'Pedophile Protection Act' Heads to Senate Committee

[007]

A HE? Really? Must be on the hormone treatment of somekind... I get an estrogen vibe from her work... and not the Jennifer Anniston or Carrie Prejean kind... More the Rosanne Barr or Wanda Sykes thing...

Good comparison PI. But I'd say that bullypulpit is more like a male version of rosey o'donnell.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So... Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation...

For that to be true, Pedophilia would have to be unrelated to sexuality... or an orientation of sexuality... and since pedophilia is about NOTHING BUT Sexuality and the oriented towards children... just as homo-sexuality is oriented towards people of the same gender; which is all "Sexual Orientation" actually means...

Which is why Homosexuality is precisely the same mental disorder that is Pedophilia... That mental disorder produces a sexual desire which falls outside the baseline norm... which is HETERO-SEXUALITY... where sexual arousal, cravings and the desire for the satisfaction as a result of such are directed towards members of the OPPOSITE GENDER... and do not, as a general rule, require any 'special equipment' and a general preference is for such to occur in private...

But it is WONDERFUL of this imbecile to post this position, wherein she simply comes to assert more blind denials; the sum of which fly in the face of reason, common sense and the general rules of the english language.

As I've stated MANY TIMES now... these fools are desperate to control the langauge; because that is the ONLY way one can change the definition of words and impart the authority of SCIENCE, while rejecting the objective nature of such... and while that is possible in some debates... it is NOT POSSIBLE in debates in which I am engaged...

It should also be pointed out that if Kieth Olberman, Chris Mathews, Chris Rock, Bill Maher and the whole of the New York and San Fransisco Lega Aid Society were here, on this thread, working with unlimited resources... they wouldn't be advancing an argument which is any more valid, or anywhere closer to being intellectually sound than the trainwreck to which this responds...


This debate is OVER kids and has been for a few days... all that's left is for the homo-advocates to continue to beat their long discredited 'feelings' and the rhetorical dead horse on which they rode in on...

Your attempt to parse words is really quite pathetic. It's not pedophiles you're bitching about, it's homosexuals.

Note the phraseology... This is an attempt to discredit the argument through the suggestion that the argument itself bears no validity, but is merely using trickery... she used the word 'parse'...

Lets examine that word:

parse [paarss]
(past and past participle parsed, present participle pars·ing, 3rd person present singular pars·es)
v
1. vti describe grammatical role of word: to describe the grammatical role of a word in a sentence, or undergo this process


What my argument bears is the defining traits of the words which are being used... specifically the MISUSE of words, which the opposition hopes to use to imply something which the words themselves do not mean... she is trying to redefine words for the purposes of the debate... which as I've pointed out,many times, is the rhetorical equivilent of trimming puzzle peices to fit the whole, instead of going through the time and trouble of finding the RIGHT PIECE...

She then ignorantly returns to conclude that such is parsing... when what it is, is SOUND REASON!

ROFL... Pedophilia and homosexuality are of the same mental disorder... where in the purest sense of each, there are but slight degrees of separation.

NAMBLA is a classic example... this organization is rooted DIRECTLY IN THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT... there is absolutely NO DENYING THAT, both male and female homosexuals who are sexually aroused by and seek sexual gratification through children of their own gender... and who advocate for the legalization of 'loving concensual adult/child sexual relationships.'

And while there are those within the homosexual community who are able to fight their instinct for sex with children, their disorder is such that they remain oriented towards sexual relations with those of their own gender...

NORMAL doesn't exclude a desire for young tail... NORMAL excludes ACTING on the desire for young tail... NORMAL doesn't sit around and obsess on that which is not ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL doesn't demand that the culture CHANGE THE TERMS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NATURAL BUT UNACCEPTABLE DESIRES.

Where the desire is for prepubescents... that is merely a SEVERE FORM OF THE SAME DISORDER... NOT A DISTINCT DISORDER.

And that's not parsing, that is simple COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE...

Were your reasoning sound, you might have a point. Your reasoning, however, is as deeply flawed as your personality...disjointed, ill-informed, benighted, dim, generally lacking in good sense, and utterly devoid of facts or anything else pertaining to reality.

