Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Jack Schidt®" > wrote:
> There's no proof that any crime has been committed, not now nor previously. > Sure Michael Jackson is strange but I think due process will shed light on > the facts. It is still innocent until proven guilty, right? Or did the > Patriot Act change all that? We shall see. With accusations of this nature swirling around MJ for many years, it would not surprise me if MJ's day in court will not be triumphant. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
On 11/21/2003 2:23 AM, in article
, "Jack Schidt®" > opined: Start a new thread cocksucker and I'll crush you on this one. > > Personally, I'm more outraged that some of my fellow citizens are returning > with limbs missing because of a war caused by a lying president. > > Jack ****ed > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
The Wolf wrote:
> Do you ever read what I say? > > Let me type slowly so you can follow. > > What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's > business. Right. > What they do in public is, Wrong. That is, unless you want to submit everythign that *you* do to public scrutiny, that is, with the possibility that things you do, such as posting bigotry to Usenet (for an example), being censured if someone *else* finds it offensive. > that is my point. What is so > difficult about that? I dunno, it's funny how people respond to bigots who, for whatever reason, are clueless to their own bigotry... -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
The Wolf wrote:
>>> Go **** yourself, you know what I mean. >> >> Nice come back. Really adds credibility to your already floundering >> argument. >> >>> I don't go where homos hang out. >> >> Then *how* do you see them "swapping spit"? > > I said I don't *want* to see them "swapping spit" at the shopping mall > *you* say they have a right to swap spit at the shopping mall. Your position is wrong on *several* levels: 1. Shopping malls are *not* public facilities, they are *quasi-public* facilities. IOW, they are private property made available to the public by the property owners. You don't have a legal right to enter a mall, you have been granted permission by the owners for as long as *they* allow. 2. You said that what two consenting adults do in private is not your concern. How does something occuring outside of the home suddenly *become* your business? If you're going to claim "because I can see it" then its occurance in the home is irrelevant; one can see what occurs in the home through many different means, including open windows, web cams, etc. 3. If what the hypothetical homosexuals are doing in public *is* your business the, guess what, what *you* are doing in public is *their* business. Why does your opinion matter any more than theirs? Why should *they* be subjected to *your* heterosexual displays in public? (assuming you like the opposite sex and have such opportunities for public displays) Perhaps *heterosexual* displays of affection should be banned as well? 4. Rights have nothing to do with another person's opinions. If there is such a thing as a right, then it's inherent and inalienable and the opinions of one group cannot dissolve that right, nor can that right be witheld based on some lack of commonality. Do *you* have "a right to swap spit" in public? If so, then so do the homosexuals that "bother" you. If they don't have the right to kiss in public, then neither do *you*. > So once again, go **** yourself. I'm so impressed by your acumen. >>> I >>> don't want homos acting like homos >> >> And what do "homos acting like homos" do? Are you unwilling or unable to describe what *you* were talking about? >>> hanging out where I go, i.e. Public >>> places such as shopping malls for example. >> >> So you think malls are for heterosexuals only? Where else should they be >> forbidden from going for fear of offending your delicate senses? Are you unwilling or unable to answer this question? >>> If they don't act like homos >>> how would I know they ARE homos. >> >> Perhaps you have ***-dar? You seem to be drawn to their make-out >> locations. This must have hit *way* too close to home for you. >>> Last I knew they didn't tattoo it on >>> their foreheads. >> >> So, how *do* you know they're *** if they don't advertise it? Is it a >> birds-of-a-feather thing that you're relunctant to 'fess up to? Or, is it >> something more sinister than that? We're wondering why you're suddenly so quiet on these points... -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
PENMART01 wrote:
