Author
|
Topic: H.R. 1913 & S. 909....Pedophile Protection Act of 2009
|
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 08, 2009 06:45 PM
No, the reason is that you didn't prove your points. You didn't even try as far as I'm concerned. You still haven't managed to produce a single precedent where "sexual orientation" has been taken to mean pedophilia. That's pretty basic. You still haven't found a definition of "sexual orientation" that includes pedophilia. These are VERY basic things you should have been able to do without issue if your opinion were correct. Alas, it's not. Never was. You were duped...yet again. Conservative media is a farce. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 08, 2009 07:24 PM
I proved all my points acoustic...including the point that Pedophilia IS a "sexual orientation". We have the word of Alcee Hastings that ALL philia falls under the umbrella of "Hate Crimes Protection".I've had to define "MOST" for you numerous times. Must I now also define "ALL" for you as well? Besides which, psychiatrists also agree that Pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. You lose..period. Treatments to Change Sexual Orientation FRED S. BERLIN, M.D., PH.D. Baltimore, Md. The Journal recently published a "Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation" that had been approved by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association... "The psychiatric profession still correctly considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder. However, like heterosexuality and homosexuality (orientations that differ from one another on the basis of differences in sexual attraction), pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations, irrespective of the relative contributions of genetics and environment, maturing individuals discover the nature of their own attractions; such attractions are not the consequence of a volitional decision." "Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children, (Pedophiles) manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults. A recent Journal article (2) documented that the vast majority of individuals with pedophilia showed no evidence of either antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder. It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so." http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/5/838 IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 08, 2009 07:35 PM
Jwhop, you quite plainly did no such thing. The word of Alcee Hastings does not define law. No court is going to look to Hastings opinion of what sexual orientation is when hearing arguments. They're going to look to precedent. They're going to look at the Hate Crimes Act previously enacted, which defines "sexual orientation" as excluding pedophilia. quote: I've had to define "MOST" for you numerous times. Must I now also define "ALL" for you as well?
You mean you've had to lose that argument several times over several years; an argument where you misunderstood what was written right from the very start. My vocabulary and understanding of it is seldom at issue. You're trying to pin pedophilia up under a term that doesn't describe it. It's pretty obvious who has the trouble with comprehension, and if anyone is following this they are noticing that you're not finding a definition of "sexual orientation" that included pedophilia. It's a pretty easy Google search, and people would soon understand what it means in the legal sense. quote: Besides which, psychiatrists also agree that Pedophilia IS a sexual orientation. You lose..period.
Not in the legal sense they don't. Not in a million years, and if you tried bringing such a psychiatrist into the court to defend your nonsense belief that pedophilia shares the same protection under "sexual orientation" [then] precedent (once again) would dictate otherwise. It would be short, easy work for the opposing lawyer. You lost before you started. Someone else lost this for you before you even got a chance at it. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/appendix_a.htm IP: Logged |
NosiS Moderator Posts: 23 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 09, 2009 09:08 AM
I wouldn't deny that this bill has the potential to protect pedophiles in a future case.However, I think the presence of this bill is meant to underline what is currently being prepared: the release of Gitmo prisoners on American soil. Any takers? IP: Logged |
Eleanore Moderator Posts: 32 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 09, 2009 10:43 AM
Interesting, NosiS. I haven't gone that far in my thinking and don't want to consider it. However, as a theory it's frightening.Terrorists no longer exist. They're enemy combatants. Just angry people, not any real threat. But we do recognize domestic terrorism as real ... what are "hate crimes" supposed to be, after all? This whole hoopla has been based upon the supposed rights of those terrorists as equal to citizens of the US ... a big distinction from human rights and attackers of our nation. Supposedly being Muslim (and I find them an insult to the Muslim faith myself), they'd be covered under a hate crimes law, nevermind the race issue. I don't seriously believe that this was the intent but what I seriously believe doesn't matter. Broadly worded laws pose problems for this very reason. Anyone can interpret them any way they like. And, uh, it's not like us commoners get the chance to vote on those interpretations. I may have faith in the inherent goodness of the average human being but politicians are something else altogether.
