son comes out of the closet to his religous parents

CoupeIt88 said:
No it's not flawed at all. When you look at many European countries who by far lead the world in Agnostic/Non-Religion statistics within the population, you'll see that many of those countries are very welcoming of homosexuals and lead the way in civil-human rights.

Certain parts of America are very similar as well. It's not a coincidence that the percentage of people with a higher level of education or economic powerhouses located in specific cities/states in this country have a much higher Agnostic/Atheist population. The Northeast, Cali, Pacific Northwest, etc. Thats the way it is. You can't refute that.

Think about Europe 60-80 years ago, how many god damn problems they had. The population during that time almost all followed and had faith in organized religion. Now things are a hell of a lot calmer and a hell of a lot more sane.

Not only are the numbers there, but common sense as well.
Click to expand...
Those states may have higher atheist or agnostic populations, but the majority of the time, the percentage of people who are in a religion or believe in a higher power(not even talking about religious people) trumps those who are atheists or agnostics. So that point was irrelevant. The fact that you attributed low education to belief in religion shows your ignorance. Maybe you should be blaming education or the lack of education when talking about prejudice, but that has nothing to do with belief in God. With or without religion, these people would be prejudiced. Religion statistics are flawed a lot of the time anyways. You say that people with higher educations and economies have high atheist populations, but I would say that the majority of kids in the hood like Chicago for example are atheists or agnostics. Now would you say those kids are uneducated because of their belief or would you say that their lack of education and support system. Also what does Europe failing as a country because they unwisely combined church and state have to do with anything? I can show you plenty of countries that had the church and state completely separate and were horrible so it makes no sense to use that example.

Also show me your statistics, I can easily show stats that show certain races are superior in the same way you find atheism superior to religion. You see what's wrong with that way of thinking?
 
DutchRoyalT said:
Master Zik said:
This is why I skip most of his posts. He always bordering on delusional with what he says. Almost boggles my mind how he can't properly appropriately convey his thoughts so that they make sense since he claims to value logic and truth. You'd think before jumping to post he'd even consider a few other alternatives to the way he thinks.


But no to him being homosexual is just a sex act. Following that poor logic, you aren't straight until you have heterosexual sex. Meaning that a gay person can still be heterosexual by having heterosexual sex if they chose to :lol:
Click to expand...
but by definition he is right...

homosexuality is the attraction and sexual act of same sex persons..... So in a sense he is correct.... society and even homosexuals themselves have attached stereotypes and certain lifestyles and behaviors to homosexuality and used that as a definition for the word and that isnt the case.
Click to expand...
Attraction and sexual act.

According to him if a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but never has sex with a person of the same sex they're not homosexual. You can now apply that to heterosexuals and w/e else. When you combine that type of thinking with his arguments about pedophilia, and underage kids being able to consent you get a whole lot of limited thinking but if you agree with him that's okay. That's not really adhering to logic or truth imo.

I'm not even talking about the stereotypes or "lifestyle" that some embrace or adopt.
 
Last edited:
am1x90xnike said:
 Plus the argument was how is it ok for ppl to be gay and why isnt it old for an adult to sleep with a child or a person rapes a person if both ppl are born this way. To which i said is with homosexuality both parties are consenting and in agreement of the act in which they are to perform and are fully aware of what is going on.
Click to expand...


Not the argument. The argument is "why do we say pedophiles choose to be that way, but Gays are born that way"
Click to expand...
Nah b. You brought up pedophiles nobody else did. You created your own thing with that. That was your example you tried to place on homosexuals which simply is not the same thing. You tried your hardest to get around that by arguing about consent. Then when nobody bit you begged for ppl to respond to you with the bait that you'll just assume you're right cuz nobody wanted to engage your argument :lol: You do this in any thread with a possible controversial topic where you can present a conflicting view or loaded unpopular argument.

I think you'd need to point to some other ppl in this thread that said pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. If you're attracted to little kids, want to have sex with them you're a pedophile just short of being a sex offender, you start collecting kiddie porn you're a pedophile on your way to being a sex offender. You start raping kids, you're a pedophile, sex offender and statutory rapist.
 
Last edited:
When did you choose to be straight and what were you before that?

Pedophiles have sex with prepubescent males/females, btw.

Experience shapes sexuality, in your words. So to say an English 15 year old understands or does not understand the repercussions of sex is entirely up to their experience. Right?

never mind Ima get back on this pack. Yall have a good day :lol:
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
Attraction and sexual act.