> "Darryl L. Pierce" writes: >>>>>> No. That your opinion doesn't line up with the facts is a sign of >>>>>> ignorance. That you choose to embrace your opinions when facts are >>>>>> presented to is what makes you a bigot. >>>>> >>>>> Which one of the founding fathers are you? Jefferson? Washington? >>>> >>>> I'm the one who doesn't follow red herrings. >>> >>> Go back to the dictionary bozo, I don't think you meant what you typed. >> >>No, I know what I wrote. Apparently, *you* don't *understand* it. That's >>to be expected: it was a slightly abstract, cynical statement and not one >>that can be easily translated to crayons and construction paper for you... > > The Wussy Wolf must think "red herring" means "matjes". "Red herring? Must be some new fruity drink! Homos! Homos! I have to show my manhood to them...erm...show them I'm a man! I'll grab one, throw him to the ground, sit on his chest and...huff...huff...my heart's racing just *thinking* about it! My head's hurting just *thinking*! I'll be his meat! I mean his face! His pretty little face..." -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Dave Smith wrote:
> Well I guess that is because the US is bigger than just the Archdiocese of Boston. > If there were dozens o cases in that one archdiocese, there could well be more > elsewhere. Of course there are. Wasn't all that long ago there was a big scandal in Italy. nancy |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"The Wolf" > wrote in message ... > On 11/21/2003 5:01 AM, in article > , "Darryl L. Pierce" > > opined: > > > The Wolf wrote: > > > >> Do you ever read what I say? > >> > >> Let me type slowly so you can follow. > >> > >> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's > >> business. > > > > Right. > > > >> What they do in public is, > > So according to you, it's OK for me to wear a swastika on my t-shirt in > public even if it offends Jews? Or a t-shirt with a photo of a black man > being lynched in Mississippi? Those two scenarios do not fit within > community standards so they should not be allowed IN PUBLIC. Homos should > not act like homos in public. If they didn't act like homos nobody would > bother them. > > I will admit the Confederate Flag has historical significance and I don't > see what the big deal is. > > The point is that it doesn't have to be OK with him or anyone else for you to wear your swastika in public. Jews wearing the Star of David might offend some skinheads. Should they be barred from doing so to spare the feelings of some Arian brothers? Some people, maybe many, are offended by interracial couples holding hands in public -- a man and a woman. Under your system, since someone found this offensive they should be prohibited from holding hands outside their home. There are people who think that the handicapped are gross and have no business out in public. Is that OK, and who should decide these things? There are no community standards except when it comes to decency, and people have pushed the limits there. On any given day you can see heterosexuals groping each other in public. If community standards don't prohibit groping or kissing, then your issue lies there, not with a segment of the population that you find aesthetically bothersome who participate in that same behavior. Maybe stores should be prohibited from selling spandex garments over a certain size? Conservative religious people of many faiths are offended by skimpy bathing suits for woman. Maybe the bikini should be banned? Dancing is offensive to some people of faith so maybe there should be no public dancing? I don't know how old you are, but I heard the same arguments that you make against gays being made against blacks 40+ years ago. "If only black would be like whites then they would be just fine. If only blacks would stay in their place (i.e., segregated ghetto) then there would be no problem." Of course, the problem was in the eye of the beholder. If a black family moved into your neighborhood and your life was disrupted, it was your doing, not theirs. Likewise, if your day is ruined because you see *** people in public, then it is you who have ruined it, not them. I can think of nothing that gays could legally do in public that would be different that what straights could legally do in public. Under our system, separate is not equal and we all should have equal protection under the law -- all of us, even people we find gross. Your statement that "If they didn't act like homos nobody would bother them" is particularly troubling. Hate crimes against gays, *******s, and transgender individuals have reached an all-time high. In the last 18 months there have been two drive-by shootings here, one fatal, targeting patrons of *** bars. It seems that people are not satisfied with a live-and-let-live situation, but seek out gays for violence simply because their existence is offensive. Just like you, they don't like to coexist with people who don't mirror their own image. You seek to dehumanize people for your own comfort. "If only they would be emotionless robots blending into the background, stripped