You don't debate, you browbeat...you hurl inanities at those who disagree with you, and engage in the BB equivalent of shouting down opposition. Rather than present information supporting your thesis, you fill band width with your narrow, parochial, lack-wit, prejudice laden spew, leavened with a measure of pseudo-intellectual clap-trap.

Facts presented in a rational argument are meaningless to you and your fellow traveler, PaleRider. Given your shared sensibilities, perhaps you two would enjoy a road trip together...perhaps perform your own peculiar version of "Brokeback Mountain". I can almost hear PR now, whispering..."I wish I knew how to quit you!" in your ear...as he grunts and strains over your nether regions.

 

[007]

Your attempt to parse words is really quite pathetic. It's not pedophiles you're bitching about, it's homosexuals.

Note the phraseology... This is an attempt to discredit the argument through the suggestion that the argument itself bears no validity, but is merely using trickery... she used the word 'parse'...

Lets examine that word:

parse [paarss]
(past and past participle parsed, present participle pars·ing, 3rd person present singular pars·es)
v
1. vti describe grammatical role of word: to describe the grammatical role of a word in a sentence, or undergo this process


What my argument bears is the defining traits of the words which are being used... specifically the MISUSE of words, which the opposition hopes to use to imply something which the words themselves do not mean... she is trying to redefine words for the purposes of the debate... which as I've pointed out,many times, is the rhetorical equivilent of trimming puzzle peices to fit the whole, instead of going through the time and trouble of finding the RIGHT PIECE...

She then ignorantly returns to conclude that such is parsing... when what it is, is SOUND REASON!

ROFL... Pedophilia and homosexuality are of the same mental disorder... where in the purest sense of each, there are but slight degrees of separation.

NAMBLA is a classic example... this organization is rooted DIRECTLY IN THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT... there is absolutely NO DENYING THAT, both male and female homosexuals who are sexually aroused by and seek sexual gratification through children of their own gender... and who advocate for the legalization of 'loving concensual adult/child sexual relationships.'

And while there are those within the homosexual community who are able to fight their instinct for sex with children, their disorder is such that they remain oriented towards sexual relations with those of their own gender...

NORMAL doesn't exclude a desire for young tail... NORMAL excludes ACTING on the desire for young tail... NORMAL doesn't sit around and obsess on that which is not ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL doesn't demand that the culture CHANGE THE TERMS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NATURAL BUT UNACCEPTABLE DESIRES.

Where the desire is for prepubescents... that is merely a SEVERE FORM OF THE SAME DISORDER... NOT A DISTINCT DISORDER.

And that's not parsing, that is simple COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE...

Were your reasoning sound, you might have a point. Your reasoning, however, is as deeply flawed as your personality...disjointed, ill-informed, benighted, dim, generally lacking in good sense, and utterly devoid of facts or anything else pertaining to reality.

You don't debate, you browbeat...you hurl inanities at those who disagree with you, and engage in the BB equivalent of shouting down opposition. Rather than present information supporting your thesis, you fill band width with your narrow, parochial, lack-wit, prejudice laden spew, leavened with a measure of pseudo-intellectual clap-trap.

Facts presented in a rational argument are meaningless to you and your fellow traveler, PaleRider. Given your shared sensibilities, perhaps you two would enjoy a road trip together...perhaps perform your own peculiar version of "Brokeback Mountain". I can almost hear PR now, whispering..."I wish I knew how to quit you!" in your ear...as he grunts and strains over your nether regions.

And your post here is nothing more than one titanic, vainglorious, bombastic, insult, of which 90% of everything you post is. I think you don't like PI because he can nail your sorry ass to the floor in no uncertain terms, and that ticks you off. You used to be able to roam around the board insulting at will and now there's someone here that can take you off at the knees. Sucks don't it bull? Sucks that such a fine debater is a *CONSERVATIVE!* Yeah I know.... you secretly wish he was a liberal, so you wouldn't have to suffer his verbal ass kickings....

Sorry bull.... you lose this round.... you'll probably lose all rounds.... as long as PI is around.

