What Captain America Would Say to Mormons

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So based on that unimpeachable logic, if h0mosxuals are pedophiles, so are hetero, right?

I'm still waiting on a CFR for documentation showing that statistically gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Oh, come on. We are adults. Can we stop with the semantics games?

Yes, some heterosexuals are pedophiles. No, not all homosexuals are pedophiles. Happy now?

I tried to post a CFR several times, but it kept just ignoring my post.

[RevTestament]

Here is the site:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, Gray said:

If they were gay they would not be attracted to children.

Because one necessarily creates a self-serving taxonomy to define homosexual abuse of children out of existence  ...  because, according to the redefiners' logic, male on male pedophilia cannot be a homosexual phenomenon  ...  and around and around we go inside the artificial circularity.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Here is the site:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

Oh, dear. I'm not even going to look. The last time I dug into their "research" in depth, I found all kinds of dishonesty and distortion. Before then, I knew LGBT advocates disliked (some intensely) the FRC, but after going through their stuff, I understand why. If we're going to have a reasonable discussion, it might help to use less-biased sources.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I love it how you guys adapt/corporate allegory into your beliefs.....

Because religionists, and Mormons in particular, are so backward and quaint?

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Captain America found out who his "real family" was.

And it wasn't the people he was related to.

Because they all died, right?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because religionists, and Mormons in particular, are so backward and quaint?

Nope, just some of them.

[USU78]

{Assuming best Mormon critic 'shocked and dismayed' persona}

I just cannot believe nobody seems to understand what "may" means.

{/Assuming best Mormon critic 'shocked and dismayed' persona}

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/may

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

What would Captain America say to Mormons?

He would say it's a good thing to be patriotic, but eventually your leaders will let you down.

Then you're on your own.

Then you find out that patriotism should never be to any man or group of men, but to a principle, to an idea.

And that idea is freedom.

And any man or group of men who oppose that idea of freedom are the real enemy.

Even if they turn out to be the leaders you used to be loyal to.

Can you believe such a notion is controversial among a certain well-defined segment of this board's users?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

{Assuming best Mormon critic 'shocked and dismayed' persona}

I just cannot believe nobody seems to understand what "may" means.

{/Assuming best Mormon critic 'shocked and dismayed' persona}

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/may

"May constitute grooming" indicates possible equivalence. That you think there "may" be a functional equivalence between same-sex marriage and pedophiles grooming victims doesn't make it any less absurd.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Can you believe such a notion is controversial among a certain well-defined segment of this board's users?

Which well-defined segment would that be? Genuinely curious here.

[USU78]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

"May constitute grooming" indicates possible equivalence. That you think there "may" be a functional equivalence between same-sex marriage and pedophiles grooming victims doesn't make it any less absurd.

It's only absurd to you because you buy into a self-serving and, may I say, dreadful, taxonomy where the face of the abuser is obscured because of fear of being deemed absurd [or, horror of horrors, hateful] by the happily self-blinded:  http://boingboing.net/2016/05/23/elijah-wood-says-hollywood-has.html

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's only absurd to you because you buy into a self-serving and, may I say, dreadful, taxonomy where the face of the abuser is obscured because of fear of being deemed absurd [or, horror of horrors, hateful] by the happily self-blinded:  http://boingboing.net/2016/05/23/elijah-wood-says-hollywood-has.html

So, you acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not functionally equivalent to pedophile grooming. 

I'm not sure why you think it's self-serving to point out that those two concepts are not functionally equivalent. Nor am I in any way obscuring the faces of any abusers. 

 

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, dear. I'm not even going to look. The last time I dug into their "research" in depth, I found all kinds of dishonesty and distortion. Before then, I knew LGBT advocates disliked (some intensely) the FRC, but after going through their stuff, I understand why. If we're going to have a reasonable discussion, it might help to use less-biased sources.

Because to address the issue is to be hateful and absurd, n'est-ce pas?

And, for your reading pleasure, a little controversial [no doubt] snippet from 1776:

 

Quote

Hopkins: Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!

 

[consiglieri]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Can you believe such a notion is controversial among a certain well-defined segment of this board's users?

I can't believe such a notion is controversial among any right-thinking person.

And believe me, I have a good feel for what Captain American would say.

Me and the Captain go way back.

 

 

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Which well-defined segment would that be? Genuinely curious here.

Not you, jk, for you are for, if nothing else, truth.  Keep on truthing!