of any personality -- then I would be free to be me" you lament. That's all you are asking, right? All you want is to be the center of the universe with everyone conceding to you every wish so you don't get that squeamish feeing when you go to the mall? Should anyone bother "homos" be it with an aluminum bat, knife, gun, fists, or other means of violence, shouting ugly words, denying them employment or housing, withholding benefits, and setting up impediments to the pursuit of happiness, then it is because they are not in your image and those actions are completely understandable -- that's what you are saying. Oh, I bet you don't feel good about that, now do you? That much bigotry is just too much, at least in a public forum. No, you just want everyone to go into the closet for your own comfort but you don't want to consider the consequences to them. Don't kid yourself. Relegating people to some second-class status for your own comfort leads to an incalculable amount of suffering. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
On Wed.,19 Nov 2003 19:23:53 Terry >
wrote: I am not and have never been a fan of Jackson's, but I am a huge fan of due process. Thank you for a voice of reason and restraint! How refreshing these days! |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"" wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 02:22:52 GMT, (j.j.) > wrote: > > >Hark! I heard Sheryl Rosen > say: > > > ><snip> > >> But this incident does beg the question: What parent in their right mind > >> would allow their 12 year old son to go any where NEAR an accused child > >> molester, never mind a freak like Michael Jackson? And to let your kid > >> anywhere near an accused child molester who is the freak we know as Michael > >> Jackson--I'm sorry, but the parents are guilty of neglect for letting their > >> kid within 500 feet of him. From what i heard, the family and he met while he was doing charity work. He probably seems like a very nice person in public, and anyone who can give your children the benefits of a wealthy lifestyle, who doesn't seem hazardous while you're around him, might have lulled the mother into thinking he'd been slammed the last time. > >> Just my humble opinion, of course. > > > >As a parent myself, I agree with your opinion, Sheryl. Heck, I > >wouldn't let my child stay with *any* non-family childless adult, > >let alone someone who's reputation is so, well, spotted... > > money.....Money....MONEY !!! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ > > According to the evening news, > the last "victim" was paid $25 million to recant his accusation. > > Lots of parents have sold their kids for a lot less. > > <rj> |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Craig Welch wrote:
> >> Personally, I'm more outraged that some of my fellow citizens are returning > >> with limbs missing because of a war caused by a lying president. > > >Start a new thread cocksucker and I'll crush you on this one. > > How do you figure? You have yet to 'crush' *any * poster on *any* > topic. > He posts something stupid and than gives himself a pat on the back and considers the target of his verbal diarrhoea to have been crushed. |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
>I wouldn't leave my cat with him unsupervised.
> >nancy ############## Don't worry...he won't bother any pussy. BG |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Vox Humana" > wrote in message ... > Thank you. Charlie |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
|
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
The Wolf wrote:
>>> What a consenting adult does in the privacy of his own home is nobody's >>> business. >> >> Right. >> >>> What they do in public is, > > So according to you, it's OK for me to wear a swastika on my t-shirt in > public even if it offends Jews? Or a t-shirt with a photo of a black man > being lynched in Mississippi? Yes, it's your *right* to do so. That you would want to is a different story, but you have every right to do that if you so choose. > Those two scenarios do not fit within > community standards so they should not be allowed IN PUBLIC. Where are these "community standards" documented? Or, are you confusing *opinions* with *rights* again? > Homos should > not act like homos in public. What does "act like homos" mean? And how does it differ from the concept of "act like heteros"? > If they didn't act like homos nobody would > bother them. Why should anybody bother them at *all*? > I will admit the Confederate Flag has historical significance and I don't > see what the big deal is. So, you don't mind offending, but you do mind being offended? Again, it's back to you wanting others to act in a manner *you* deem fit... -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Vox Humana" > wrote in message >...
> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual > orientation. All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least bisexual. Engaging in homosexual pedophaelia makes one a particular sort of pedophile. No points to Wolf and others for not recognizing the complexity of human sexuality, of course. But there's no reason for you to not acknowledge it too. Greg Zywicki |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Greg Zywicki wrote:
>> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual >> orientation. > > All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that > engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least > bisexual. Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act (even frequently) doesn't define the sexuality. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality > homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of > the individual. ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-) n. 1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. 2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex. Looks like you're both right... ~john! http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homosexuality -- What was it like to see - the face of your own stability - suddenly look away... |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> Greg Zywicki wrote: > > >> > >> >> >Vox Humana wrote: > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> Participating in a sex act does not define one's sexual > >> orientation. > > > > All Nastiness aside, you should probably concede the point that > > engaging in a homosexual on a repeated basis makes one at least > > bisexual. > > Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality > homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination of > the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a > heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them > bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up > appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty > to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act (even > frequently) doesn't define the sexuality. In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a person's sexuality. A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with young boys is a homosexual pedophile. Their sexual contact with adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention (ie Lisa Marie.) Greg Zywicki |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Greg Zywicki wrote:
>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality >> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination >> of the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a >> heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them >> bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up >> appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty >> to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act >> (even frequently) doesn't define the sexuality. > > In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated > pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a > person's sexuality. Indicate, not define. The definition comes from their inclination. If they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an indication but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they *have* to, then it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act. > A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with > young boys is a homosexual pedophile. It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU pedophiles do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The target is usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests mainly with altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys more frequently than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl). > Their sexual contact with > adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely > different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention > (ie Lisa Marie.) The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they were able to get. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
levelwave wrote:
>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality >> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination >> of the individual. > > ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-) > n. > > 1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. > 2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex. > > > Looks like you're both right... Careful, dictionaries reflect *usage* as well as *definitions*. That the dictionary sexs homosexual activity makes one homosexual (i.e., one usage of the word) does not mean that one who participates in such acts *is* homosexual. And, BTW, the second definition above isn't describe an individual. It's saying that homosexuality itself is "sexual activity with another of the same sex". Is there a definition that claims that one who participates in homosexuality is a homosexual? There isn't when I checked: ho·mo·sex·u·al ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(hm-sksh-l, -m-) adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. It's ones *orientation* that makes one homosexual, not ones activities. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:
>The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than >heterosexuals, And no less likely.... hetero or homo has no bearing whatsoever one way or the other on ones proclivity towards pedophilia. your only point is that of the configuration of you obviously BIGOTED cranium. ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon ```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:
>levelwave wrote: > >>> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality >>> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination >>> of the individual. >> >> ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-) >> n. >> >> 1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. >> 2. Sexual *activity* with another of the same sex. >> >> >> Looks like you're both right... Actually yoose need a new dictionary (yours doesn't even have a name)... and a brain transplant. Merriam Webster ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty noun 1 : the quality or state of *being* homosexual 2 : erotic *activity* with another of the same sex --- Oxford homosexual adjective (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. n involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex: homosexual desire. noun a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex. --- Mere attraction defines ones sexuality, participation is not manditory. So quit the bull shit rationalizing... it's obvious yoose abhor what you are. ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon ```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
PENMART01 wrote:
<snip> > Mere attraction defines ones sexuality, participation is not manditory. Quite correct. > So quit the bull shit rationalizing... it's obvious yoose abhor what you > are. I'm at a loss as to who "yoose" refers to here. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > wrote in message ws.com>...