According to him if a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but never has sex with a person of the same sex they're not homosexual. You can now apply that to heterosexuals and w/e else. When you combine that type of thinking with his arguments about pedophilia, and underage kids being able to consent you get a whole lot of limited thinking but if you agree with him that's okay.

I'm not even talking about the stereotypes or "lifestyle" that some embrace or adopt.
Click to expand...
well they wouldnt be..... if my g/f finds some girls attractive but has never been with a woman before.... how is she homosexual/bisexual?

The pedo argument as i stated is ridiculous.... because a CHILD isnt mentally mature to handle and deal with all that comes with being sexually active. Just because your born with some sort of mentality doesnt make it right. If that was the case we would let murderers, skitzos the works do whatever they please on the premise of well they are born this way. 

From what he is saying we might as well let someone who was born addicted to drugs etc... be able to drive... hell lets let blind ppl drive.... i mean they were born that way lol... 

I just dont understand how someone cant see the difference between two consenting ppl performing a sexual act (regardless of orientation) And a adult having a sexual relationship with a child, or a person raping someone. 
 
Way to selective quote. I've already said, to you specifically, that I'm using pedophile in the colloquial sense (I'll explain colloquial because you don't seem to understand (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.) , and yes I did bring up pedophiles to prove the point. Like, there is literally an explaination right under the paragraph you posted....like got damn NT.

Please, please explain to me how it is different. You haven't sufficiently done that yet. Like damn.

And yes, I truly believe sexuality comes from experience, most molestors wer molested, a lot of black dudes only sleep with black girls because that was their experience.

Like I said, I don't impose sexuality on children, so before you start performing sex acts (ie kissing, hand holding all that stuff, outside of family) then you have a sexuality. Which one of ya'll is willing to say 4 year old girls are gay or straight?

As I said...if you admit that gay people choose to have sex with another dude, thus making their sexuality a choice, then I have nothing else to argue about.
 
Last edited:
Master Zik said:
Nah b. You brought up pedophiles nobody else did. You created your own thing with that. That was your example you tried to place on homosexuals which simply is not the same thing. You tried your hardest to get around that by arguing about consent. Then when nobody bit you begged for ppl to respond to you with the bait that you'll just assume you're right cuz nobody wanted to engage your argument
laugh.gif
You do this in any thread with a possible controversial topic where you can present a conflicting view or loaded unpopular argument.

I think you'd need to point to some other ppl in this thread that said pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. If you're attracted to little kids, want to have sex with them you're a pedophile just short of being a sex offender, you start collecting kiddie porn you're a pedophile on your way to being a sex offender. You start raping kids, you're a pedophile, sex offender and statutory rapist.
Click to expand...
and the biggest most obvious point.... the pedo while born that way has no choice in the matter, the child on the underhand isnt born to be attracted and sleep with adults... and thats the difference... it isnt mutual. Two men sleeping together both understand and agree... with rape/pedo it is one-sided. 
 
TimCity2000 said:
straight from webster's:

1 ho·mo·sex·u·al adjective \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

: based on or showing a sexual attraction to people of the same sex
Click to expand...
Thought this was common sense... shame on me
 
Last edited:
So I ask, is a person who is attracted to a 15 year old a sex offender? Don't they have to actually commit the offense of sleeping with that child to be put in that catagory? There is a reason why courts don't use websters, btw. And I'm literally sitting in a law library, just looked through the various satutes and dictionaries...there is no legal definition of homosexual...just for your knowledge.
 
Last edited:
am1x90xnike said:
So I ask, is a person who is attracted to a 15 year old a sex offender? Don't they have to actually commit the offense of sleeping with that child to be put in that catagory? There is a reason why courts don't use websters, btw.
Click to expand...
No you have to commit an offense, to be an offender. They are be pedos tho, based off attraction.

If they speaking english in court, webster matters.
 
Last edited:
am1x90xnike said:
 
Way to selective quote. I've already said, to you specifically, that I'm using pedophile in the colloquial sense (I'll explain colloquial because you don't seem to understand (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.) , and yes I did bring up pedophiles to prove the point. Like, there is literally an explaination right under the paragraph you posted....like got damn NT.

Please, please explain to me how it is different. You haven't sufficiently done that yet. Like damn.

And yes, I truly believe sexuality comes from experience, most molestors wer molested, a lot of black dudes only sleep with black girls because that was their experience.

Like I said, I don't impose sexuality on children, so before you start performing sex acts (ie kissing, hand holding all that stuff, outside of family) then you have a sexuality. Which one of ya'll is willing to say 4 year old girls are gay or straight?