[USU78]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

I can't believe such a notion is controversial among any right-thinking person.

And believe me, I have a good feel for what Captain American would say.

Me and the Captain go way back.

 

 

Too funny.

My mother had an enamelware pot, about 16-18" or so across, whose lid had a nice handle in the middle.  When she wasn't canning with it, I would steal the lid and play Captain America when I was a kid.  That is, when we weren't beating on one another with unsharpened swords made of two pieces of 1"/2" wood nailed together  ...  then I used it as a Prince Philip shield.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Because to address the issue is to be hateful and absurd, n'est-ce pas?

And, for your reading pleasure, a little controversial [no doubt] snippet from 1776:

It's not hateful and absurd to address an issue. What is absurd is to

• assert something absurd
• refuse to back up that assertion
• claim that anyone who finds the assertion absurd has a vested interest in covering up abuse

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not you, jk, for you are for, if nothing else, truth.  Keep on truthing!

Never mind. If you want to label me a liar, please do so directly.

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, dear. I'm not even going to look. The last time I dug into their "research" in depth, I found all kinds of dishonesty and distortion. Before then, I knew LGBT advocates disliked (some intensely) the FRC, but after going through their stuff, I understand why. If we're going to have a reasonable discussion, it might help to use less-biased sources.

Looks like a hate site to me. 

Edited May 24, 2016 by Gray

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, you acknowledge that same-sex marriage is not functionally equivalent to pedophile grooming. 

I'm not sure why you think it's self-serving to point out that those two concepts are not functionally equivalent. Nor am I in any way obscuring the faces of any abusers. 

Not at all.  It may well be, though I greatly doubt that would be in all cases.  Given my experience with those of the love who dare not speak its name yet refuses ever to shut its mouth even for a moment, I fear the "funny uncle" could never have my trust.

USU "And I was, for a couple of years, a professional dancer  ...  if you can imagine such a thing  ...  me the only straight guy in the room" 78

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I would say no, you are confused. Attraction to the same sex is not limited to adults.

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ˌhōməˈsekSH(əw)əl/

adjective

1.

(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

noun

1.

a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

 

I'm sure next someone will be seeking a redefinition of homosexuality.

I'm sorry, that's completely wrong. Heterosexual men are attracted to women, not girls. Homosexual men are attracted to men, not boys. This isn't rocket science. Pedophilia is something quite separate from heterosexuality and homosexuality.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Gray said:

Looks like a hate site to me. 

A few years ago I was trying to have a reasoned discussion about same-sex marriage with a poster (I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere), but he used a lot of stats from FRC. I went to the bother of sourcing the statistics and found that, without exception, the statistics were either grossly distorted or made up out of whole cloth. Some of them made no sense, such as citing a survey of gay men who said they weren't in a committed relationship to show that gay men who married were likely not to stay married. It ended up with the poster saying that, well, he wasn't actually relying on these statistics for his assertions. 

Needless to say, since that time I do not consider the FRC to be a reputable source. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

A few years ago I was trying to have a reasoned discussion about same-sex marriage with a poster (I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere), but he used a lot of stats from FRC. I went to the bother of sourcing the statistics and found that, without exception, the statistics were either grossly distorted or made up out of whole cloth. Some of them made no sense, such as citing a survey of gay men who said they weren't in a committed relationship to show that gay men who married were likely not to stay married. It ended up with the poster saying that, well, he wasn't actually relying on these statistics for his assertions. 

Needless to say, since that time I do not consider the FRC to be a reputable source. 

Unfortunately such disreputable sources drive much of the hatred directed at gay people. Similar sources drive hatred directed at other traditionally marginalized groups, such as Jewish people and African Americans. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not at all.  It may well be, though I greatly doubt that would be in all cases.  Given my experience with those of the love who dare not speak its name yet refuses ever to shut its mouth even for a moment, I fear the "funny uncle" could never have my trust.

USU "And I was, for a couple of years, a professional dancer  ...  if you can imagine such a thing  ...  me the only straight guy in the room" 78

There was a lot of child molestation in my wife's extended family. For that reason, I did not trust any of them to be alone with my kids. The abuse I knew about was heterosexual, but I wasn't going to make that assumption. Either way, marital status has no relation to whether one is a molester. You are the one who said same-sex marriage may constitute grooming, and yet here you are again refusing to defend that statement.