> Greg Zywicki wrote: > > >> Participating in a sex act makes one a participant. Heterosexuality > >> homosexuality is not defined by the participation but by the inclination > >> of the individual. A previous poster referred to a homosexual who is in a > >> heterosexual marriage with children. That they had sex does not make them > >> bisexual, especially if they only participated in order to keep up > >> appearances. As you say later in the post I'm replying to, there's plenty > >> to "the complexity of human sexuality"; i.e., participation in an act > >> (even frequently) doesn't define the sexuality. > > > > In the case of duty sex, no, probably not. In the case of repeated > > pedophaelia for sexual pleasure, yes, it does define one aspect of a > > person's sexuality. > > Indicate, not define. Split the hair finer, why don't you. > The definition comes from their inclination. If > they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an indication > but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they *have* to, then > it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act. Because the "Have" to? I hope you meant "are compelled to" > > > A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with > > young boys is a homosexual pedophile. > > It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU pedophiles > do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The target is > usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests mainly with > altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys more frequently > than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl). > Homo - same, sex - sex. Same Sex. Someone who has only sex with only boy only children can very completely accurately described as a homosexual pedophile in exactly the same way that something with feathers and a green head that quacks can be described as a duck. And I care as much about the duck's opinion of what it is. > > Their sexual contact with > > adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely > > different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention > > (ie Lisa Marie.) > > The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than > heterosexuals, ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! No argument there. > and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when > it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they were > able to get. Sorry, I don't believe that. I see no reason to believe that people who choose children as sex partners don't seek out the partners they desire. Greg Zywicki |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
Greg Zywicki wrote:
>> Indicate, not define. > > Split the hair finer, why don't you. Bisect. >> The definition comes from their inclination. If >> they're doing it repeatedly because they *want* to, then it's an >> indication but not a definition. If they do it repeatedly because they >> *have* to, then it's neither an indication nor a definition, it's an act. > > Because the "Have" to? I hope you meant "are compelled to" "...have to" in the obligatory sense (i.e., marital duties) as well as in the use-of-force sense (prison sex/rape). >> > A person who repeatedly seeks sexual contact with >> > young boys is a homosexual pedophile. >> >> It's pedophilia, period. It may involve homosexual acts, but TMU >> pedophiles do make distinctions in their chosen "partner"'s gender. The >> target is usually what's accessible. The reason that you see priests >> mainly with altar boys is because priests have *access* to altar boys >> more frequently than they do girls (no such thing as an altar girl). > > Homo - same, sex - sex. Same Sex. As in "attracted to those of the same sex". It's not sex-the-act but sex-the-gender. > Someone who has only sex with only > boy only children can very completely accurately described as a > homosexual pedophile in exactly the same way that something with > feathers and a green head that quacks can be described as a duck. And > I care as much about the duck's opinion of what it is. That you don't care how those you label are labeled is irrelevant. You can call them homosexual pedophiles, but the problem is that *you* are incorrectly using the term "homosexual". As has been shown, it's not the act but the inclination of the person that defines their sexuality. That someone chooses children makes them a pedophile. If they are attracted to maleness *and* children, they're homosexual *and* a pedophile. If they only target boys because of the accessibility of boys in their lives, that does not make them homosexual. That makes them pedophiles. You can call a dog a cat as much as you want, even if you don't care for the dog's opinion, but it will never make the dog into a cat. >> > Their sexual contact with >> > adults is another component of their sexuality and may be completely >> > different. It may even be the "keep up appearances" sex you mention >> > (ie Lisa Marie.) >> >> The point is that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than >> heterosexuals, > > ABSOLUTELY!!!!!! No argument there. Glad to hear it. >> and the majority of pedophiles are in fact heterosexual when >> it comes to adults; the victims of their pedophilia are just what they >> were able to get. > > Sorry, I don't believe that. You don't have to believe it. Your lack of belief, however, has little effect on the reality of the situation. > I see no reason to believe that people > who choose children as sex partners don't seek out the partners they > desire. You're missing a key part he *availability*. How many people entrust their young daughters to adult males for extended periods of privacy? Now, how many do the same for their young sons? What's the ratio? And, does that ratio match the rates of pedophilia cases? You'll be surprised to find that they do. You're also arguing from a fallacious position. That you don't see a reason for your argument to be wrong doesn't mean that it's right. You're either ignoring or have not seen the data that shows you're incorrect. Take some time and read on the subject so you can post with information and not ignorance: <http://surge.ods.org/idle/homosexual/hom_chil.htm> is a good starter parge. -- Darryl L. Pierce > Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce> "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
"Darryl L. Pierce" > writes:
>Greg Zywicki wrote: > >>> Indicate, not define. >> >> Split the hair finer, why don't you. **** hairs are difficult. ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =--- ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =--- Sheldon ```````````` "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation." |
|
|||
|
|||
Foods to constipate Michael Jackson?
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:35:44 -0500, maxine in ri >
wrote: >"Jack Schidt®" wrote: >> >> "OhJeeez" > wrote in message >> ... >> > BAGELS! very constipating on a daily basis. perhaps all child molesters >> > should be made to eat the national supermarket variety, not the good nyc >> ones. >> >> Michael Jackson aka Jacko should have heeded the calling and become a >> catholic priest. >> >> Jack Snickers > >I dunno. Can a JW become a catholic priest? if so, jocko's the man to do it. your pal, blake |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
*--> Michael Jackson <--* | General Cooking | |||
Michael Jackson | General Cooking | |||
Michael Jackson passes away | Beer | |||
Michael Jackson | General Cooking | |||
MICHAEL JACKSON | General Cooking |