Hate crime haters

[PubliusInfinitum]

There is nothing in the bill that protects pedophiles, therefore you are a liar. Though I suppose it is just possible that you are extremely stupid and believe any hysterical rant your hero Rush comes up with.

Nice work lumping women, minorities and Christians in with pedophiles you fucking stupid asswipe.

No?

I see... now is Pedophilia a sexual orientation? Because a LOT of people see this psychology, which requires that a person seeks sexual arousal and gratification through contact with prepubescent children...

If pedophilia NOT a sexual orietation... would ya explain how it's not?

"H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia(emphasis added). The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such disorder or fetish..."

Gateway Pundit: Dems Hate Crimes Bill Protects Pedophiles But Not Veterans Or Grandmas

Now in what stood for debate of this bill, the Democrat majority had a chance to designate an exception for Pedophiles and overtly opted not to do so...

Now given that the debate resulted in the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OPTING NOT TO EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA FROM THE LEGISLATION... they overtly then sought to INCLUDE PEDOPHILIA...

Now here's the head of the pin... DANCE IVAN! DANCE!

Pedophilia is much more than a sexual orientation, there are many aspects of it that do not fit into a valid sexual orientation or lifestyle.

1. It is rape, one party is unwilling or uninformed, and therefore it is by force.

2. It completely disagrees with the "consenting adults" part of a lifestyle.

3. It is no worse than BDSM for those reasons.

LOL... Look kids... Its as IF someone is arguing that the sexual orientation of pedophilia is a 'lifestyle' worthy of protections... WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED... AND ISN'T EVEN INIMATED... what's more the argument to which this member is responding is NOTING THAT PEDOPHILIA IS NOT WORTHY of such protections... yet, this member sought NOT to adhere to that argument, which is what a reasonable person would have done...

But this member sought to do what? She sought to defend the OTHER forms of deviency...

Anyone NOT catch that? This member could NOT bring herself to simply proclaim that Pedophilia is a loathesome sexual disorientation which has NO BUSINESS find ANY FORM OF PROTECTION IN THE LAW... But INSTEAD she ran to CONFIRM that DEVIENCY is, in most cases worthy of protections...

Clearly her position is that IF and when one begins to debate the worthiness of ONE Deviency for protected class, over another... that the debate could readily find that NO Deiviency is worthy of such and it is better to protect ALL SUCH DEVIENCIES....
.
.
.
And THAT Friends is how we have come to designate PEDOPHILIA AS A PROTECTED CLASS OF THE CITIZENRY...


And that is how cultures are undermined... the inability to reason becomes such that NO line can be drawn, because where the line is drawn... it is going to prevent SOMEONE from being accepted...

Well... NO SHIT!

Thanks, Kitty... I thought I was going to have to spend the rest of the morning boxing you idiots into that one...

It never occurred to me that you'd just run right in...

LOL... Now friends, who gives a damn if Sally and Sarah, Donna and Vicky are hold up in their little condo with a case of wine and a Cheese; four shower curtains, six bottles of vegetable oil, a pallet of D-cells and a box of unknown 'implements'...

But we've now gone WELL beyond that... haven't we?

It's no longer enough to simply accept that such people have their kinks and that's just the way it is for some folks... to let them have their fun and go along to get along... Now we have to accept EVERY FORM OF DEBAUCHERY KNOWN TO MANKIND AND IF WE DON'T.... WE"RE GONNA PAY FREAKIN' BIG!

And how extreme of ME to even note it... Clearly I'm bordering on MAJOR PAIN!

 

[KittenKoder]

Pubs ... you do realize the irony in your reaction, at least I hope you do.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The reason is a thing called prosecutorial discretion. The same reason when you are speeding down the road at 70 mph and the Trooper pulls you over, but doesn't pull over the guy going 85 in front of you and you're pissed. Prosecutorial discretion.

Bottom line is that politically elected prosecutors have to charge some one with a hate crime. Just what do you think the NAACP would have done in the Knoxville torture-murder cases last year if they had charged the 5 blacks who tortured and murdered the white couple with a hate crime? Just how long do you think their political career would be after Jesse and Al got down there and hounded them from office?

