Swedish Pentecostal Pastor On Trial For Anti-Gay Hate Speech

[archangel]

And I see an all-too-convenient designation for those who would smear homosexuality. I guess that's why we've been arguing.

I have read studies where they haven't been able to determine if the mechanism that causes an attraction to children increases the likelyhood of an attraction to males, or if it's the other way around.

Homosexuality was smeared during Emperor Caligua's reign...history has a way of repeating itself to fools! Now... if you please... let's please move on to important issues of the day vs sexual fetish preference...Islam is watching you fools for direction!

 

[MissileMan]

Homosexuality was smeared during Emperor Caligua's reign...history has a way of repeating itself to fools! Now... if you please... let's please move on to important issues of the day vs sexual fetish preference...Islam is watching you fools for direction!

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, take a walk!

 

[musicman]

And I see an all-too-convenient designation for those who would smear homosexuality. I guess that's why we've been arguing.

Oh, Lord, MM - don't fail me now! There's a black hole up ahead; it's called the PC gospel. It's already swallowed up Horhay - don't let it get you, too!

Taking a tough, honest look at homosexuality is a "smear"? Say it isn't so!

 

[archangel]

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, take a walk!

if ya want to masturbate your life away...go for it... it is dinner time and this discussion is really boring...unless your life revolves around sex!...buzz off missle man...never mind... carry on until you orgasim...geez! I am outta here!

 

[musicman]

I have read studies where they haven't been able to determine if the mechanism that causes an attraction to children increases the likelyhood of an attraction to males, or if it's the other way around.

If you've got a link to that, I'd be fascinated to read it. I've got to tell you, I'm skeptical. It is my opinion that these studies will continue to take place as long as there's someone with money and a vested interest in the legitimization of homosexuality. Then, objective, dispassionate observers will find the twisted language or the loaded test conditions, and expose it for the crap it is. What a waste of time.

Have you ever seen Simon LeVar's study - which purported to show neurological differences in homosexuals; this, by way of demonstrating that sexual "orientation" is determined in the womb? Pretty thin. It didn't take long to blast that load of horseshit to kingdom come.

 

[MissileMan]

Oh, Lord, MM - don't fail me now! There's a black hole up ahead; it's called the PC gospel. It's already swallowed up Horhay - don't let it get you, too!

Taking a tough, honest look at homosexuality is a "smear"? Say it isn't so!

Hehe, it took me all day to convince you that homosexuals are no more likely to molest a child than heterosexuals are. I have a feeling that we're going to continue to butt heads as to whether the fact that homosexual pedophiles are more prolific is a statement to be used wholesale against homosexuality or against homosexual pedophiles in particular.

 

[MissileMan]

If you've got a link to that, I'd be fascinated to read it. I've got to tell you, I'm skeptical. It is my opinion that these studies will continue to take place as long as there's someone with money and a vested interest in the legitimization of homosexuality. Then, objective, dispassionate observers will find the twisted language or the loaded test conditions, and expose it for the crap it is. What a waste of time.

Have you ever seen Simon LeVar's study - which purported to show neurological differences in homosexuals; this, by way of demonstrating that sexual "orientation" is determined in the womb? Pretty thin. It didn't take long to blast that load of horseshit to kingdom come.

Give me a bit to find it...it's been a while

 

[musicman]

Hehe, it took me all day to convince you that homosexuals are no more likely to molest a child than heterosexuals are.

Oh - do you mean the concept of the "super-predator"? To tell the truth, I only conceded that for the sake of this particular discussion, and because it does no real harm to my point. Note that I've always referred to him as "YOUR super-predator". I'm by no means convinced.

I have a feeling that we're going to continue to butt heads as to whether the fact that homosexual pedophiles are more prolific is a statement to be used wholesale against homosexuality or against homosexual pedophiles in particular.

LOL - you're probably right. Let's stop for a drink. If we're going to butt heads, let's clang glasses first.

 

[MissileMan]

Oh - do you mean the concept of the "super-predator"? To tell the truth, I only conceded that for the sake of this particular discussion, and because it does no real harm to my point. Note that I've always referred to him as "YOUR super-predator". I'm by no means convinced.



