Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

    Pedophilia Now a Sexual Orientation?


  • #2
    Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

    Not a surprise.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

      Of course...when a progressive says, "No...this will never happen. You're drawing false parallels." It actually means what going to happen.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

        Ooops. Turns out this was an error, which is being corrected. APA to correct manual: Pedophilia is not a &#39;sexual orientation&#39; - Washington Times

        Sorry for the loss of another feeble slippery slope argument that fails to differentiate between relationships between consenting adults and relationships where one party is incapable of legal consent.

        Well, not really - it's a stupid argument, and it deserves to be trashed at every opportunity.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

          Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
          Ooops. Turns out this was an error, which is being corrected. APA to correct manual: Pedophilia is not a 'sexual orientation' - Washington Times

          Sorry for the loss of another feeble slippery slope argument that fails to differentiate between relationships between consenting adults and relationships where one party is incapable of legal consent.

          Well, not really - it's a stupid argument, and it deserves to be trashed at every opportunity.
          This is why I didn't post this last week,.

          BTW I find it interesting they define Pedophilic basically as one who wants to have sex with children. Not that the person has sex but they want to and this is considered the sexual orientation.

          Pedophilia is still a derangement and is when it actually happens.

          My question, what the hell, you want to have sex with a child and that is just an orientation and okay UNTIL you actually do it then it becomes a derangement/insanity whatever, why is it not until the creep commits the deviance does it become a deviance? I would think WANTING to have sex with a child is just as much a deviance.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

            Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
            Ooops. Turns out this was an error, which is being corrected. APA to correct manual: Pedophilia is not a 'sexual orientation' - Washington Times

            Sorry for the loss of another feeble slippery slope argument that fails to differentiate between relationships between consenting adults and relationships where one party is incapable of legal consent.

            Well, not really - it's a stupid argument, and it deserves to be trashed at every opportunity.
            So you're blaming the OP for an error by the APA themselves? Hmmm....I wonder two things:

            1. Was it actually not a mistake but they rescinded when public pressure was applied just like they did with the removal of homosexuality?

            2. Was it something they have tabled for a future addition that got put in a little bit too early?

            What is the reason why this "error" occurred? I used "s because you don't really put in a whole thing in their manual on accident w/o there being more to it. It's not like you add something in like this on a type-o. This simply doesn't happen and it's silly to think it was purely an accident.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

              I don't see why this is controversial.

              If you are attracted to X, doesn't that define your sexual orientation?

              Doesn't mean that having sex with children is OK. But that goes for anyone who has nonconsensual sex. They should get punishment and/or treatment. And this is what the DSM advises regardless of whether pedophilia is called a "sexual orientation" or not.

              I don't see the slippery slope.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                I don't see why this is controversial.

                If you are attracted to X, doesn't that define your sexual orientation?

                Doesn't mean that having sex with children is OK. But that goes for anyone who has nonconsensual sex. They should get punishment and/or treatment. And this is what the DSM advises regardless of whether pedophilia is called a "sexual orientation" or not.

                I don't see the slippery slope.
                That's because you are a reasonable person and not a social conservative.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                  Originally posted by erikvv View Post
                  I don't see why this is controversial.

                  If you are attracted to X, doesn't that define your sexual orientation?

                  Doesn't mean that having sex with children is OK. But that goes for anyone who has nonconsensual sex. They should get punishment and/or treatment. And this is what the DSM advises regardless of whether pedophilia is called a "sexual orientation" or not.

                  I don't see the slippery slope.
                  The question is why bother dubbing it as a "sexual orientation", a term previously reserved to describe gender preferences in the first place. It is a slippery slope because such changes always start with trying to manipulate the terminology used to undercut current societal perceptions, by coopting a less deragatory term. Every wonder when homosexuals became "gay" and why? Illegal aliens became "undocumented immigrants" (or "new Americans" if your Martin O'Malley). Pedophilia is a pyschiatric disorder, which some are now trying to rhetorically make a part of a less deragatory categorization - "sexual orientation". Give it time, they will be out there looking for courts to rule them a protected class.

                  (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  That's because you are a reasonable person and not a social conservative.
                  Gee, in your world, a "reasonable" person is one who panders to the rhetorical wishes of sicko pedophiles.

                  Pedophilia is not an "orientation" it is a character flaw, would you care to disagree?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                    Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                    The question is why bother dubbing it as a "sexual orientation", a term previously reserved to describe gender preferences in the first place. It is a slippery slope because such changes always start with trying to manipulate the terminology used to undercut current societal perceptions, by coopting a less deragatory term. Every wonder when homosexuals became "gay" and why? Illegal aliens became "undocumented immigrants" (or "new Americans" if your Martin O'Malley). Pedophilia is a pyschiatric disorder, which some are now trying to rhetorically make a part of a less deragatory categorization - "sexual orientation". Give it time, they will be out there looking for courts to rule them a protected class.

                    (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



                    Gee, in your world, a "reasonable" person is one who panders to the rhetorical wishes of sicko pedophiles.

                    Pedophilia is not an "orientation" it is a character flaw, would you care to disagree?
                    homosexual was a derogatory term? When did that happen?

                    No, a reasonable person is someone who doesn't jump at shadows and use logical fallacies to predict the sky falling.
                    Can it not both be an orientation of sexual attraction (towards pre-adolescent persons) AND a character flaw? When did the two become mutally exclusive? Where are you pulling these rules from?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      homosexual was a derogatory term? When did that happen?

                      No, a reasonable person is someone who doesn't jump at shadows and use logical fallacies to predict the sky falling.
                      A homosexual was for a very long time a derogatory term, in fact, like pedophilia, it was listed as a pyschiatric disorder.

