And just to spread the Democrat Filth of Sexing the Kids up..
Multiple Dems with Sex Crimes Charges...Cause Kids are so Sexy..
And just to spread the Democrat Filth of Sexing the Kids up..
Multiple Dems with Sex Crimes Charges...Cause Kids are so Sexy..
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]And just to spread the Democrat Filth of Sexing the Kids up..Multiple Dems with Sex Crimes Charges...Cause Kids are so Sexy.. [/B]
Now I get why places like Salon were all "well pedophiles ain't so bad maybe".
Originally posted by Surtur
Now I get why places like Salon were all "well pedophiles ain't so bad maybe".
Remember when People started predicting that the next Sex Thing the Left would start to go easy on was the Pedos!?
Saying stuff like. "That will neve Happen!"
Boy did they get that wrong or WHAT!?
😱
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Remember when People started predicting that the next Sex Thing the Left would start to go easy on was the Pedos!?Saying stuff like. "That will neve Happen!"
Boy did they get that wrong or WHAT!?
😱 [/B]
I just love that they deleted the article...only after the Milo thing, and why? So they could talk shit about Milo lol.
How sad is that? That they abandoned an article they supported just to run their mouths. Weird.
Originally posted by Surtur
But what is religion though? Some on the left show a cult/religious like zeal for their beliefs. Why is that lesser because they don't believe in a sky god?
I myself am not an atheist, so I obviously disagree with the notion that religion needs to be purged from society, and I'm willing to defend the positive aspects of my religion and admit the negative aspects of certain Christian perspectives and texts. I'm not saying religion can't be criticized, in fact I criticize plenty of things about other religions and about mainstream Christian perspectives. However even if I were an atheist who concluded the world would be better with less religious influence, if somebody were to suggest that all religion constitutes the greatest ideological threat worthy of prioritization over obviously worse political ideologies, and worthy of devoting the majority of one's intellectual talents to trying to combat, I would laugh in their face.
(That longwinded rant is not meant to castigate Patientleach in any way, since I don't know enough about his ideological criticism of political ideologies to truly draw anything resembling a fair comparison).
Originally posted by Emperordmb
This is actually one of my main issues with [b]some in the New Atheist movement, that they prioritize religion above all other ideology as a problematic threat, when there are far more damaging and threatening ideologies than religion in the west. The US has been a majority Christian nation since its inception, and its done pretty damn well. There is absolutely dogma connected to Christianity that has had a negative impact on societal progress such as gay marriage, and I won't deny that, but it's clear that it would be asinine to suggest that prevalence Christianity is likely to lead to widespread human rights abuses or economic/societal collapse in a western nation, whereas if as many people as were Christians in the US were marxists, or neonazis, or fascists, or some brand of racial collectivist, our country would seriously degrade.I myself am not an atheist, so I obviously disagree with the notion that religion needs to be purged from society, and I'm willing to defend the positive aspects of my religion and admit the negative aspects of certain Christian perspectives and texts. I'm not saying religion can't be criticized, in fact I criticize plenty of things about other religions and about mainstream Christian perspectives. However even if I were an atheist who concluded the world would be better with less religious influence, if somebody were to suggest that all religion constitutes the greatest ideological threat worthy of prioritization over obviously worse political ideologies, and worthy of devoting the majority of one's intellectual talents to trying to combat, I would laugh in their face.
(That longwinded rant is not meant to castigate Patientleach in any way, since I don't know enough about his ideological criticism of political ideologies to truly draw anything resembling a fair comparison). [/B]
As an atheist I do recognize this country was essentially founded on Christian values. But for me in some ways religion is just a word. I look at Hitler and Stalin and the religious like zeal folk had for them. Some revered them. There was no religion persay, but you either worshiped these folk or your life was shitty, and they were quite set in their ways.
For some on the left it's like a cult. We are seeing examples of this by some with the "you agree with abortion or f*ck off" mentality.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Change "objectively" to "in my opinion" or "subjectively." In fact, it would appear a person who sets their own morals would be more subjective than a large religion that has been changing those morals over long periods of time (averaging moral opinion that, in general, works for the preservation and prosperity of humans as a collective which is really what religion (most of them) is about).
What I said is that assuming your own morals makes you more responsible -as owning actions tends to be the definition of responsability-. If this is subjective or there are hard exceptions I can welcome that notion, but I'd like to know your argumentation.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole. The MSM draws the distinction and pushes this kinda shit because they're a bunch of hacks.I don't know why you see the media pulling this baiting bullshit and go "Oooweeee, I'd like to get in on that game!"
One of the sides keeps running "I'm a pedofile, I'm not a monster" stories...
Imagine Fox or Drudge did that, and this happened. People would talk.
Originally posted by cdtm
One of the sides keeps running "I'm a pedofile, I'm not a monster" stories...Imagine Fox or Drudge did that, and this happened. People would talk.
Salon deleted it, but there are still remnants of it:
Self-Described ‘Pedophile’ Tells Salon: ‘I’m Not a Monster’ and ‘I Never Will’ Abuse a Child
Yeah, awkward.
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.
Originally posted by Sable
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.
Why don't you like posting in them? It's not like anyone is advocating for pedophilia.
Originally posted by Patient_LeechWait... does molesting children not go against the Left's core values?
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.
Originally posted by Sable
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.
Lgbtq arguments makes it difficult to address.
Such as, if an argument for homosexuality is that sexuality is set in stone in infancy, it follows the same is true of pedos. Which leaves only two choices:
Condemn a pedo who hasn't harmed anyone, thereby hurting their argument for queer acceptance.
Defend a pedo, thereby risking public backlash that percieves it as normalizing pedofiloa (Not to mention giving the Right ammo..)
If someone is a pedo get help. That is how I truly feel. Just get help. Don't give us articles about how you aren't a monster and then talk about how a 5 yr. old you were babysitting was "precocious" among other things, and don't say you had to go jerk off in the bathroom over your attraction to that child.