LOL - you're probably right. Let's stop for a drink. If we're going to butt heads, let's clang glasses first.

The info I read was here: http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm

 

[musicman]

The info I read was here: http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm

Holy crap - talk about a tough plow...I thought my skull was going to explode!

I was happy to see, however, that the people conducting this study had very little patience for the linguistic manipulations attempted by homosexual apologists. They also made no bones about the fact that homosexuals are - how did they put it?...OVERREPRESENTED among incarcerated child molestors.

That's as far as I got before I had to stick my head in the freezer and take a break...

 

[MissileMan]

Holy crap - talk about a tough plow...I thought my skull was going to explode!

I was happy to see, however, that the people conducting this study had very little patience for the linguistic manipulations attempted by homosexual apologists. They also made no bones about the fact that homosexuals are - how did they put it?...OVERREPRESENTED among incarcerated child molestors.

That's as far as I got before I had to stick my head in the freezer and take a break...

Yep, A lot of data. All in all though, an informative read.

 

[MissileMan]

But, your "super-predator" attains his status SOLELY BY VIRTUE OF HIS HOMOSEXUALITY, right?

After sleeping on it, I think I understand what you were asking here, and the answer is, no. You believe homosexual pedophiles are homosexual first and pedophilic second, I believe it the other way around. There isn't anything pedophiles couldn't get from a young adult that they are getting from the children. The fact that they risk jail time tells me that age, not gender, is the primary motivator in pedophiles.

I also believe that a reluctance on the part of boys to report abuse allows homosexual pedophiles to accumulate more victims and accounts for a significant portion of the lopsided victim numbers.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I get ya! It doesn't matter whether your reasoning is sound or not, you're right because you explained how you arrived at your wrong answer. Did they use this same methodology where you went to school or did you make it up on your own? I don't recall ever seeing "kinda, sorta, maybe" as a choice on any True/False tests I ever took.

Lets see you:

attacked my reasoning

acknowledged I explained how I arrived at my answer

attacked my schooling,,,

BUT YOU NEVER gave any reason for why what I said isnt true.

COMPLETELY FALSE means there can be NO PART OF IT that is true.

There is an element of truth to the statement, hence your characterization is wrong. Now, YOU are the one who refuses, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to admit he made a mistake, hahahha

But you will simply respond with more of the same, personal attacks, etc, etc, without ever addressing how I proved you wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, I call that a question.

Uh, there was a statement in it too.

You certainly like to get down to semantics and details, denial , denial, but you arent very good at it.

Ever here of a rhetorical question? Yea, you can deny it all you want, but you only look foolish, I suppose you dont mind though

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You are pathetic. Why can't you admit that someone that you generally agree with was dead fucking wrong? Zoom as usual was shooting off at the mouth and didn't think about what he said. He was dead wrong. We've all acknowledged the per capita argument. But you can't admit that he was lying. Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.

Just admit that he was dead wrong and let's move along. How difficult is that to do? I think you're a genuine yet misguided person. Hopefully I'll see some improvement from you and won't lump you into the same category of thinkers as Zoom. I've got some faith in you. Don't prove me wrong about you.

HAHHAHAHHA

You know, percentages and raw numbers are often confused. He wasnt "dead wrong", the same basic concept he was promoting STILL STANDS.

HERE, this is for you and missletoe man,

LOGIC:

HOMOSEXUALS are over represented amongst pedophiles. THATS THE FUCKING POINT, why cant you two idiots understand that??????????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Although only 10% of Canadians have guns, they perpetrate 100% of gun crimes. Does this suggest that 100% of people who have guns are bad? I have to reiterate: saying that 20-40% of child molestations are committed by homosexuals is not the same as saying that 20-40% of homosexuals are child molestors. You want to do to homosexuals exactly what the "left" wants to do to gun owners: punish 99% of the gun owning population for the crimes of 1%. Hardly sounds fair, does it?

The flaw in your analogy is that ONLY GUN OWNERS can commit crimes with a gun.

Pedophilia by TWO groups is being compared. Where is your other group that commits crimes with guns, other than the gun owner group?

FACT is , an overly ordinate amount of pedophilia is commited by homosexuals. Homosexuality itself is deviant sexual behavior, that FACT that they over represent pedophilia just supports that.