As I said...if you admit that gay people choose to have sex with another dude, thus making their sexuality a choice, then I have nothing else to argue about.
Click to expand...
that has to do with product of environment more then based on some innate born trait.... its like the same thing with so called black on black crime... they dont have some predestined fixation for killing other black ppl.... its simply product of environment aka they are around blk ppl majority or all therefore they kill or in this case sleep with just black girls.... 

And yea alot of molestors molest.... but that has less to do with being born that way, and more to do with redirecting the hurt/trama and unresolved issues as a result of the molestation on someone else. That can be said about alot of things. Just like the old saying goes hurt ppl hurt ppl.

And as far as being gay... tbh there hasnt been any 100% solid proof that it is a born trait. So i dont know what ppl will make of this. tbh i think it has to do with a combination of maybe some sort of birth traits and the environment a person grew up in and how they were raised. 

I just havent seen any 100% concrete proof that there is some sort of genetic dna gene that is for lack of better words (gay gene) or some sort of homosexual chromosome.
 
HTG Designs said:
No you have to commit an offense, to be an offender. They are be pedos tho, based off attraction.

If they speaking english in court, webster matters.
Click to expand...
No, it actually doesn't. Websters definitions aren't accepted into evidence. Blacks law dictionary is the closets, but it's still a secondary source so can't be looked at as authority, guide maybe, but not as a end all be all. Facts.
 
am1x90xnike said:
So I ask, is a person who is attracted to a 15 year old a sex offender? Don't they have to actually commit the offense of sleeping with that child to be put in that catagory? There is a reason why courts don't use websters, btw.
Click to expand...

being a pedophile is not against the law. acting on it is.

i'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore..
 
 
being a pedophile is not against the law. acting on it is.

i'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore..
Click to expand...
Thats my point, being attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, acting on it does.
 
am1x90xnike said:
 
So I ask, is a person who is attracted to a 15 year old a sex offender? Don't they have to actually commit the offense of sleeping with that child to be put in that catagory? There is a reason why courts don't use websters, btw. And I'm literally sitting in a law library, just looked through the various satutes and dictionaries...there is no legal definition of homosexual...just for your knowledge.
Click to expand...
obviously not seeing the keyword offense.... but they would infact be a pedophile. Just the same as if i dont have sex with my g/f im still str8. Its not the same like iuno a murderer to which isnt one until they actually kill a person. 
 
am1x90xnike said:
No, it actually doesn't. Websters definitions aren't accepted into evidence. Blacks law dictionary is the closets, but it's still a secondary source so can't be looked at as authority, guide maybe, but not as a end all be all. Facts.
Click to expand...
Thats because some words are actual legal terms and have different meanings. It a mixture. Dog still means dog. They go, woof!
 
Last edited:
So ya'll want me to use "sex offender" or "pedophile" as I've stated, I'm using the words interchangabely (as others are in this thread without even realizing) because COLLOQUIALLY the words are used interchangebly. When I'm using it,  I'M NOT REFERING TO THE EASY CASES OF 10yo. I'm talk the harder cases of older teenagers who have developed adult bodies, but are still under the age of majority.

I don't see how a guy chooses to sleep with 15 year olds, but is somehow compelled  to sleep with dudes.  I believe both are a choice, I refuse to impose sexuallity on those who have never had sex and you are not gay until you actually perform a sexually gay act. easy enough to follow?

Oh, and trust me, dog doesn't always mean "dog" for example, what about a half wolf half german shepherd? is that a dog, within the definition of the statute? Should I be allowed to have it in my apartment because my lease said no "dogs" but I define this animal as a wolf.

I think thats the issue, ya'll focus on the easy cases ,but its the hard cases where truth is discovered.
 
Last edited:
DutchRoyalT said:
Master Zik said:
Attraction and sexual act.


According to him if a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but never has sex with a person of the same sex they're not homosexual. You can now apply that to heterosexuals and w/e else. When you combine that type of thinking with his arguments about pedophilia, and underage kids being able to consent you get a whole lot of limited thinking but if you agree with him that's okay.


I'm not even talking about the stereotypes or "lifestyle" that some embrace or adopt.
Click to expand...
well they wouldnt be..... if my g/f finds some girls attractive but has never been with a woman before.... how is she homosexual/bisexual?
Click to expand...
If you're sexually attracted to dudes you're gay or bi. If your gf is sexually attracted to females she's either secretly a lesbian or bi.

Take it a step further, if you jerk off to gay porn are you not gay?
 