That's why people think like that. It isn't because it couldn't happen, it's because it won't. Prosecutors know damn well that charging minorities with hate crimes is a sure way to find yourself unemployed and will more trouble than they care to see in a lifetime. After all, the rationalization will go, it isn't like we aren't going to charge the minority in question with a crime, we just aren't going to go the "hate crime" route.

This sends a message to the community as well.

So basically you, and Editec, are against hate crime laws because of the fear someone will misuse the law.

Are you really a lawyer?

I ask because you keep reading into my posts thing which are clearly not there, and I've always thought that if there's one thing lawyers care about it's the careful assessment of what the words on the page really say.

No I did not say that I object to hate crime laws.

I said that the problem with having them is that their enforcement is far too often POLTICICIZED.

MOTIVE certainly does and should play a role in sentencing.

If I punch a Black man because that particular man annoyed me, that is a crime.

If I punch a Black man BECAUSE he is a Black man that SHOULD be recognized as another crime, and one that suggests that my sociopatholgy profile is a far more threatening kind to the commonweal.

Society would be damned foolish to pretend otherwise.

Editecian liberalism is not a suicide pact, Tech.

LOL....I didn't mention you this time Edi....I'm just collateral damage from Ravi's post.

I'm not informed enough to comment on Editecian liberalism.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubs ... you do realize the irony in your reaction, at least I hope you do.

Hmm... Let's see... What would you think is ironic in my reaction?

I dunno... Maybe ya felt you were adhering to the idea that it's ludicrous to provide protections to sexual predators?

I think I noted that potential aspect of your position Kitty...

What was much more striking to me, was the way ya went about it... Where ya wanted to deprive the kink of the lowly pedophile, while giving the other pervs a bump towards legitimacy...

Here's the thing about that... It can't be done... Which is what I've been trying to tell you people for a generation; with regard to the calamity of the entire notion of 'fairness', particularly as it is interpreted in 14th amendment pleas and decisions.

Where one is going to make sexual orientation a basis for class protection... one must give every kink the same protections as the next.

That you may be coming to understand that at this late date is lamentable that it took you this long... but commendable that ya finally made it to the party.

'Fairness for fairness sake,' which is the thesis at the core of nearly every 14th amendment plea, is a LUDICROUS idea... but since so many people are simply either not paying sufficient attention and/or not bright enough to realize that there are many instances where 'fairness' is not the highest moral imperative in every instance... and that it is not fair that sexual deviency is not recognized as sexual normalcy... is A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of just such an instance.

Sexual deviency may well be something which people are entitled to participate in, in the privacy of their home... but that doesn't mean that the culture should make that decidely low threshold the STANDARD of decency. We all have to defecate... its a function common to the biology of each of us; but we keep that process private... and the same should be true for the freaks... keep it to yourselves... no one cares. Just don't expect us to applaud you, because you like your sex with mayonaise and cucumbers...

But I digress...

Point is when you protect the queers on the basis of their kink... you've NO CHOICE but to protect the Childfuckers... because they were 'born different too...' and 'they didn't CHOOSE to be 'that way''... and 'why should they suffer, just because the way they love is different from the other freaks?'

I've told everyone that will listen for as far back as I can remember that if one uses the SAME absurdity which the queer lobby has ALWAYS used to advocate for that freak-show... and apply it to the child-fuckers... there is no way to stop it.

Because it boils down to the same dynamics... Its you against them... your opinion -v-their opinion; you're a bigot a Pedi-phobe... you're opinion is narrow minded... 'so yesterday...'

This step, in including those sick, twisted freaks in these already absurd protections is a leap from the cultural precipice... and if you're pretty sure that pedophilia is a vile deviency of the evil variety... WELCOME TO MY WORLD, ya narrow minded, BIGOT!

My advice is to strap yourself in, as its gonna be a bumpy ride...