Why can't they just say what they mean and mean what they say? Why leave so many loopholes and ambiguities? WHY?! If I were deeply prone to conspiracy theories, I might just think we were all being set up slowly and surely for a big, fat, ugly surprise in the future. After all, who pays any real attention over long passages of time? IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2009 04:49 PM
Confirmed http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/would_the_hate_crimes_bill_make_it.html IP: Logged |
cpn_edgar_winner Knowflake Posts: 326 From: Toledo, OH Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 14, 2009 05:00 PM
cool site ag. excellent linkage! i will be using this one!IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 15, 2009 01:29 PM
Politifact gives it a Pants On Fire ratingAnd the hits keep coming... IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 11:46 AM
quote: Well, try representing a battered pedophile in front of a judge under the pretense that your client was subject to hate crimes as described under this bill, and see if the judge and jury agrees that pedophilia is protected under the wording of "sexual orientation." I bet you won't get many takers....acoustic
Your arguments are so easily disposed of that it's almost embarrassing to take advantage of your lack of knowledge of the law and most of everything else. You suggest a judge would not look favorable on a hate crimes prosecution against someone who battered a pedophile. Wrong. A judge will apply the law as it is written and if it's intent is not clear then the judge will look to "legislative intent"...from the legislative history of the Legislative Act. First thing which would happen is a defense attorney would file a motion with the court to dismiss the hate crime count from the compliant claiming pedophiles are not covered by the language of the law. The prosecutor...who filed the complaint and brought the case to court would object and the judge would schedule a hearing on that matter. Expert witnesses would be called to testify and legal briefs would be prepared on the legislative intent of the Hate Crimes Act. So, who are the experts who would be called to testify that pedophilia is or is not a sexual orientation...since the hate crimes act addresses "Sexual Orientation"? Who would have legal standing in a court of law to testify as an "Expert Witness" on what is considered to be a "mental disorder"? Answer....psychologists and psychiatrists. We already have their answer as to whether or not pedophilia is a "Sexual Orientation" and we have that from a "Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation" from the American Psychiatric Association itself...which I have previously showed you. "pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations,"...***notice acoustic, "As with other sexual orientations". Pedophilia is INCLUDED with "other sexual orientations". "Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children, (Pedophiles) manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults." "It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so." End game acoustic. However, let's pursue this further. Suppose the defense attorney includes in his/her legal briefs a defense of "legislative intent" claiming it was not the intent of the Congress to include pedophiles under "Sexual Orientation". He/she would argue that because the Congress did not specifically include Pedophiles in the wording of the Bill and they could have done so..they are therefore "EXCLUDED" and the hate crimes count against his/her client should be dismissed. Wrong. The legislative intent of this bill is made clear by Congress specifically voting against an Amendment which would have specifically EXCLUDED pedophiles under the "protections afforded under Sexual Orientation". The legislative intent is clear that Pedophiles were intended to be INCLUDED in the protections enacted under "Sexual Orientation". Game, Set and Match acoustic. As is usual, your arguments are dead bang losers. Your attempt to bring fact check into this discussion as experts on what the facts are is a waste of everyone's time. Let's look at fact check..shall we? This is an arm of the Annenberg Charitable Trust which is an organization attempting to form and shape "Public Opinion". In other words, this group spends Annenberg money, taxpayer money and donated money to sway public opinion on a range of issues. In other words a "Spin" organization. So, what has fact check attempted to "Spin" lately..that I know about? These clowns attempted to convince voters that they had SEEN O'Bomber's "Birth Certificate" and that's a dead bang lie. What fact check saw was a "Certification of Live Birth" which is not a "Birth Certificate" and merely attests that the person named exists and their birth was "Registered" in Hawaii. Having a birth "Registered" in Hawaii is not at all the same thing as "Being Born in Hawaii". The State of Hawaii permitted those born in foreign countries to "Register" their births in Hawaii...with a foreign birth certificate or affidavits signed and attested to by witnesses. Period. Fact check deliberately attempted to lie to those who use them as so called experts on the facts. UP theirs. The Annenberg Charitable Trust is also the same organization which donated more than $50,000,000 to O'Bomber/Bill Ayers to radicalize the Chicago Public School System. This program...called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was not intended to raise test scores in the Chicago Public School System in English, Math, History and Science but was rather intended to teach students how to organize as street thugs along the lines of ACORN. Fact check is part of the Annenberg Charitable Trust...the propaganda arm of an organization devoted to SPIN and shaping of American public opinion. We've also talked about Politifact...the political SPIN and propaganda arm of the St Petersburg Times...a newspaper so far left I sent them a notice they were not to throw sample papers in my driveway or yard and if they did, I would consider it littering and take the appropriate legal action. The St Petersburg Times is owned and published by the Poynter Institute For Media Studies...another trust involved in attempting to SPIN information and shape public opinion...rather than reporting the news. Politifact is their propaganda arm. The only one taking hits here acoustic...is you. You certainly are a glutton for punishment.
IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 469 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 12:27 PM
are you saying your opinion blog sources are not attempting the same sort of spin in the other direction, jwhop? or rush limbaugh? why don't you pull the other one, mate, it's got bells on it!! IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 12:36 PM
The difference between newspapers and opinion blogs is that opinion blogs do not present themselves as unbiased dispensers of news. Fact check and Politifact present themselves as infallible sources of facts when they are nothing more than propaganda artists with a political spin viewpoint they are attempting to push. If you have something on point about the law as I laid it out feel free to post a contrary viewpoint. Pedophilia IS a "Sexual Orientation" and IS covered by the Hate Crimes Legislation.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 02:27 PM
Jwhop,Did you really miss where NOT one, but TWO separate fact-checking agencies lined up behind me in telling the truth? quote: Wrong. A judge will apply the law as it is written and if it's intent is not clear then the judge will look to "legislative intent"...from the legislative history of the Legislative Act.
That's incorrect Jwhop as we've already discussed at length. "Sexual orientation" has a well established regular and legal definition. quote: So, who are the experts who would be called to testify that pedophilia is or is not a sexual orientation...since the hate crimes act addresses "Sexual Orientation"?Who would have legal standing in a court of law to testify as an "Expert Witness" on what is considered to be a "mental disorder"?
It's addressed in these fact-checking works:
quote: Game, Set and Match acoustic. As is usual, your arguments are dead bang losers.
It's astounding that a person can lose so obviously and so completely, and believe otherwise. You think I'm getting hit? Is that why I tend to think of you as a punching bag in my garage always available for a good beating whever I decide to go there? quote: Fact check deliberately attempted to lie to those who use them as so called experts on the facts. UP theirs.
Factcheck.org sources all of their arguments, which is something you often have severe difficulty doing, and if you asked people to inspect your arguments versus theirs, there would be no competition. None whatsoever. quote: We've also talked about Politifact...the political SPIN and propaganda arm of the St Petersburg Times...a newspaper so far left I sent them a notice they were not to throw sample papers in my driveway or yard and if they did, I would consider it littering and take the appropriate legal action.
Nobody cares about what sh!t you talk to local newspaper company. quote: Fact check and Politifact present themselves as infallible sources of facts when they are nothing more than propaganda artists with a political spin viewpoint they are attempting to push.
And yet, Jwhop's NEVER EVER been able to prove either wrong. Never. And they've been wrong. They've printed corrections. Never Jwhop's doing, though. quote: Pedophilia IS a "Sexual Orientation" and IS covered by the Hate Crimes Legislation.
It's obviously not, and now we have two factchecking agencies following MY lead. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 02:41 PM
Oh, and if you're still under the mistaken notion that there's a leg to stand on where Obama's citizenship is concerned, factcheck will kick your ass there, too. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 469 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 03:12 PM
"Playing Devils Advocate doesn't include libeling political figures just because you don't like them." jwhop, 05/09spin is spin. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 04:06 PM
You lose on every single point acoustic.You lose on the law as the cases would be presented and decided in a court of law. You lose on the Constitution according to the Equal Protection of the Laws clause as demanded by the 14th Amendment. You lose on the facts as stated by the American Psychiatric Association that Pedophilia IS a "Sexual Orientation". There's no longer any cover or defense for your overt ignorance. Time for you to go into ducking, bobbing and weaving mode since your denial mode isn't working. katatonic, I notice you still can't speak coherently to any point which would at least give you some credibility on this subject. But it is nice to see you giving acoustic support. He needs all the support and help he can get from his "support group". Time to call in some additional reinforcements acoustic.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 05:09 PM
The only valid points made in this thread are mine. To further compound things, you took someone else's writing, and accepted it. I, on the other hand, wrote an argument, which was later taken up by and confirmed by journalistic factcheckers who agree with my perspective. That's quite damning to your position as both as a supposed freethinker, and as a person who wants to claim possession of an intellect (while conversely establishing me as a freethinking person ahead of the journalists). quote: There's no longer any cover or defense for your overt ignorance. Time for you to go into ducking, bobbing and weaving mode since your denial mode isn't working.