Might as well try a new tactic... how about giving the insults a rest and debate the facts? Aaaaah what the hell am I thinking.... that would be impossible for you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And your post here is nothing more than one titanic, vainglorious, bombastic, insult, of which 90% of everything you post is. I think you don't like PI because he can nail your sorry ass to the floor in no uncertain terms, and that ticks you off. You used to be able to roam around the board insulting at will and now there's someone here that can take you off at the knees. Sucks don't it bull? Sucks that such a fine debater is a *CONSERVATIVE!* Yeah I know.... you secretly wish he was a liberal, so you wouldn't have to suffer his verbal ass kickings....

Sorry bull.... you lose this round.... you'll probably lose all rounds.... as long as PI is around.

Might as well try a new tactic... how about giving the insults a rest and debate the facts? Aaaaah what the hell am I thinking.... that would be impossible for you.

When you and your butt-buddy present any facts to debate, I will be glad to do so. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[007]

And your post here is nothing more than one titanic, vainglorious, bombastic, insult, of which 90% of everything you post is. I think you don't like PI because he can nail your sorry ass to the floor in no uncertain terms, and that ticks you off. You used to be able to roam around the board insulting at will and now there's someone here that can take you off at the knees. Sucks don't it bull? Sucks that such a fine debater is a *CONSERVATIVE!* Yeah I know.... you secretly wish he was a liberal, so you wouldn't have to suffer his verbal ass kickings....

Sorry bull.... you lose this round.... you'll probably lose all rounds.... as long as PI is around.

Might as well try a new tactic... how about giving the insults a rest and debate the facts? Aaaaah what the hell am I thinking.... that would be impossible for you.

When you and your butt-buddy present any facts to debate, I will be glad to do so. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Lame bull.... real lame.... it's more than obvious you've run out of gas.... but here, let me post this. Maybe it will clear it up a little more for you, but since five pages of PI and me saying the exact same thing didn't, I won't hold my breath my either. You're either incredibly dense, or just lying through your teeth....

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'



Warns 'anything you imagine' coming under 'Pedophile Protection Act'
Posted: May 13, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A congressman from Iowa says he fought the so-called "Hate Crimes" bill as it moved through the U.S. House, because it essentially will provide a level of protection for sexual deviancy in the United States that is not afforded any other behavior.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was interviewed today by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry.

"Americans need to know what's going on here in Washington," he said, "when we get these radical positions … the public needs to know."

He said the bill provides protection for those with "sexual orientation" issues but then doesn't define the terms. So he said it's apparent that all of the 547 'philias' – or as he described them "deviancies" – would be protected under the law.

"Anything you can imagine, no matter how revolting it might be," King said.

He said he suggested an amendment that would make it clear pedophilia was not a protected "sexual orientation" under the law, but the Democrats, who are in the majority, refused to accept that.

"It was a breath-taking thing," King said. "Their strategy was that if they exempted pedophiles, there were a number of other proclivities they would have to exempt as well."

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'

 

[Bullypulpit]

Lame bull.... real lame.... it's more than obvious you've run out of gas.... but here, let me post this. Maybe it will clear it up a little more for you, but since five pages of PI and me saying the exact same thing didn't, I won't hold my breath my either. You're either incredibly dense, or just lying through your teeth....

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'



Warns 'anything you imagine' coming under 'Pedophile Protection Act'
Posted: May 13, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A congressman from Iowa says he fought the so-called "Hate Crimes" bill as it moved through the U.S. House, because it essentially will provide a level of protection for sexual deviancy in the United States that is not afforded any other behavior.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was interviewed today by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry.

"Americans need to know what's going on here in Washington," he said, "when we get these radical positions … the public needs to know."

He said the bill provides protection for those with "sexual orientation" issues but then doesn't define the terms. So he said it's apparent that all of the 547 'philias' – or as he described them "deviancies" – would be protected under the law.

"Anything you can imagine, no matter how revolting it might be," King said.

He said he suggested an amendment that would make it clear pedophilia was not a protected "sexual orientation" under the law, but the Democrats, who are in the majority, refused to accept that.

