Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children.
Nope pedophile is anyone who is sexually attracted to kids. The sexual attraction may not be a choice, but molesting kids is definitely a choice.
So now you want to play psychic? Ok prove it then.
Prove yourself right,that's how the law works.
It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
Aaaaaaaaaaand that's why his argument is retarded. IMO, he's being obtuse.
Personally I think he deserves a medal:
Alleged abuse victim arrested in priest's beating - Yahoo! News
the rapist gets to fuck a bunch of kids and then live to die peacefully in a retirement home, priesthood must be nice for pedos
If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.
You are setting up pedophiles as entitled to protection under hate crime legislation on the theory that, since pedophelia is a "sexual orientation," anyone who attacks them because they are a pedophile, has committed a hate crime against them. Here is why this argument does not hold water:
There are various classes or groups of people afforded protection under hate crime legislation. Although the classes or groups may vary from state to state, they are, generally based upon age, gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion. With the exception of religion, you will notice that all of the remaining classes involve membership therein by circumstance, not by choice. You are what you are, age-wise, racially, ethnically, gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise and disability-wise. None of these groups involve membership by choice.
Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children. Something like this is a matter of choice, not circumstance. Hate crime legislation is designed to protect people who are in one of the protected classes by circumstance, not by choice.
Additionally, practicing pedophilia is a crime. Being a member of any of the listed, protected classes in the hate crime statutes is not a crime. A statute that protected criminals (pedophiles) would be against public policy, because it would encourage people to become pedophiles.
It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
Aaaaaaaaaaand that's why his argument is retarded. IMO, he's being obtuse.
No, it says the motivation has to be, or appear to be, sexual orientation, or other defined factors.
So now you want to play psychic? Ok prove it then.
The guy admitted that he beat up the priest who molested him. What exactly is it you want me to prove?
Prove yourself right,that's how the law works.
I did.
It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
Not at all. He beat the crap out of a guy he knew was a pedophile because he thought he deserved it. Where have I ever said that is was not an act of revenge? I just am pointing out that revenge requires hate.
So now you want to play psychic? Ok prove it then.
The guy admitted that he beat up the priest who molested him. What exactly is it you want me to prove?
I did.
It says the motivation has to be sexual orientation etc. The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
Not at all. He beat the crap out of a guy he knew was a pedophile because he thought he deserved it. Where have I ever said that is was not an act of revenge? I just am pointing out that revenge requires hate.
You said he was motivated by him being a pedophile.
Aaaaaaaaaaand that's why his argument is retarded. IMO, he's being obtuse.
No, it says the motivation has to be, or appear to be, sexual orientation, or other defined factors.
Child Molestor is not and will never be a sexual orientation (it's a hobby at best).
No, it says the motivation has to be, or appear to be, sexual orientation, or other defined factors.
Child Molestor is not and will never be a sexual orientation (it's a hobby at best).
People used to say the same thing about homosexuals.
The guy admitted that he beat up the priest who molested him. What exactly is it you want me to prove?
I did.
Not at all. He beat the crap out of a guy he knew was a pedophile because he thought he deserved it. Where have I ever said that is was not an act of revenge? I just am pointing out that revenge requires hate.
You said he was motivated by him being a pedophile.
Are you saying he wasn't? If the guy had not been a pedophile he would not have been molesting children.
The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
Child Molestor is not and will never be a sexual orientation (it's a hobby at best).
People used to say the same thing about homosexuals.
Child molestation is an act that can be practiced by anyone including people with no sexual attraction to children (i.e. people who aren't pedophiles).
You said he was motivated by him being a pedophile.
Are you saying he wasn't? If the guy had not been a pedophile he would not have been molesting children.
You aren't fooling anybody so stop with the nonsense, kid.
You dodged a very straight forward question a few posts back.
I will repeat it:
The motivation was clearly revenge and not sexual orientation. You honestly think that if the priest never molested him he still would've beaten him up?
People used to say the same thing about homosexuals.
Child molestation is an act that can be practiced by anyone including people with no sexual attraction to children (i.e. people who aren't pedophiles).
So can homosexual acts, what's your point?
Child molestation is an act that can be practiced by anyone including people with no sexual attraction to children (i.e. people who aren't pedophiles).
So can homosexual acts, what's your point?
Guy who molests children is not the same thing as pedophile. There are pedophiles who aren't child molesters and vice versa (or at least there can be molesters who aren't pedos).
So your whole
molestor =sexual orientation is wrong.
So can homosexual acts, what's your point?
Guy who molests children is not the same thing as pedophile. There are pedophiles who aren't child molesters and vice versa (or at least there can be molesters who aren't pedos).
So your whole
molestor =sexual orientation is wrong.
So you agree that pedophiles should be protected from hate crimes, but straight men who commit homosexual acts should not?