Last edited:
am1x90xnike said:
Thats my point, being attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, acting on it does.
Click to expand...

so your argument is essentially:

acting on a pedophilic urge makes you a sex offender.

acting on a homosexual urge makes you gay.


even if i'm stating that correctly, i STILL don't understand what your point is. we're talking about two completely unrelated topics. the only slight commonality you've been able to introduce is that both are/were taboo. and while that may be true, as society has progressed, one of them has quickly become less taboo and accepted while the other still remains illegal. in other words, we've come to realize that we got it wrong. there are more than a few examples of similar things that we got wrong in the past that we've since changed... i'm fairly confident that adult sex with a minor won't become one of them.
 
DutchRoyalT said:
Master Zik said:
Nah b. You brought up pedophiles nobody else did. You created your own thing with that. That was your example you tried to place on homosexuals which simply is not the same thing. You tried your hardest to get around that by arguing about consent. Then when nobody bit you begged for ppl to respond to you with the bait that you'll just assume you're right cuz nobody wanted to engage your argument :lol: You do this in any thread with a possible controversial topic where you can present a conflicting view or loaded unpopular argument.


I think you'd need to point to some other ppl in this thread that said pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. If you're attracted to little kids, want to have sex with them you're a pedophile just short of being a sex offender, you start collecting kiddie porn you're a pedophile on your way to being a sex offender. You start raping kids, you're a pedophile, sex offender and statutory rapist.
Click to expand...
and the biggest most obvious point.... the pedo while born that way has no choice in the matter, the child on the underhand isnt born to be attracted and sleep with adults... and thats the difference... it isnt mutual. Two men sleeping together both understand and agree... with rape/pedo it is one-sided. 
Click to expand...
He don't get that though.

He's gonna keep saying he's using pedophile in the colloquial sense as if that covers his bull **** and makes it okay and when repeatedly called out on it accuse you of not knowing what colloquial means while missing the entire point.
HTG Designs said:
am1x90xnike said:
So I ask, is a person who is attracted to a 15 year old a sex offender? Don't they have to actually commit the offense of sleeping with that child to be put in that catagory? There is a reason why courts don't use websters, btw.
Click to expand...
No you have to commit an offense, to be an offender. They are be pedos tho, based off attraction.

If they speaking english in court, webster matters.
Click to expand...
:rofl:

Son had it explained to him pgs ago and is still asking these remedial questions :smh:

How can you be an offender if you don't offend?
 
Last edited:
What society? It's still legal to marry a child in India (which would include sex, presumbly) , hell it's even encouraged.

Jerking off to gay porn would be a sex act, which would be a gay act.

The connection is the person choice to do/not do a sexual act, I use pedophiles because it's a hard case.

Like, read...please read. Like damn, do ya'll not understand ideas? I don't know how I can make my argument any simpler.

This strawman of pedophile v sex offender is all but useless. I'm talking about 14/15/16 year olds, which, if you told your friends that you slept with one, would call you a pedophile, even though, technically you are not, but colloquially you are.  Walk outside, right now, tell the first person you see that you are attracted to a 15 year old, I'm all but certain they will call you a pedophile, as sex offender is kind of a "higher level" term.
 
^So what if you premature ejaculate while watching gay porn without touching yourself are you gay then?

The mere fact that you get aroused by gay porn means you're gay at the least.
TimCity2000 said:
am1x90xnike said:
Thats my point, being attracted to someone of the same sex doesn't make you gay, acting on it does.
Click to expand...

so your argument is essentially:

acting on a pedophilic urge makes you a sex offender.

acting on a homosexual urge makes you gay.


even if i'm stating that correctly, i STILL don't understand what your point is. we're talking about two completely unrelated topics. the only slight commonality you've been able to introduce is that both are/were taboo. and while that may be true, as society has progressed, one of them has quickly become less taboo and accepted while the other still remains illegal. in other words, we've come to realize that we got it wrong. there are more than a few examples of similar things that we got wrong in the past that we've since changed... i'm fairly confident that adult sex with a minor won't become one of them.
Click to expand...
He's probably about to say what if we're wrong about pedophilia citing them raunchy hedonistic Greeks or go to a bestiality argument now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Help with Jordan storage
Replies
11
Views
1K
executive76
executive76
therealest1
Nike Air DT Max 96 (Deion Sanders)
Replies
12
Views
2K
bklyn style baby
bklyn style baby
Mister Meaner
🐾 ::|:: IIWII <>TMJS <>✔️out the STAT ::|:: 🐾
Replies
1
Views
583
Mister Meaner
Mister Meaner
Mokorider
Relocation opportunities worth the shot or not? vol. share your experience(s)
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
datznasty
datznasty
you go boy
Need your Prayers for my Dad
3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
7K
ajiiiplatinum
ajiiiplatinum

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom