LGBT Activists in CA Begin Incrementally Lowering the Age of Consent Under the Radar

[LockeJaw]

Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.

If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.

 

[Inevitable]

[/U]ckeJaw;9424173]You are really pathetic, not to mention completely transparent, Jake.

if you think I am a incarnation of Jake report me.

And you are only mounting these pathetic personal attacks because your argument fails

My argument does not fail just because I call you a dumb ass,

Your logic fails because ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Your argument fails because it is based on a logical fallacy.

it's a fact

Okay, it's your claim, the burden of proof is in you. Prove it, other wise it isn't a fact but a childish emotional response due to your frustration in your failed argument. Prove it wrong.

just like it's a fact The Advocate's mascot is a young boy bent over & they advertised the sales of penetrable boy dolls with vibrating penises that ejaculate...they flew off the shelves!

Looks like a cartoon to me but people see what they want. And what you see says more about you than it does about me.

And you don't help your argument with that avatar of yours, by the way.

The avatar is a picture of my 23 year old self, if you seesomething else that is your imagination.

Sil is 100% in her observation.

Resorting to personal attracts and projecting sexual fantasies onto pictures?

Must be sil's broken argument that provoked such defensive behavior. Seems like you guys are on the run.

 

[Inevitable]

Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.

If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.

It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.

Here you go.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.

If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.

It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.

Noticing that your avatar suggests child prostitution is part of the topic of this thread: lowering the age of consent. Remember?

Though I am perfectly aware of the strategy employed online by coordinated LGBT activists/propagandaists to deflect topics away from getting at the core values of LGBT by personal attacks, strawmen and sidelines. It's just nice to hear one of them [you] admitting that's what they do from time to time.

 

[LockeJaw]

I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable? Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.

You said on the other thread I was unjustified in being against gay adoption, well...I think I just killed that talking point, so what else you got?

Moron.

 

[Inevitable]

Oh, and Inevitable...If that avatar is a picture of you, you won't have a problem coming up with another picture of yourself. Do that and you can refute our suspicions.

If you won't do so, obviously that is a picture of a total stranger.

It's more fun to let you and your ilk become distracted by personal attacks and abandon your argument. it proves what malarkey they are.

Noticing that your avatar suggests child prostitution is part of the topic of this thread: lowering the age of consent. Remember?

It only suggests such things in your twisted mind.

Though I am perfectly aware of the strategy employed online by coordinated LGBT activists/propagandaists to deflect topics away from getting at the core values of LGBT by personal attacks, strawmen and sidelines. It's just nice to hear one of them [you] admitting that's what they do from time to time.

You are the only one that posted personal attacks, blatant lies or poor understanding of California law. You have distracted yourself with a personal attack on me, you have derailedyour own thread.

And since you accused me of presenting a strawman argument, what if your positions did I misrepresent?

 

[September]

Silhouette is a cranky old man that thinks about homosexuality 24/7 because he used to have sexual relations with some guy named Milk.

 

[Howey]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

But it was ok for Phil Robertson, huh?

 

[Inevitable]

I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?

It isn't an issue.

Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.

Those bastards

You said on the other thread I was unjustified in being against gay adoption, well...I think I just killed that talking point, so what else you got?

You still hold unjustifiable ethics. You think children are better off in thehands of heterosexuals, they are guilty of wiping out 54 million of them before they were even born.

Heterosexuals are far more dangerous to children. You have wipedout one sixth of our population. Hitler killed fewer people.

Moron.

:roflol: I love it when you people call me names, it means your rational is breaking down.

 

[Inevitable]

Silhouette is a cranky old man that thinks about homosexuality 24/7 because he used to have sexual relations with some guy named Milk.

Sounds like he is a closet case.

 

[Inevitable]

Silhouette is a cranky old man that thinks about homosexuality 24/7 because he used to have sexual relations with some guy named Milk.

These assclowns aren't convincing anybody of anything except for themselves. They have pathetically poor debate skills. Accusations of strawman fallacies but they don't even know what that means, meanwhile completely abandoning any aargument to attack me.

These idiots are just ridiculous, this is the best these people have to offer. Ha hahaha ha, nowonder people are abounding that backward way of thinking.

 

[Inevitable]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

But it was ok for Phil Robertson, huh?

That skunk eating hillbilly isn't worth mentioning. His only claim to fame is his television show of hillbilly brethren acting unorthodox and eating skunk.

What a clown.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah...homosexuality & pedophilia are two different things. Pshhhh

But it was ok for Phil Robertson, huh?

Two teens getting married is not pedopilia. Harvey Milk at 33 preying on minor teen boys off the streets to sodomize while officiating as their father figure/guardian IS pedophilia.

In the same light as you calling your cause "Inevitable" I was thinking of changing my name here to "Hobby Lobby"..

 

[LockeJaw]

I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?

It isn't an issue.

Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.

Those bastards.

So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies. Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are. And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.

 

[Silhouette]

I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?

It isn't an issue.

Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.

Those bastards.

So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies. Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are. And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.