"It was a breath-taking thing," King said. "Their strategy was that if they exempted pedophiles, there were a number of other proclivities they would have to exempt as well."

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'

King is a well known right wing-nut who is probably pissed off that the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a law banning same gender couples from marrying based on sound legal principles rather than upholding the ban on the unfounded and ill-considered notions put for by those opposed to same-gender marriage.

The decision of the court states:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution - The Supreme Court of Iowa, 04/03/2009

The Iowa Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deny same gender couples the right to marriage. If you read the decision, you will find every argument used by you and your fellow travelers in opposition to same gender marriage to be meticulously dismantled and shown for the fallacies, both legal and philosophical, they are.

The arguments used by Representative King are little more than the sour grapes of right-winger whose beliefs have been shown for the idiocy they are, and represent nothing more than the attempt to conflate the mental illness and crime that pedophilia constitutes with homosexuality which is neither a mental illness nor a crime...Rather like you and PublicIdiot have been doing here.

 

[007]

Lame bull.... real lame.... it's more than obvious you've run out of gas.... but here, let me post this. Maybe it will clear it up a little more for you, but since five pages of PI and me saying the exact same thing didn't, I won't hold my breath my either. You're either incredibly dense, or just lying through your teeth....

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'



Warns 'anything you imagine' coming under 'Pedophile Protection Act'
Posted: May 13, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A congressman from Iowa says he fought the so-called "Hate Crimes" bill as it moved through the U.S. House, because it essentially will provide a level of protection for sexual deviancy in the United States that is not afforded any other behavior.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was interviewed today by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry.

"Americans need to know what's going on here in Washington," he said, "when we get these radical positions … the public needs to know."

He said the bill provides protection for those with "sexual orientation" issues but then doesn't define the terms. So he said it's apparent that all of the 547 'philias' – or as he described them "deviancies" – would be protected under the law.

"Anything you can imagine, no matter how revolting it might be," King said.

He said he suggested an amendment that would make it clear pedophilia was not a protected "sexual orientation" under the law, but the Democrats, who are in the majority, refused to accept that.

"It was a breath-taking thing," King said. "Their strategy was that if they exempted pedophiles, there were a number of other proclivities they would have to exempt as well."

Congressman: 'Deviancy' protected by 'hate crimes'

King is a well known right wing-nut who is probably pissed off that the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a law banning same gender couples from marrying based on sound legal principles rather than upholding the ban on the unfounded and ill-considered notions put for by those opposed to same-gender marriage.

The decision of the court states:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution - The Supreme Court of Iowa, 04/03/2009

The Iowa Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deny same gender couples the right to marriage. If you read the decision, you will find every argument used by you and your fellow travelers in opposition to same gender marriage to be meticulously dismantled and shown for the fallacies, both legal and philosophical, they are.

The arguments used by Representative King are little more than the sour grapes of right-winger whose beliefs have been shown for the idiocy they are, and represent nothing more than the attempt to conflate the mental illness and crime that pedophilia constitutes with homosexuality which is neither a mental illness nor a crime...Rather like you and PublicIdiot have been doing here.

So that's your response? To divert the topic to something entirely different? You've tried this now how many times?

You've lost the debate bull, period.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Your attempt to parse words is really quite pathetic. It's not pedophiles you're bitching about, it's homosexuals.

Note the phraseology... This is an attempt to discredit the argument through the suggestion that the argument itself bears no validity, but is merely using trickery... she used the word 'parse'...

Lets examine that word:

parse [paarss]
(past and past participle parsed, present participle pars·ing, 3rd person present singular pars·es)
v
1. vti describe grammatical role of word: to describe the grammatical role of a word in a sentence, or undergo this process


What my argument bears is the defining traits of the words which are being used... specifically the MISUSE of words, which the opposition hopes to use to imply something which the words themselves do not mean... she is trying to redefine words for the purposes of the debate... which as I've pointed out,many times, is the rhetorical equivilent of trimming puzzle peices to fit the whole, instead of going through the time and trouble of finding the RIGHT PIECE...