I thought this thread was about free speech anyways????

 

[MissileMan]

Lets see you:

attacked my reasoning

acknowledged I explained how I arrived at my answer

attacked my schooling,,,

BUT YOU NEVER gave any reason for why what I said isnt true.

COMPLETELY FALSE means there can be NO PART OF IT that is true.

There is an element of truth to the statement, hence your characterization is wrong. Now, YOU are the one who refuses, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to admit he made a mistake, hahahha

But you will simply respond with more of the same, personal attacks, etc, etc, without ever addressing how I proved you wrong.

When you have a group consisting of two entities, their sum equals 100%. In order for one of the entities to constitute a majority, it's numbers would have to be greater than 50% of the sum.

Whatever jerkwater school you attended that taught you that less than 50% is somehow a possible majority mis-educated you. Provide me with the name and address of this school and I will write to them advising them of the need to revise their math lessons.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ya know, thats been about beat to death, we already acknowledged the technical aspects of it, and what it truly means, and that EITHER way, the same results occur. Pedophilia is practiced at a much higher rate within the homosexual community than the heterosexual community.

and it isnt "completely" false, if it homosexuals were overly represented on a per capita basis, then it would be completely false, but as it were, since homosexuals are inordinantly overly represented, the same basic concept it perpetuates is still true.

I think I had a typo in my above post. I meant to say "....if homosexuals wereNT overly represented on a per capita basis, then it would be completely false, but as it were, since homosexuals are inordinantly represented, the same basic concept it perpetuates is still true" HENCE IT ISNT COMPLETELY FALSE. If one thinks it is completely false, they need to go do some reading on what "completely" means.....

 

[MissileMan]

Uh, there was a statement in it too.

You certainly like to get down to semantics and details, denial , denial, but you arent very good at it.

Ever here of a rhetorical question? Yea, you can deny it all you want, but you only look foolish, I suppose you dont mind though

No, it was a simple question which you might have answered with a yes or no. If you need me to clarify why I asked if it was your best, stupid explanation, how about this: Does it make sense to you, that if the Native American contemporaries of Noah were faced with the rising waters that would in short order inundate the entire planet, that these people would pass up a chance to head for higher ground and break out their crayons to capture the moment?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

My sincerest apologies GotZoom, I goofed in that particular statement.
<-- Horhay with egg on his face.

Let's take your statement a little further though and see if it has the same "oomph". A disproportionate amount of pedophiles are men (straight or otherwise). Doesn't that mean that there is something wrong with men as a whole? Shouldn't we, as LuvRPgrl suggests, take a long hard look at anything that promotes men?

My argument all along (earlier goof not withstanding) is that you can't use statistics from one side of a relationship to make assumptions about the other side. If it is true that a disproportionate number of pedophiles are homosexuals, what does it tell us about homosexuality as a whole? Since the same statistic holds true about pedophiles and men, what does it tell us about men as a whole? Personally, all it means to me is that homosexuals (and men) are not a homogoneous unit that can be generalized. I wouldn't imagine that most of you would be thrilled if NOW started posting billboards saying "MOST PEDOPHILES ARE MEN therefore men are sick".

You have some valid points.

I think its funny how Clay and you both misread, (and understandably so, I started blinking and re reading myself ) some of the somewhat confusing statements involved, yet a few others want to continue to lambast on it. Those two idiots should just let that thing die.

Anyways, I havent been in this thread in a while, and am still catching up.

Regarding the stats, it all depends. What is important is that we use them properly.

While on one hand, what you say is true, it is also not good to totally disregard such stats.

For example, if Groups A and B both commit pedophilia, and we know that 1,000 acts are commited annually, and that Group A commits 75% of them, group B 25%, lets say we also know group B is only 500 in numbers, (for simplicity sake, lets say each act is done by one person, and ONLY done once), then we know HALF of group B commits such an act.

On the other hand, if group B's population is 10000,000, then the percentages would be less significant.

Im not drawing any conclusions one way or the other, Im also not saying lets imprison all homos, Im just clarifying that SOMETIMES the stats you want to dispose of as "useless" are in fact useful.