your kids with any of the officials or they might get molested. See you there on Sunday.

 

[Libero cane v2]

One of the most foolish statements made on this forum.

You don’t think a corrupted leader reflects negatively on the organisation he runs?

 

[helltoupee]

I’m guessing you see nothing wrong with kids being introduced to lgbt in the classroom and trans story hour etc… care to tell us why you think kids should be taught about confusing sexual topics?

It depends on how lgbt is being presented, which I would think is rather obvious.

The problem I have with your statement above is that you seem to start from a position that implies anything lgbt automatically has to be about graphical sex.

Unless I'm completely missing something, the base presumption here is that it's impossible to teach kids about lgbt without including the aspect of sex. I just don't see it. You could certainly teach children to respect other people's choices, that some men or women are gay and find happiness with members of their own sex, just like hetero people do.

I really think that's what's missing here - that it is not impossible to simply teach kids that some people are more comfortable with other people of the same sex and that there is nothing evil about that. If you want to start with the assumption that 2 male bears holding hands in a coloring book is grooming, then certainly the same argument could be made that a man and women kissing or holding hands in a movie or cartoon is also grooming.

Are there some bad actors out there? Of course. The Internet and social media has provided a wonderful tool to curate essentially are outliers. For example, I certainly don't agree with the sexual imagery that a lot of gay pride parades, etc., show - that should be kept amongst adults in the same way that a porn convention for hetero porn should have nothing to do with children.

But to automatically assume that teaching someone on a real basic level that other people might be attracted, or want a relationship with, or want to marry, someone of the same sex, does not need to include anything to do with a sexual act. We certainly can teach kids that hetero people get married, or want relationships, with the opposite sex and we do it with young kids on a very basic level that has nothing to do with invoking sexual acts.

The only reason I bothered replying to you is that even though our politics may differ, you usually come across as a reasonable guy, so I thought I'd ask why teaching lgbt automatically implies grooming or anything to do with sex. Sex is but one aspect of being in a gay relationship, just as it is one aspect of being in a straight relationship, and depending on who you are teaching, nothing about sexual acts themselves are required to be invoked to explain either situation.

 

[Horse Style]

You said all you have to do is not leave your kids alone with Church Officials.
I was just pointing out, I would try to avoid places that if you think if you leave your kids alone with a leader of that institution, you think they will be molested.

Imagine if I told you, I really love my church, but if there is one drawback, the priest molests children. I recommend you take your family there, just don't leave your kids with any of the officials or they might get molested. See you there on Sunday.

I wouldn't leave my children alone with strangers or people I barely know whether it be the principal of a school or the CEO of McDonald's, which is why you made one of the most foolish statements ever on this forum

 

[kflo]

I even used your wording for the "heterosexual ephebophile" and "homosexual ephebophile" terms and you cower away from the terms to deflect back to p*d*philes.

It's hilarious you calling people "cowards" when you're scared to discuss the meaning of terms. You creeps are always cowards when confronted

you're refusing to address your own (hateful) words and motivations so, yeah, you're a coward.

and i answered your "terms". i corrected them actually.

 

[Horse Style]

you're refusing to address your own (hateful) words and motivations so, yeah, you're a coward.

and i answered your "terms". i corrected them actually.

Oh you "answered my terms"? Maybe I missed it. I'll post it again

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

You'd agree with these definitions, right? No need to dick tuck if you're confident in your argument

 

[Horse Style]

fuck you coward.


stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

Calm down and grab your safety blanket. Then come back and give an answer:

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Accurate or not accurate? If not accurate, why?

 

[kflo]

Calm down and grab your safety blanket. Then come back and give an answer:

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Accurate or not accurate? If not accurate, why?

tell us more about how pedophiles are part of lgbtq in a thread about murder for a pride flag symbolizing lbgtq.......................

and make sure your sig highlights your views with every post you make...............

 

[Horse Style]

tell us more about how pedophiles are part of lgbtq in a thread about murder for a pride flag symbolizing lbgtq.......................

and make sure your sig highlights your views with every post you make...............

So you're not sure of your arguments anymore and are too scared to answer if

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

is accurate or not. Gotcha and noted

 

[shockaholic12]

Yea, all they have to do is not leave their kids alone with church officials. Easy fix since the priests are stripping and twerking during service.

And that's clearly a "no" on you having proof that the broader church community is okay with the sex crimes.

Earlier the argument was we need laws against kids at drag shows because we can't trust parents to do the right thing in these situations. Now you're stating the way to keep kids from not getting sexually abused at churches is to trust the parents to not do the thing they've been doing to thousands and thousands of kids, leaving kids alone with church officials, since forever? Man your logic is garbage.

 

[Horse Style]

More baseless claims and no proof of my earlier statements.

FTFY

 

[PhitePhan]

It depends on how lgbt is being presented, which I would think is rather obvious.

The problem I have with your statement above is that you seem to start from a position that implies anything lgbt automatically has to be about graphical sex.

Unless I'm completely missing something, the base presumption here is that it's impossible to teach kids about lgbt without including the aspect of sex. I just don't see it. You could certainly teach children to respect other people's choices, that some men or women are gay and find happiness with members of their own sex, just like hetero people do.

I really think that's what's missing here - that it is not impossible to simply teach kids that some people are more comfortable with other people of the same sex and that there is nothing evil about that. If you want to start with the assumption that 2 male bears holding hands in a coloring book is grooming, then certainly the same argument could be made that a man and women kissing or holding hands in a movie or cartoon is also grooming.

Are there some bad actors out there? Of course. The Internet and social media has provided a wonderful tool to curate essentially are outliers. For example, I certainly don't agree with the sexual imagery that a lot of gay pride parades, etc., show - that should be kept amongst adults in the same way that a porn convention for hetero porn should have nothing to do with children.

But to automatically assume that teaching someone on a real basic level that other people might be attracted, or want a relationship with, or want to marry, someone of the same sex, does not need to include anything to do with a sexual act. We certainly can teach kids that hetero people get married, or want relationships, with the opposite sex and we do it with young kids on a very basic level that has nothing to do with invoking sexual acts.

The only reason I bothered replying to you is that even though our politics may differ, you usually come across as a reasonable guy, so I thought I'd ask why teaching lgbt automatically implies grooming or anything to do with sex. Sex is but one aspect of being in a gay relationship, just as it is one aspect of being in a straight relationship, and depending on who you are teaching, nothing about sexual acts themselves are required to be invoked to explain either situation.

I don’t see how you can introduce a child to lgbt- a group who is literally defining themselves in relation to their sexual orientation- without introducing the child to sexual ideas of some sort.

It doesn’t have to be explicit, but even introducing the idea of two men who “love” each other opens the door to a discussion about sex. I mean, are we going to tell the child that “love” means the same as familial love (ie the love between a father/son)? If so, now I have to dance around this topic and obfuscate, or otherwise explain sex/romance (“like a mommy and daddy”) to my child.

Ultimately, there are very significant differences between hetero/homo relationships- both culturally/sociologically and biologically. For some reason, I’m pretty sure that the teacher or other adult who wants to let my child know that lgbt folks “exist” doesn’t want to talk about the insanely high rates of HIV in the gay community, or the high rates of DV within the lesbian community, right? So what lgbt proponents want, is to proclaim their sexuality and lifestyle as “equal” when it simply is not. I feel the same way about non-monogamous relationships as my goal is to promote marriage and a stable family…is it offensive if I don’t want my child’s teacher talking about their five different girlfriends?

The messaging that lgbt relationships are “the same” can be delivered implicitly (two men love each other) or explicitly (“we’re all the same”) but regardless, now my child has a certain idea that is underdeveloped and/or not developmentally appropriate (depending on age of the child). Now they’ve been introduced to ideas that don’t fit within our families norms, and now there is something distracting them from our desired outcomes. If a family wants to promote lgbt to their child fine, that’s their choice, but why does it also have to be mine?