She then ignorantly returns to conclude that such is parsing... when what it is, is SOUND REASON!

ROFL... Pedophilia and homosexuality are of the same mental disorder... where in the purest sense of each, there are but slight degrees of separation.

NAMBLA is a classic example... this organization is rooted DIRECTLY IN THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT... there is absolutely NO DENYING THAT, both male and female homosexuals who are sexually aroused by and seek sexual gratification through children of their own gender... and who advocate for the legalization of 'loving concensual adult/child sexual relationships.'

And while there are those within the homosexual community who are able to fight their instinct for sex with children, their disorder is such that they remain oriented towards sexual relations with those of their own gender...

NORMAL doesn't exclude a desire for young tail... NORMAL excludes ACTING on the desire for young tail... NORMAL doesn't sit around and obsess on that which is not ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL doesn't demand that the culture CHANGE THE TERMS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NATURAL BUT UNACCEPTABLE DESIRES.

Where the desire is for prepubescents... that is merely a SEVERE FORM OF THE SAME DISORDER... NOT A DISTINCT DISORDER.

And that's not parsing, that is simple COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE...

Were your reasoning sound, you might have a point. Your reasoning, however, is as deeply flawed as your personality...disjointed, ill-informed, benighted, dim, generally lacking in good sense, and utterly devoid of facts or anything else pertaining to reality.

Well I see a blind assertion that the reasoning is not sound... but what I do NOT see is an argument which sets in example, unsound reasoning; which provides evidence which exposes the reasoning as such...

Which pretty much refutes itself...

Now is that a full blown concession, or do you have something else, through which you'd like to concede?

 

[Bullypulpit]

King is a well known right wing-nut who is probably pissed off that the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a law banning same gender couples from marrying based on sound legal principles rather than upholding the ban on the unfounded and ill-considered notions put for by those opposed to same-gender marriage.

The decision of the court states:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution - The Supreme Court of Iowa, 04/03/2009

The Iowa Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deny same gender couples the right to marriage. If you read the decision, you will find every argument used by you and your fellow travelers in opposition to same gender marriage to be meticulously dismantled and shown for the fallacies, both legal and philosophical, they are.

The arguments used by Representative King are little more than the sour grapes of right-winger whose beliefs have been shown for the idiocy they are, and represent nothing more than the attempt to conflate the mental illness and crime that pedophilia constitutes with homosexuality which is neither a mental illness nor a crime...Rather like you and PublicIdiot have been doing here.

So that's your response? To divert the topic to something entirely different? You've tried this now how many times?

You've lost the debate bull, period.

Your attempts at diversion amount to little more than a fart in a wind-storm. Representative King was the source of this spurious claim that the Matthew Shepard Act would be a boon to pedophiles. I was merely providing a context for his misguided, divisive and wholly baseless attempt to derail the legislation. And that you and PublicIdiot, like Representative King, are attempting to conflate pedophilia...a mental illness and a crime...with homosexuality which is neither.

If you consider clinging to your irrational prejudices, your petty fears, your ignorance and your meanness of spirit, a victory...that is your prerogative. Just don't expect me not to call you on it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Note the phraseology... This is an attempt to discredit the argument through the suggestion that the argument itself bears no validity, but is merely using trickery... she used the word 'parse'...

Lets examine that word:

parse [paarss]
(past and past participle parsed, present participle pars·ing, 3rd person present singular pars·es)
v
1. vti describe grammatical role of word: to describe the grammatical role of a word in a sentence, or undergo this process


What my argument bears is the defining traits of the words which are being used... specifically the MISUSE of words, which the opposition hopes to use to imply something which the words themselves do not mean... she is trying to redefine words for the purposes of the debate... which as I've pointed out,many times, is the rhetorical equivilent of trimming puzzle peices to fit the whole, instead of going through the time and trouble of finding the RIGHT PIECE...

She then ignorantly returns to conclude that such is parsing... when what it is, is SOUND REASON!

ROFL... Pedophilia and homosexuality are of the same mental disorder... where in the purest sense of each, there are but slight degrees of separation.