 

[Tech_Esq]

There is nothing in the bill that protects pedophiles, therefore you are a liar. Though I suppose it is just possible that you are extremely stupid and believe any hysterical rant your hero Rush comes up with.

Nice work lumping women, minorities and Christians in with pedophiles you fucking stupid asswipe.

No?

I see... now is Pedophilia a sexual orientation? Because a LOT of people see this psychology, which requires that a person seeks sexual arousal and gratification through contact with prepubescent children...

If pedophilia NOT a sexual orietation... would ya explain how it's not?

"H.R. 1913 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009) is not about stopping crime but is designed to give "actual or perceived" sexual preference or "gender identity" (which is still classified as a mental disorder) the same legal status as race. The DSM IVR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychologists and psychiatrists to diagnose mental disorders) lists more than 30 "sexual orientations" and "Gender Identity Disorders," including pedophilia(emphasis added). The hate crimes bill does not limit "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" and, thus, includes all these disorders and fetishes. The use of "actual or perceived" includes those with disorders or deviant sexual preferences and those who do not have such disorders or fetishes, so long as it is alleged that the person charged allegedly "thought" the other person had such disorder or fetish..."

Gateway Pundit: Dems Hate Crimes Bill Protects Pedophiles But Not Veterans Or Grandmas

Now in what stood for debate of this bill, the Democrat majority had a chance to designate an exception for Pedophiles and overtly opted not to do so...

Now given that the debate resulted in the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY OPTING NOT TO EXCLUDE PEDOPHILIA FROM THE LEGISLATION... they overtly then sought to INCLUDE PEDOPHILIA...

Now here's the head of the pin... DANCE IVAN! DANCE!

Pedophilia is much more than a sexual orientation, there are many aspects of it that do not fit into a valid sexual orientation or lifestyle.

1. It is rape, one party is unwilling or uninformed, and therefore it is by force.

2. It completely disagrees with the "consenting adults" part of a lifestyle.

3. It is no worse than BDSM for those reasons.

Why would you say that (going WAY off topic here) BDSM is roughly equal to (pedophilia is no worse than BDSM) Pedophilia?

Is that what you intended to say?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Pubs ... you do realize the irony in your reaction, at least I hope you do.

Hmm... Let's see... What would you think is ironic in my reaction?

I dunno... Maybe ya felt you were adhering to the idea that it's ludicrous to provide protections to sexual predators?

I think I noted that potential aspect of your position Kitty...

What was much more striking to me, was the way ya went about it... Where ya wanted to deprive the kink of the lowly pedophile, while giving the other pervs a bump towards legitimacy...

Here's the thing about that... It can't be done... Which is what I've been trying to tell you people for a generation; with regard to the calamity of the entire notion of 'fairness', particularly as it is interpreted in 14th amendment pleas and decisions.

Where one is going to make sexual orientation a basis for class protection... one must give every kink the same protections as the next.

That you may be coming to understand that at this late date is lamentable that it took you this long... but commendable that ya finally made it to the party.

'Fairness for fairness sake,' which is the thesis at the core of nearly every 14th amendment plea, is a LUDICROUS idea... but since so many people are simply either not paying sufficient attention and/or not bright enough to realize that there are many instances where 'fairness' is not the highest moral imperative in every instance... and that it is not fair that sexual deviency is not recognized as sexual normalcy... is A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of just such an instance.

Sexual deviency may well be something which people are entitled to participate in, in the privacy of their home... but that doesn't mean that the culture should make that decidely low threshold the STANDARD of decency. We all have to defecate... its a function common to the biology of each of us; but we keep that process private... and the same should be true for the freaks... keep it to yourselves... no one cares. Just don't expect us to applaud you, because you like your sex with mayonaise and cucumbers...

But I digress...

Point is when you protect the queers on the basis of their kink... you've NO CHOICE but to protect the Childfuckers... because they were 'born different too...' and 'they didn't CHOOSE to be 'that way''... and 'why should they suffer, just because the way they love is different from the other freaks?'

