Yes, YES!! I have every intention of busting your chops and elucidating and citing your obvious biases, lies, and mischaracterizations…
But unfortunately, I don’t have time right now, but if I can find the time later I think I’ll go through some of your posts of just the last few days only and point out line for line the many lies, misrepresentations and miscomprehension’s and obvious biases they are peppered with. Should be fun.
But unfortunately I’m constrained to having to post with only my iPod touch right now, and cutting, pasting and searching are far too difficult and time consuming to waste in contending with your catalog of deceit and obvious bias.
Besides, it should be your responsibility to back up your lies and deceits and obvious bias with proof, yes,no? Or do you prefer the 'guilty ‘til proven innocent’ approach to debate?
However, on second thought I may drive into town one of these days soon where I can tackle them on a library computer that hopefully is less vulnerable to the viruses and malware that one can pick up on Windows machines here these days, and where I can cut, paste and type faster than in my iPod.
I think this defines SA’s viewpoint. He is talking about those that think the direction to take is error on the side of the possible molested, rather the molester…it is a greater threat than a child molester. Kind of wraps up his point of reference. Sorry that is fucking sick.
Yes, it was so very kind of you to agree to suppress your natural inclinations in return for support of your idiotic behahavior in this thread. Most lying sexist, homophobic Nazis wouldn’t be so [del]cowardly[/del] kind.
That was just the intent Enola and I apologize to the extent Una was rubbed the wrong way or did not find it effective in the light you described. I did, but then I thought this was funny as Hell.
To the generation of Real He Men From The Perfect 1950s, confronting homosexual or other un-mainstream impulses in their minds, impulses that were not in accord with the Official Story on what He Men did, inspired some nimble theoretical and verbal gymnastics indeed. The studios were insisting for years that Rock Hudson and Liberace were veritable lotharios. “Confirmed bachelors” littered the landscape in Hollywood and elsewhere. Bodybuilding, notoriously, had a strong homoerotic dimension.
That sort of thing is exactly what SA has tapped into here – the jockish ploy of saying, I’m so manly, I can handle a little grabass, a little showering with the other guys (including little guys, no better way to expose them to the jockish culture), a little hide the soap. It’s you guys with your dirty minds and hysterical suspicions who’re ruining it all for us He Man 1950s jocks! It’s no accident that bathhouses, which used to be, well, places to bathe before everyone had extensive indoor plumbing, became plausible (for awhile) cover-ups for homosexual men to mingle, and not mostly for bathing. But homosexual, them – nosiree, we’re just here to get really really clean.
Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. SA’s professed 1950s-were-perfect-from-a-conservative-perspective is wildly at odds with his extreme desire for an anything-goes culture of male-on-male (including minor male) naked contact being no big deal. His “wide stance” (it was Larry Craig) predictably drives him to act as though he is “very much a man” (Magic Johnson, on denying that he contracted HIV on the Downlow, which he may well have) while still defending aberrant creepy stuff that no normal man (and I don’t think it’s a stretch too far to say that there is such a thing as a normal man, who normatively isn’t interested in or okay with naked shower wrestling with boys) would think remotely defensible. When the Tory MPs were mocked for their cottaging (don’t ask) and rent boy behavior, the crime was hypocrisy, not their (admittedly out-there and inconsistent with their butch stances on social and other issues, a la Craig) specific normal-men-don’t-do-this pecadillos (which were just the proof of their hypocrisy and twisted motives).
(a) answer the damn Pennlive question without a little ballerina dance;
(b) put forth your devastating “refutation,” or even “pointing out” of my alleged lies;
(c) repudiate even one of the lies I demonstrated on your part.
Nope, wrong as usual. I was talking about all the people who have been lynched, burned at the stake, executed, whatever, as the result of hysterical assumptions of guilt without due process.
With regard to child molestation, I believe the same standards of proof should apply as with all other crimes, i.e., innocent until proven guilty rather than the other way around. In other words, I believe that before a man should be caged up for years and his family deprived of its husband, father and breadwinner, something along the lines of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be established.
Children often don’t understand the meaning of questions they’re asked; the meaning or significance of terms they’re asked to use; they are impressionable and easily manipulated by devious, vindictive parents out to punish a current or former partner; and kids will sometimes lie if they think they have something to gain by it, such as escape from a disliked parent or stepfather or resentfully disciplined environment.
Years ago certain feminists were insisting that all allegations of rape should be considered proof because rape was such a heinous crime against women that no woman would ever lie about it. Police detectives laughed. You are little better than they, if at all. People should never be convicted, especially of serious crimes, on the unsubstantiated word of one person or because numbskulls like you think that in certain cases it’s better to err on the side of guilt.
Come on, it always comes back to the same concept, the possibility of an innocent being unjustly accused is more dangerous to society than the crime the person has been accused of. No matter the crime. And crimes of a “sexual nature” seem to be the type that put you over the edge.
Certainly I think an attitude of let’s-lock-'em-up-just-because is more harmful both to society and to individual civil rights than is whatever crime has ostensibly put them there.
No, unthinking idiocy is what puts me over the edge, and crimes of a sexual nature seem to bring the idiots out of the woodwork more than most other issues. For example, here we have you and Guin openly advocating a policy of ‘we don’t know for sure that this guy’s guilty but let’s lock him up just in case’, with other people in the thread jumping to wild, unsupported conclusions about what Joe Paterno thought, knew and did, and feverishly insisting that a rape occurred when a common-sense evaluation of the facts tends to suggest otherwise, and then calling me a pedophile because I chose to look at the facts. All of that is idiocy, and that idiocy is what has put me ‘over the edge’.