Are we supposed to introduce children to other sexualities or types of relationships (ex polygamy)? Where does this need to expose kids to adult relationships end?

 

[kflo]

So you're not sure of your arguments anymore and are too scared to answer if

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

is accurate or not. Gotcha and noted

I answered your question. You didn’t answer mine. Instead you just asked another meaningless question. All in an effort to avoid addressing your own position. In a thread about murder for a pride flag. And you’re reinforcing hate towards that same flag. And we all know it.

 

[Horse Style]

I answered your question. You didn’t answer mine. Instead you just asked another meaningless question. All in an effort to avoid addressing your own position. In a thread about murder for a pride flag. And you’re reinforcing hate towards that same flag. And we all know it.

So you agree with these definitions?

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Good to know. That solves your desperate Catholic priest deflection. Gotcha.

 

[kflo]

So you agree with these definitions?

Heterosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the opposite sex
Homosexual ephebophile - Person attracted to mid-to-late adolescents of the same sex

Good to know. That solves your desperate Catholic priest deflection. Gotcha.

Lol. Look who doesn’t want to talk about pedophiles anymore…..

 

[Horse Style]

Lol. Look who doesn’t want to talk about pedophiles anymore…..

You're the one who deflected to p*d*philes for some strange reason. Now, back to the catholic priest point (and then back to the child sexualization problem in the LGBT+ community).

Answer this: Are homosexual teleiophiles and homosexual ephebophiles both homosexuals? If not, why?

 

[kflo]

You're the one who deflected to p*d*philes for some strange reason. Now, back to the catholic priest point (and then back to the child sexualization problem in the LGBT+ community).

Answer this: Are homosexual teleiophiles and homosexual ephebophiles both homosexuals? If not, why?

You were intentionally conflating pedophilia with being gay. And you doubled down. Tripled down. Insisted homosexual pedophile is a gay man and part of lgbtq. Part of the flag. That someone was murdered over. And now you won’t answer why you insist on conflating. Insist on pushing hate towards them.

So…

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

Again. We know why. And we know you won’t answer.

 

[Horse Style]

You were intentionally conflating pedophilia with being gay. And you doubled down. Tripled down. Insisted homosexual pedophile is a gay man and part of lgbtq. Part of the flag. That someone was murdered over. And now you won’t answer why you insist on conflating. Insist on pushing hate towards them.

So…

stop being a coward - let me ask you (again) - what's your interest in trying to lump pedophiles with teleiophiles, when it's been explained to you they are mutually exclusive groups and homosexual pedophile has much more in common with the heterosexual pedophile than any teleiophile? why NOT be more specific and separate the 2?

Again. We know why. And we know you won’t answer.

Your strawman pivot attempt isn't going to work.

Are homosexual teleiophiles and homosexual ephebophiles both homosexuals? If not, why?

 

[Horse Style]

Alright, this is the last time I'm gonna bother to post ITT.

-Homosexual teleiophiles and homosexual ephebophiles, while different, are still homosexuals.
-80-90% of sexual victims in the church were mid-to-late adolescent boys, making the perpetrators homosexual ephebophiles. They're homosexual and thus are part of the LGBT+
-Saying I'm conflating "homosexual teleiophiles" and "homosexual ephebophiles" by saying they're both homosexuals is as silly as saying I'm conflating white men and black men by pointing out both groups are men.

-The Catholic priest deflection was to avoid discussion about the child sexualization problem in the LGBT+ community that's both accepted and sometimes even encouraged as soon with multiple videos earlier ITT
-That deflection was hilarious because it just exposed the ephebophile Catholic priests as been heavily lopsided to one sexual orientation: homosexuality.

The creepy posters will all chirp "cOnFlaTiOn" and "yOu jUsT hAtE tHe lGbT+!!" and the regular-minded posters will actually read the arguments and know that regular folk (both gay and straight) condemn child sexualization and child sexual both no matter if it's coming from a gay person or a straight person.

@PhitePhan, @ICHEERTHEBULL, @Fox by the Sea you can stay and argue with these questionable posters but this thread really is a massive waste of time