NAMBLA is a classic example... this organization is rooted DIRECTLY IN THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT... there is absolutely NO DENYING THAT, both male and female homosexuals who are sexually aroused by and seek sexual gratification through children of their own gender... and who advocate for the legalization of 'loving concensual adult/child sexual relationships.'

And while there are those within the homosexual community who are able to fight their instinct for sex with children, their disorder is such that they remain oriented towards sexual relations with those of their own gender...

NORMAL doesn't exclude a desire for young tail... NORMAL excludes ACTING on the desire for young tail... NORMAL doesn't sit around and obsess on that which is not ACCEPTABLE and NORMAL doesn't demand that the culture CHANGE THE TERMS OF WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR NATURAL BUT UNACCEPTABLE DESIRES.

Where the desire is for prepubescents... that is merely a SEVERE FORM OF THE SAME DISORDER... NOT A DISTINCT DISORDER.

And that's not parsing, that is simple COMMON FREAKIN' SENSE...

Were your reasoning sound, you might have a point. Your reasoning, however, is as deeply flawed as your personality...disjointed, ill-informed, benighted, dim, generally lacking in good sense, and utterly devoid of facts or anything else pertaining to reality.

Well I see a blind assertion that the reasoning is not sound... but what I do NOT see is an argument which sets in example, unsound reasoning; which provides evidence which exposes the reasoning as such...

Which pretty much refutes itself...

Now is that a full blown concession, or do you have something else, through which you'd like to concede?

I concede nothing other than your being a purblind, ill-informed, petty, fearful idiot.

 

[007]

King is a well known right wing-nut who is probably pissed off that the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a law banning same gender couples from marrying based on sound legal principles rather than upholding the ban on the unfounded and ill-considered notions put for by those opposed to same-gender marriage.

The decision of the court states:



The Iowa Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deny same gender couples the right to marriage. If you read the decision, you will find every argument used by you and your fellow travelers in opposition to same gender marriage to be meticulously dismantled and shown for the fallacies, both legal and philosophical, they are.

The arguments used by Representative King are little more than the sour grapes of right-winger whose beliefs have been shown for the idiocy they are, and represent nothing more than the attempt to conflate the mental illness and crime that pedophilia constitutes with homosexuality which is neither a mental illness nor a crime...Rather like you and PublicIdiot have been doing here.

So that's your response? To divert the topic to something entirely different? You've tried this now how many times?

You've lost the debate bull, period.

Your attempts at diversion amount to little more than a fart in a wind-storm. Representative King was the source of this spurious claim that the Matthew Shepard Act would be a boon to pedophiles. I was merely providing a context for his misguided, divisive and wholly baseless attempt to derail the legislation. And that you and PublicIdiot, like Representative King, are attempting to conflate pedophilia...a mental illness and a crime...with homosexuality which is neither.

If you consider clinging to your irrational prejudices, your petty fears, your ignorance and your meanness of spirit, a victory...that is your prerogative. Just don't expect me not to call you on it.

You won't be the one doing the calling bull, I will. First time a pedophile winds up in court for getting slapped or hit, and the person that slapped or hit them is then charged with a "HATE CRIME," the first person I'm going to drag through the mud on the issue is YOU. LOOK for it. It's coming.

And all your wild, frothing at mouth, dipped out of the toilet insults you directed at PI and me, you'll be EATING them. I hope you've got an appetite.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well I see a blind assertion that the reasoning is not sound... but what I do NOT see is an argument which sets in example, unsound reasoning; which provides evidence which exposes the reasoning as such...

Which pretty much refutes itself...

Now is that a full blown concession, or do you have something else, through which you'd like to concede?

I concede nothing other than your being a purblind, ill-informed, petty, fearful idiot.

Well actually... and by that I mean: "In Reality..."

You conceded by failing to advance a sustainable point... All you did was offer up a blind denial through baseless projections which you were unable to support...

Thus you conceded the rhetorical ground which the position, to which you responded had taken, and continues to hold... thus you CONCEDED the aforementioned rhetorical ground.

It's not a complex concept at any level... it's just well beyond your limited intellectual means.