Personally I think he deserves a medal:
Alleged abuse victim arrested in priest's beating - Yahoo! News
the rapist gets to fuck a bunch of kids and then live to die peacefully in a retirement home, priesthood must be nice for pedos
If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.
You are setting up pedophiles as entitled to protection under hate crime legislation on the theory that, since pedophelia is a "sexual orientation," anyone who attacks them because they are a pedophile, has committed a hate crime against them. Here is why this argument does not hold water:
There are various classes or groups of people afforded protection under hate crime legislation. Although the classes or groups may vary from state to state, they are, generally based upon age, gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion. With the exception of religion, you will notice that all of the remaining classes involve membership therein by circumstance, not by choice. You are what you are, age-wise, racially, ethnically, gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise and disability-wise. None of these groups involve membership by choice.
Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children. Something like this is a matter of choice, not circumstance. Hate crime legislation is designed to protect people who are in one of the protected classes by circumstance, not by choice.
Additionally, practicing pedophilia is a crime. Being a member of any of the listed, protected classes in the hate crime statutes is not a crime. A statute that protected criminals (pedophiles) would be against public policy, because it would encourage people to become pedophiles.
If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.
You are setting up pedophiles as entitled to protection under hate crime legislation on the theory that, since pedophelia is a "sexual orientation," anyone who attacks them because they are a pedophile, has committed a hate crime against them. Here is why this argument does not hold water:
There are various classes or groups of people afforded protection under hate crime legislation. Although the classes or groups may vary from state to state, they are, generally based upon age, gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion. With the exception of religion, you will notice that all of the remaining classes involve membership therein by circumstance, not by choice. You are what you are, age-wise, racially, ethnically, gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise and disability-wise. None of these groups involve membership by choice.
Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children. Something like this is a matter of choice, not circumstance. Hate crime legislation is designed to protect people who are in one of the protected classes by circumstance, not by choice.
Additionally, practicing pedophilia is a crime. Being a member of any of the listed, protected classes in the hate crime statutes is not a crime. A statute that protected criminals (pedophiles) would be against public policy, because it would encourage people to become pedophiles.
If, as some people argue, we have no choice about our sexual preference, than pedophiles have no choice either. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, which is why they like to mess with them.
You are correct that engaging in pedophilia is a crime. What if the person who is a pedophile chooses not engage in illegal acts, but manages to fulfill his desires by finding a person who appears to be younger looking, and is of legal age. If a person attacked him thinking he was a pedophile, would that be a hate crime? If the criteria is sexual orientation and legality, I think that fits.
Hey - QW: I never got any response from you to this:
If he did this, it was obviously a hate crime, because he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. If somebody who supposedly beats up a gay man because of his sexual orientation deserves extra punishment, then the guy who did this deserves the same punishment. Another reason to oppose hate crime legislation.
You are setting up pedophiles as entitled to protection under hate crime legislation on the theory that, since pedophelia is a "sexual orientation," anyone who attacks them because they are a pedophile, has committed a hate crime against them. Here is why this argument does not hold water:
There are various classes or groups of people afforded protection under hate crime legislation. Although the classes or groups may vary from state to state, they are, generally based upon age, gender, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion. With the exception of religion, you will notice that all of the remaining classes involve membership therein by circumstance, not by choice. You are what you are, age-wise, racially, ethnically, gender-wise, sexual orientation-wise and disability-wise. None of these groups involve membership by choice.
Pedophiles are pedophiles because they like to mess with children. Something like this is a matter of choice, not circumstance. Hate crime legislation is designed to protect people who are in one of the protected classes by circumstance, not by choice.
Additionally, practicing pedophilia is a crime. Being a member of any of the listed, protected classes in the hate crime statutes is not a crime. A statute that protected criminals (pedophiles) would be against public policy, because it would encourage people to become pedophiles.
You have been so busy blowing wind with FT that you never got around to answering it.
What do you say?
Guy who molests children is not the same thing as pedophile. There are pedophiles who aren't child molesters and vice versa (or at least there can be molesters who aren't pedos).
So your whole
molestor =sexual orientation is wrong.
So you agree that pedophiles should be protected from hate crimes, but straight men who commit homosexual acts should not?
No I'm saying that molestor is not a sexual orientation, even if you were to somehow include pedophile in that definition.
I'm not sure how I feel about hate crimes but I'm not going to pretend they would apply to something like this.
So you agree that pedophiles should be protected from hate crimes, but straight men who commit homosexual acts should not?
No I'm saying that molestor is not a sexual orientation, even if you were to somehow include pedophile in that definition.
I'm not sure how I feel about hate crimes but I'm not going to pretend they would apply to something like this.
I might buy this, if the molestation we were talking about was not sexual in nature. Since we are both assuming it was, I do not see how you can claim that a guy who sexually molested a child was not a pedophile. Unless you are trying to claim that the motive for the original molestation was revenge.