I've told everyone that will listen for as far back as I can remember that if one uses the SAME absurdity which the queer lobby has ALWAYS used to advocate for that freak-show... and apply it to the child-fuckers... there is no way to stop it.

Because it boils down to the same dynamics... Its you against them... your opinion -v-their opinion; you're a bigot a Pedi-phobe... you're opinion is narrow minded... 'so yesterday...'

This step, in including those sick, twisted freaks in these already absurd protections is a leap from the cultural precipice... and if you're pretty sure that pedophilia is a vile deviency of the evil variety... WELCOME TO MY WORLD, ya narrow minded, BIGOT!

My advice is to strap yourself in, as its gonna be a bumpy ride...

Perhaps I think too much of myself, but I'm guessing that because I can distinguish the difference between a child-fucker and an adherent to the BDSM lifestyle or the gay lifestyle, I can probably write a law that distinguishes one from another also.

How about a line like, "nothing within this law is to be construed to legalize or afford protection to any actions that are currently or will be held in the future to be illegal."

That ought to take care of both the child fuckers and the dog fuckers, while leaving the other fuckers alone.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubs ... you do realize the irony in your reaction, at least I hope you do.

Hmm... Let's see... What would you think is ironic in my reaction?

I dunno... Maybe ya felt you were adhering to the idea that it's ludicrous to provide protections to sexual predators?

I think I noted that potential aspect of your position Kitty...

What was much more striking to me, was the way ya went about it... Where ya wanted to deprive the kink of the lowly pedophile, while giving the other pervs a bump towards legitimacy...

Here's the thing about that... It can't be done... Which is what I've been trying to tell you people for a generation; with regard to the calamity of the entire notion of 'fairness', particularly as it is interpreted in 14th amendment pleas and decisions.

Where one is going to make sexual orientation a basis for class protection... one must give every kink the same protections as the next.

That you may be coming to understand that at this late date is lamentable that it took you this long... but commendable that ya finally made it to the party.

'Fairness for fairness sake,' which is the thesis at the core of nearly every 14th amendment plea, is a LUDICROUS idea... but since so many people are simply either not paying sufficient attention and/or not bright enough to realize that there are many instances where 'fairness' is not the highest moral imperative in every instance... and that it is not fair that sexual deviency is not recognized as sexual normalcy... is A CLASSIC EXAMPLE of just such an instance.

Sexual deviency may well be something which people are entitled to participate in, in the privacy of their home... but that doesn't mean that the culture should make that decidely low threshold the STANDARD of decency. We all have to defecate... its a function common to the biology of each of us; but we keep that process private... and the same should be true for the freaks... keep it to yourselves... no one cares. Just don't expect us to applaud you, because you like your sex with mayonaise and cucumbers...

But I digress...

Point is when you protect the queers on the basis of their kink... you've NO CHOICE but to protect the Childfuckers... because they were 'born different too...' and 'they didn't CHOOSE to be 'that way''... and 'why should they suffer, just because the way they love is different from the other freaks?'

I've told everyone that will listen for as far back as I can remember that if one uses the SAME absurdity which the queer lobby has ALWAYS used to advocate for that freak-show... and apply it to the child-fuckers... there is no way to stop it.

Because it boils down to the same dynamics... Its you against them... your opinion -v-their opinion; you're a bigot a Pedi-phobe... you're opinion is narrow minded... 'so yesterday...'

This step, in including those sick, twisted freaks in these already absurd protections is a leap from the cultural precipice... and if you're pretty sure that pedophilia is a vile deviency of the evil variety... WELCOME TO MY WORLD, ya narrow minded, BIGOT!

My advice is to strap yourself in, as its gonna be a bumpy ride...

Perhaps I think too much of myself, but I'm guessing that because I can distinguish the difference between a child-fucker and an adherent to the BDSM lifestyle or the gay lifestyle, I can probably write a law that distinguishes one from another also.

How about a line like, "nothing within this law is to be construed to legalize or afford protection to any actions that are currently or will be held in the future to be illegal."