The only person who requires ducking and bobbing at this point is you. You've lost soundly, and as I said before the hole was already dug for you before you began. You just willingly, and rather stupidly jumped in it. Just another mark against conservative media. Furthermore, that's no way to talk to your fellow Leo Sun with Mercury in Virgo, though I do find it ridiculously humorous to watch you squirm at the hands of another Mercury in Virgo. How can she be wrong if Mercury in Virgo is as LOGICAL as you've tried to claim over the years. That's quite the conundrum, isn't it? (By the way, way to take a couple days to respond to your thread's complete undoing. ) No additional reinforcements are needed with you, Jwhop. Like I said in the previous post, you're simply a willing and waiting punchbag for whenever I get the urge to pummel something. IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 469 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 06:09 PM
why mr jwhop, i'm just a good honest semi-christian girl speaking my mind. since you don't approve of politicians insulting miss california, on whom i have no opinion whatsoever, i would kindly invite you to stop indulging in the same kind of behaviour. your crass insinuations and character slurs do nothing for your argument. can YOU keep to the point? and that IS my point. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 07:08 PM
I've been on point from the beginning. It's you who pops in with nothing to add but a deflection from the real issues.You be sure to keep propping acoustic up. He needs all the help he can get. I've programed acoustic to react. Pavlov would be proud to see his training also applies to acoustic. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 08:24 PM
On point? When? Your premise was OFF from the start. Hell, I can't even call it YOUR premise, now can I? Every point you've attempted to make has been smacked down quite easily from the start. You have an opinion that is wrong, and that is not based in reality. The end. You've not programmed me to do anything. I NATURALLY react to stupidity. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 16, 2009 10:09 PM
You are so over invested acoustic that I doubt your head ever clears.How do you allow yourself to be so easily maneuvered into untenable positions? The definitions are against you. The law is against you. The biggest and most prestigious Psychiatric Association in the United States takes a position which is diametrically opposed to yours. Pedophiles are covered by the hate crimes bill under consideration in the Senate as..a "sexual orientation". Strike three, you're out again.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2009 04:31 AM
The only one left trying to establish an argument is you, so how exactly am I overly invested? My argument won a long time ago. One only need disagree with you to beat you on this particular mistaken notion in order to have won it. This can only be quicksand for you. Reality always beats fantasy.You have lost on law. Lawyers and Judges don't look to Congress's actions when determining legislative intent. They look to precedent, which is something you couldn't find to support your position even though the term in question is used in Hate Crime legislation in 31 states. 31 states using that legal term, and not a single instance of it being used as a protection of pedophiles. That's a dead bang loser. You want to bring up the American Psychiatric Association's respected reference work? You obviously didn't read factcheck's article:
Furthermore, the Traditional Values Coalition makes a false claim when it says that 30 different "sexual orientations" – including pedophilia, incest and exhibitionism as well as homosexuality and heterosexuality – are contained in the American Psychiatric Association's respected reference work, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV). This is pure bunk. In its chapter headed "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders," DSM-IV explicitly states that sexual orientation "refers to erotic attraction to males, females or both." It does not include any of the paraphilias (such as pedophilia). Nor is homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) listed as a sexual disorder in the book. Link
You have the same NOTHING you started out with. You're welcome to keep trying to have an argument, but the facts are the facts, and the facts don't lose arguments. I suggest you visit your local law school, and ask around yourself. (This is getting really funny to me. You better get informed quick.) IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2009 12:16 PM
Got to love the fact that I've conditioned you...acoustic so thoroughly that when you see my screen name..jwhop...your brain switches off and you begin a Daffy Duck impersonation. I've enjoyed every minute of rubbing your nose in every fallacy your leftist friends have conjured up from the depths of their own intellectual disability and narcissistic personality disorders. You, as a devout follower have marched yourself straight off the cliff in every discussion here. The seeds of destruction of your own arguments are to be found in your own words. Perhaps you missed this acoustic. For certain, fact check missed it or were too intellectually dishonest to report it as part of their error plagued comments on "Sexual Orientation". Whatever their excuse...or yours for that matter, The American Psychiatric Association's own publication recognizes that Pedophilia IS a "sexual orientation". I've showed this to you twice now. Perhaps you're just too far gone to understand that the article I posted came from the The American Journal of Psychiatry. So, what is the American Journal of Psychiatry acoustic? The American Journal of Psychiatry is the "Official Journal of the American Psychiatric Association". http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/index.dtl And what points were made in that article posted in the American Journal of Psychiatry? Let's recap, shall we acoustic? Am J Psychiatry 157:838, May 2000 Treatments to Change Sexual Orientation FRED