                      What logical falacy did I comit?



                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      Can it not both be an orientation of sexual attraction (towards pre-adolescent persons) AND a character flaw? When did the two become mutally exclusive? Where are you pulling these rules from?
                      Never before has the term "sexual orientation" been applied outside of gender preferences. The application of the term to pedophiles is what is new, and it begs the question, WHY. What reason is there for people making a conscious effort to use a term in a way it has never been used before?

                      Pedophillia is a perversion, and a character flaw. To analogize it to, say a preference for blondes (sexual attraction) is to try and distigmatize it.

                      But yeah, you go ahead and continue defending something which serves no conceivable intellectual purpose beyond a stop towards destigmatizing pedophiles. Hopefully liberals across America will take up the charge!

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                        Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                        A homosexual was for a very long time a derogatory term, in fact, like pedophilia, it was listed as a pyschiatric disorder.

                        What logical falacy did I comit?





                        Never before has the term "sexual orientation" been applied outside of gender preferences. The application of the term to pedophiles is what is new, and it begs the question, WHY. What reason is there for people making a conscious effort to use a term in a way it has never been used before?

                        Pedophillia is a perversion, and a character flaw. To analogize it to, say a preference for blondes (sexual attraction) is to try and distigmatize it.

                        But yeah, you go ahead and continue defending something which serves no conceivable intellectual purpose beyond a stop towards destigmatizing pedophiles. Hopefully liberals across America will take up the charge!
                        blacks were also once considered 3/5s of a person, and eugenics used to be "science". Your point?

                        Well its called a slippery slope. You tell me.

                        How does this in any way shape or form take away from the fact that they are attracted to the pre-pubescent who cannot give consent? You've got some odd ideas fella

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          blacks were also once considered 3/5s of a person, and eugenics used to be "science". Your point?
                          Another age-older demonstration of liberal ignorance of historical fact. Nowhere in the constitution are blacks deemed to be only 3/5s of a person. I believe what you are misinterpreting in the provision that for purposes of apportionment of direct taxes and representation in the Congress "shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons". What you are incorrectly doing is treating assuming that blacks were only ever included in "all other persons". Well, here is a little history lesson for you, not all blacks were slaves. Many blacks were what are referred to in the text of the Constitution as "free persons". Also, by its very terms, even "all other persons" were in fact considered whole persons, otherwise it would not make much sense to provide a ration by which their numbers were to be used to calculate the outcome. By the way, why is it you think that none of the non-taxed indians every run around bemoaning the fact they are supposedly not considered persons?

                          Also, as an aside, I am always amused at how stupid liberals sound when they bemoan the 3/5s compromise, when in fact it was the OPPONENTS of slavery who wanted to exclude slaves from the apportionment calculation and the slavery SUPPORTERS who wanted to count slaves the same as free persons. Criticism of the 3/5s formula for "considering blacks 3/5s a person" is actually the position of slave holders, and ignorant dupes who don't know history very well.


                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          Well its called a slippery slope. You tell me.
                          Are you seriously denying that the words used cannot and do not have effects on public perception, particularly in the long-term? Because your own example of Science/Eugenics is a prime example (and the reference to it as "science" rather than the far more accurate and honest term "eugenics" is a textbook example of people using obfuscating terminology to try to distigmatize something otherwise seen and immoral, unethical, etc.)

                          My point is that there IS no other intellectual purpose for the sudden decision by some to start using the term "sexual orientation" to something that it was never seen as encompassing previously other than to try and destigmatize it. If you disagree with that premise, the onous is on your to come up with a plausible intellectual purpose for suddenly deciding to use the term "sexual orientation" to include something it was never previously considered to include.

                          And another example recently demonstrated on this forum: Child/baby (as in "she is with child" to describe a pregnant woman) became "unborn", then "fetus" to try and rhetorically dehumanize what is in fact by any objective scientific measure a human life.


                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          How does this in any way shape or form take away from the fact that they are attracted to the pre-pubescent who cannot give consent? You've got some odd ideas fella
                          The same way calling Illegal Aliens "undocumented immigrants" takes away from the fact that they are here ILLEGALLY, in contravention of our laws. Are you seriously saying that if criminal defense attornies suddenly started a concerted effort to have drug dealers referred to as "undocumented pharmacists" it would not be in an effort to change public perception?

                          It is not an odd idea at all, it is just one of us pays attention to history, and the other does not. People with unpopular agendas are almost never up front and honest about their ultimate objectives. Consider the crusade against smoking. Whether you agree with it or not, let's be honest, it is classic slippery slope. It started with just wanting warnings on packs so that people are "informed", then they opened up another front and had government start mandating that private establishments have non-smoking sections (the proponents claimed they did not want to deny anyone the right to smoke if they chose, only to have a right to a smoke free section for themselves...which ingored the fact that smokers never had a right to smoke in private establishments...they were permitted to do so by the OWNERS, who could have banned smoking themselves, but chose not to)., then the non-smoking sections became smoking bans. Now you have a not inconsiderable portion of the left who would, if they could get away with it, ban cigarettes entirely (oddly enough, many of them are also in favor of legalizing pot, go figure).

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                            They didn't even wait till the ink was dry on the Discrimination laws on sexual orientation.

                            It Begins: Pedophiles Call for Same Rights as Homosexuals « Pat Dollard

                            Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
                            Some including me predicted this, just didn't think it would happen this fast.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Another Inch Down The Slippery Slope

                              But their argument is fatally flawed - their sexual orientation is inexorably different because it involves sexual contact between parties where one party cannot consent. Therefore it is unalterably different from heterosexual or homosexual adult relationships.

                              Their flawed argument is certainly no basis for denying the rights of consenting adults.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X