That ought to take care of both the child fuckers and the dog fuckers, while leaving the other fuckers alone.

Yeah... But of course, such a clause was debated... and rejected. And despite they're having avoided coming out and saying it... the instant that ya do that... you set the bill up for a 14th amendment challenge. Because, it just isn't FAIR that you give one mental disorder extre-special rights and ya don't give the other freaks their extra special rights...

And what's WORSE, you've declared that sexual orientation is something other than an 'innoculous little bit of nothing, which no one should ever be worried about... ' and that is why the Left opted to simply protect 'sexual orientation' across the board.

As ya know... Court challenges are risky things... it's all wine and roses when one gets the court on which an overt advocate sits... but there is a chance that one would get an actual American sitting behind that bench who would take a serious look at the facts; then the WHOLE ugly mess is set back YEARS... and they're SO CLOSE to crippling American values; so who needs that?

The fact is, that once the debate begins, there are many 'really sick' aspects of the whole sexual orientation thing, which just wouldn't bode well for that general thesis; such as the whole 'mental disorder' thing... it's pretty hard to convince the a-political that there's no reason to shift the culture on it's ear to accomodate the innoculous little bit of nothing' which they've been lead to believe is the case where someone is a 'little different'... when they come to understand that 'a little different' represents: mental disorders...

"whoa... what'd he say? I thought they were just snappy dressers with an eye for superior 'interior-design'."

For instance... just exactly how does one go about protecting the homosexual male, who just happens to have an * in his particular kink, wherein what REALLY gets him going are those 10 year old boys...? Now if you protecct the fag, but not the Pedophile... where's the solution? Half a hate crime for beating the hell out of 'im for molesting Little Bubba? Or will there be a long debate to the jury which tries to drive home that Bubba's Dad REALLY hates the Fag part and that Chester 'just happened' to molest Lil' Bubba was just the trigger which set off his HATE of faggetry on the whole?

When ya give one pervert the RIGHT to be NORMAL... well ya have to give 'em ALL the same freakin' right... or so goes the Conventional Wisdom (AKA: the irrational interpretation) of the 14th amendment..

And again folks... the APA has ALREADY... LONG AGO advanced the idea 'that in many cases, adult child sex is actually good for the child ... with many positve aspects, such as elevated self esteem from a loving relationship with an adult...'

And what's more... using the SAME quips and platitudes that the left used to normalize faggetry... there's no chance that the culture can defend against the pedophile.

Here's how it will go down... (pun unintended...) The 'rape' aspect which Kitty spoke, will be set aside as 'obvious'... the anointed social scientists will simply point out that what 'seemed' like rape, or overt infleunce by a 'knowing' adult... is really just a healthy relationship; like a mentor so to speak. Where the best interests of the 'pre-adult' is paramount... a tender, 'loving' relationship where 'force' is no where to be found and both parties are fully consenting... and to be sure the antiquated notions of 'maturity,' particularly those founded in 'religious dogma' no longer apply in a world where 'science has shown' that human beings are realizing a reasonable level of sexual maturity much earlier than was previously believed to be the case in earlier generations...

Then there's the whole "homosexual history of the world' which the 'gay community' LOVES TO TROT OUT... wherein it is shown that previous cultures were centered around such mentor relationships; where prepubescent children were 'tutored' in their 'sexual understandings' by caring adults, who genuinely loved them and were looking out for their best interests...

The idea that evil comes knocking at the door and declares "GOOD AFTERNOON! I'm EVIL AND I'M HERE TO SCREW YOU!" is ludicrous... Evil comes concealed... it uses subterfuge, obfuscation and deception; and the normalization of the abnormal is no exception; its a culture killer and it's well entrenched already; rotting everything that comes into contact with it; this is a bill which is being passed by a majority of the US Legislature... meaning that its come into contact with the cultural head; and to be sure, that ain't good...


So yeah... they COULD have provided an exclusion... they just chose not to... but they had good reason not to... it just wasn't a reason which was good for the Culture... as usual.