S. BERLIN, M.D., PH.D. Baltimore, Md. "The Journal recently published a "Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation" that had been approved by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association " And acoustic, what was it the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association approved and published in the "Official Journal of of the American Psychiatric Association"? They say the 3rd time is the charm acoustic so I'm going to post it yet again for the 3rd time. Hopefully you can manage to find the on switch for your brain and turn it on for the few seconds necessary to read and comprehend what the largest and most prestigious psychiatric association in the United States says about pedophilia as a "sexual orientation". "pedophilia, too, can be thought of as a sexual orientation that is different from others on the basis of age of attraction. As with other sexual orientations,"...***notice acoustic, "As with other sexual orientations". Pedophilia is INCLUDED with "other sexual orientations". "Individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward children, (Pedophiles) manifest the same range of personality, temperamental, and character traits as individuals whose sexual orientation is directed toward adults." "It may be no easier for a person with pedophilia to change his or her sexual orientation than it is for a homosexual or heterosexual individual to do so." http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/157/5/838 The simplest search would have found this from the Official Journal of the American Psychiatric Association acoustic. Care to comment on why your didn't find it..or care to make an excuse for fact check and politfact as to why they didn't find it? This comment of yours deserves further exploration acoustic. Who is even more daffy than Daffy Duck? This comment would make even Daffy Duck blush. quote: You have lost on law. Lawyers and Judges don't look to Congress's actions when determining legislative intent...acoustic
Wow acoustic, legislative intent is not to be found in the actions, comments, floor speeches, amendments and other legislative history of Bills passed in the legislatures of the Congress of the United States. Hahahahaha We already know what the "legislative intent" of this Bill actually is. That was established when an amendment to this Bill was offered specifically EXCLUDING PEDOPHILES FROM COVERAGE UNDER THIS BILL WHICH WAS VOTED DOWN BY DEMOSCATS WHO VOTED 100% AGAINST THE AMENDMENT AND WENT ON TO PASS THE BILL WITH IT'S PRESENT LANGUAGE. Equally laughable is this bit of drivel acoustic. quote: They look to precedent...acoustic
Perhaps it's escaped your notice acoustic but this is NEW PROPOSED LEGISLATION which has not yet been passed by the Congress or signed into law by O'Bomber. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS AND NO FEDERAL OR STATE CRIMINAL CASES ARISING FROM THIS PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION FROM WHICH TO SEARCH FOR PRECEDENTS. It seems to me acoustic that you need to round out your Daffy Duck impersonation and expound on your vast legal knowledge of the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution..which says in part... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Now acoustic, I'm going to sit by my computer while I multitask and watch you duck, bob, weave, evade and twist in the wind trying to dig yourself out of another deep hole you've dug for yourself.
IP: Logged |
katatonic Knowflake Posts: 469 From: Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2009 01:05 PM
strangely you have omitted THESE parts of the same quote..."The psychiatric profession still correctly considers pedophilia to be a mental disorder" "Historically, untold numbers of human beings have been both demonized and vilified simply because their sexual makeups differ from the norm" despite what anyone thinks about pedophilia the law is not to protect them from the consequences of their behaviour. it is to protect them, along with everyone else, from citizens taking the law into their own hands to rid society of someone they see as beneath the law. and that includes protecting you, jwhop, from me, burning your house down EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THIS BILL. and even though you are practicing hate speech against the govt of the us. maybe if you weren't so busy multi-tasking you would be able to see the core point of your own arguments are superficial and specious. it is not a special protection bill at all but a clarification and broadening of a special punishment bill for people who take the law into their own hands because others are different from themselves. IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 336 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2009 02:41 PM
I'm talking with a friend at the moment, but I will deal with this very soon. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 277 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted May 17, 2009 02:45 PM
Telling the truth about O'Bomber is not hate speech katatonic. As hateful as the truth is to some, truth is not hate speech.The facts are established that Pedophilia IS a "sexual orientation". The fact it may also be considered a mental disorder is beside the point in this discussion. Homosexuality was also considered a mental disorder only a few years ago and still is to some people. But that's outside the parameters of this proposed legislation. No one here or anywhere I know of has alleged the Hate Crimes Bill is to provide protection against prosecution of Pedophiles for crimes they commit against children. From where in the world did you dredge that nonsense up? There you go again making statements for which you provide no factual basis. So, let me inquire katatonic: quote: the core point of your own arguments are superficial and specious...katatonic
Superficial...how? specious...how? Btw, thanks for jumping with some other off point comments in an attempt to support the unsupportable comments of acoustic. He needs all the help and propping up he can get from anywhere.
IP: Logged | |