quote: (post)

Originally posted by BackFire
No it isn't. It's just insinuating something because you're too much of a pussy to say it bluntly. It doesn't require intelligence.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by PVS
-I'm sure not all homosexuals are peadophiles, but you cant deny that when a man rapes a little boy, he's a homosexual. (homosexuality and peadophilia are directly linked)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Makedde
Not true. So all the Catholic Priests who molest children must be homosexual then? Not true.

Homosexuals are attracted to men. Pedophiles are attracted to children, girls or boys. Homosexuals are NOT pedophiles, and pedophiles are NOT homosexuals.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
I think you missed the point.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Makedde
Not true. So all the Catholic Priests who molest children must be homosexual then? Not true.

Homosexuals are attracted to men. Pedophiles are attracted to children, girls or boys. Homosexuals are NOT pedophiles, and pedophiles are NOT homosexuals.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Makedde
I read the first post. You say that all pedophiles are homosexuals. That's the same as saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by PVS
well...she's trying and we should commend her for that.


^^^^
see, thats not coded speak. thats tact and grace

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Makedde
I read the first post. You say that all pedophiles are homosexuals. That's the same as saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Makedde
I read the first post. You say that all pedophiles are homosexuals. That's the same as saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by PVS
well...she's trying and we should commend her for that.


^^^^
see, thats not coded speak. thats tact and grace

quote: (post)

Originally posted by PVS
you read the first sentence and ran with it.
it was an example of coded speak. now go back and
read the post. contribute something relevant or please stfu.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by PVS
-I'm sure not all homosexuals are peadophiles, but you cant deny that when a man rapes a little boy, he's a homosexual. (homosexuality and peadophilia are directly linked)

-many people died during ww2, jews were a fraction. im not denying that many were killed. (the jews were never systematically killed, they were just casualties of war)

-many blacks are decent people, but just look at them all looting and killing after katrina. they were out of control and i support the decision to shoot first and ask questions later. (black people who are not obedient should be shot, white people who have committed the same crime were simply 'looking for food')

im talking about coded speak. a recent mutation of the dreaded PC, which the right claims to never use, and is soley a tool of the left. but is it? i have found in reading and listening to those of the extreme right, that they weild the art of PC like a samurai master weilds a katana. a tool which allows them to not directly admit their beliefs, but at the same time not deny them in the least.

i find that when the left decides upon PC terms, its just that. terms. no hidden meaning, but rather a dillusion of true meaning. a clumsy attempt to sophisticate our terminology, when in fact it only tends to delete any meaning from the subject of the term. of coarse i refer to the ridiculous side of PC. the side which calls black people "african american" when i have yet to meet a single black person who is offended or affected in any way by being called "black". but is there really a change in message behind these terms? or just a load of unnecessary syllables and hyphens? its annoying, but i honestly dont feel threatened by this manner of control.

what prompted me to make this thread was a budding off-topic debate on mel gibson in the holocaust denier thread. mel weilds PC in a way which allows him to dodge the question of "do you believe the holocaust was real?" and escape without a scratch. (response was similar to the above paraphrased example).

i have seen a growing trend in coded speak over recent years. it seems commonplace in debates over homosexuality, terrorism, racism, and all other hot button issues. seek and ye shall find.

anyone care to elaborate/confirm/deny my observation?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
haha this pvs was almost on par with steve zodiac

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I had lurked stormfront and other racist forums back then, since a wise woman named shi-tzu once said 'know your enemy'. anyhoo I noticed that, almost overnight, they all stopped dropping n-bombs and other slurs. they would be like "what a beautiful culture" at an article/video of criminality involving black people. some would get too excited and let the slurs fly, but he would be quickly (yet gently) chided by his peers.