More importantly still, heteros don't hold "abortion pride parades" down main street, sober and anticipating children to be in attendance as they gyrate and promote their procedures and techniques. Abortion is something this country is not proud of; indeed no person is proud of at all. At best it is a necessary evil. Doing sex acts in front of kids down main street is an un-necessary evil...and one y'all are proud of.

 

[Political Junky]

Your avatar shows a male with all the appearances of being a very very young one. No facial hair at all with a "come hither look" with a see through jersey, laying on his back with one hand suggesting he is fondling his crotch. That's what it shows. What you say your age is, is immaterial to the impression the photo gives onlookers.

It says to onlookers "Inevitable is promoting young male prostitution" because it looks like the photo is of a young male prostitute. And so what I'm saying to you is, if you want to proclaim that no lines between the LGBT cult and pedophila have been blurred, then why have you got your blurring tool out in the form of your avatar?

To me it epitomizes how the LGBT cult also asks the general public to ignore their public nudity, near nudity, mock and actual sex acts in their "pride" parades where they anticipate children will be looking on. They say "don't mind the fact that what you see looks like inappropriate sex acts in front of kids, it really isn't a form of pedophilia". Yet if any of those folks showed up in a park with kids wearing a trench coat and flashing little kids, they would be arrested on the spot. But if they do the same exact acts in public down main street as a matter of "pride" then the public gets on board without a question.

And I find that dichotomy in the protection of children very very odd..and telling....

This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.

"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.

You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.

I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.

That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.

One could say the picture is a Rorschach test for some.

 

[Inevitable]

I see you want to keep glossing over the baby doll issue, because you've got nothing, it is indefensible. Why were penetrable baby dolls so popular with The Advocate's reader base, Inevitable?

It isn't an issue.

Because there are tons of potential homosexual child molesters, who fantasize about having sex with babies.

Those bastards.

So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies.

I don't entertain loaded questions

Thanks for revealing yourself for the filth you are.

Oh boy, more ad hominem.

And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.

You do support abortion because you made heterosexual, well, that's the logic you use in your asinine assumptions about gay people.

I don't really believe that heterosexuals all support child abuse, but since your argument. is so absurd I figured I would present an absurd argument too.

Seems it went way over your head.

Guess all those trips to planned parenthood to murder your babies has messed up your mind.

 

[Inevitable]

This entire post is ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me because your argument just failed.

"When the debate is lost, slander (libelous) becomes the weapon of the loser"- Socrates.

You dreamed up some fiction about the orientation of the Persian in my avatar, you imaginedsome prostitution you pretended I am younger than I am. That is absolutely libelous (slander). And it says where your mind is. You dreamed up the pedophilia you can't blame me for your imagination.

I have no way of knowing or verifying who that picture is actually of. I notice what it depicts quite clearly and plainly: A boy posed in a "come hither" sexually-suggestive stance with what appears like his hand going down the front of his pants.

That's your bad, not mine if the picture is of yourself.

One could say the picture is a Rorschach test for some.

Exactly.

 

[Inevitable]

So, judging by your obviously sarcastic, dripping with snide replies to my concerns is you admitting you have no problem with people that fantasize about sexually molesting babies.

I don't entertain loaded questions

Oh boy, more ad hominem.

And I don't support abortion, and most heterosexuals don't abort their children(yet). Most heterosexuals don't molest children. I wouldn't doubt over half if not more of the gay population are & do.

You do support abortion because you made heterosexual, well, that's the logic you use in your asinine assumptions about gay people.

I don't really believe that heterosexuals all support child abuse, but since your argument. is so absurd I figured I would present an absurd argument too.

Seems it went way over your head.

Guess all those trips to planned parenthood to murder your babies has messed up your mind.

Lol, you are a complete idiot. Whining about ad hominems while using them, strawmen..while using them.

Once I learned that I wasn't speaking with a rational person, logical discussion couldn't occur.

You irrationally believe that most gay people molest children and you admitted such. I didn't need to misrepresent your position it was already irrational. So there was no straw man. Sorry.

And That wasn't a "loaded question", retard.

It was a loaded question, youdon't comprehend logic so what do you know?

It was an OBSERVATION, One you clearly don't want to address for some reason

I don't entertain loaded questions.

Learn the difference if youre going to come on the Internet & pose as some wannabe debate champion. Lol.

Champion? I don't think so, one doesn't have to be a champion to knock over the pathetic house of cards argument you present.

You started out with a prejudiced position, called me names when I pointed out that it wasn't rational and now have abandoned your argument (because you know it's phony) to call me a retard.

I am okay with it. Some internet clown thinks I am a retard while he struggled to formulate an argument failed and then resorted to calling me a retard becauseI poked holes in his argument.

When you call me names, it's like you saying you forfeit.

Please keep up your irrational caterwalling, it's music to my ears, frankly it's the death rattle to your backward way of thinking.

 

[LockeJaw]

It was not a question of any kind, it was an observation. There is no ? At the end of that sentence.

I see you still want to avoid adressing the observation with anything other than diversionary tactics. You are so full of fail, it's almost painful to watch.