kengs333

It matters a whole heck of a lot. Our senate works fine, and the only problem with it in the eyes of the Conservatives is that it is dominated by the Liberals at the moment. Floating the idea that the Senate could be abolished is consistant with Harper's authoritarian personality. Not only do we have someone who muzzle's his MPs, tries to control how the media deals with him, kisses American ass, blows too much money on the military, now we have someone who wants to scrap an integral aspect of the Canadian democratic system. Harper is systematically doing away with Canada, and Canadians, as usual, just complacently let it all happen.

...

Yes I do know what an adult is. Exactly; so a gay man that engages in a relationship with a 14 year-old boy is a pedophile, correct? Well, look at this, you have just answered my question. A gay man who engages in a sexual relationship with a boy is a pedophile. Sounds to me like you're the one who doesn't get it. I never stated that gays who engage in man-boy love "represent all gay men". I've made this clear on a number of occasions. There are, however, a number of well documented cases of man-boy love involving recognized homosexuals, people who are important to the "gay rights" movement. So it really is an aspect of hmosexuality, not people using the "gay pride movement" as a cover. Right, he's a heterosexual pedophile; most pedophiles have relationships with adults, usually the same sex as the children who they victimize.

You see, I know the difference between a child and adult; it's the people here who claim that people who engage in man-boy love are not pedophiles who have trouble making the distinction. I know based on all of your past posts what you're trying to do, but for the sake of someone who comes along who doesn't know what you're like and actually takes what you write at face value, I have to make this clear again. Just out of curiosity; is it your opinion that homosexuals also engage in pedophelic behaviour?

So you think it's perfectly fine for a 40 year-old man to have sex with his consenting 16 year-old daughter, or for a man to have four consenting wives? Let's be clear about this, you don't believe that a 40 years-old man having sex with a "consenting" 13 year-old boy is okay? What would you call a 40 year-old woman who has "consentual" sex with a 14 year-old girl?

Okay, so if pedophelia is a "psychological disorder" how is it then that an older adult having sex with children that are say 12-14 and don't fit into the profile of what some would consider pedophelia, is not a psychological disorder? Are you telling me that a 14 year-old boy really has the ability to make a responsible desicion about consenting to have sex with a 40 year-old man who is much more sophisticated and can subtely encourage/pressure a child into into "accepting" his overatures? How many drug addicts, people with suicidal tendancies, other psychological disorders are out there because as young teens they were coerced, but not forced, into sexual relations by older people? You clearly still don't get it. If you read any book about the history of homosexuality or the gay rights movement, there will likely be a discussion about pederasty (man-boy love). Why is this the case? Why? Because all through history gay men have fantasized or engaged in sexual acts with boys, male children between the ages of at least 10-14 years-old. If you consider this healthy, consentual behaviour, then you need serious help.

I'm not familiar with the changing composition of the Senate, so when was this? I'm still not sure when the Senate has ever really proven itself to be a really problem to the Canadian democratic process. Will electing the Senate really improve things? Most voters are largely ignorant about Canadian politics, and now we should allow them to have a say in determining who will be a senator as well? As for abolishment of the Senate; how does that improve things? How does removing a democratic institution make things better.

...

What gets me about the rhetoric is when during the press conference today van Loon referred to the Senate as an outdated institution, yet he and the Conservatives apparently has no problems with the FPTP electoral system that also dates from that era. If the Senate was stacked with Conservatives, Senate reform/abolishment would not be an issue.

If you're commenting on something I said, it doesn't matter if you think you're or are nor addressing me "directly". I've made it "abundantly clear" that I don't read his posts because of the reasons I've already mentioned. Sorry, is all this nonsense because you (and others) have issues with reading comprehension??? No, I don't think it has "something to do with homosexuality". I think that there are homosexuals who are pedophiles, and that pedophelia is something more openly associated with the homosexual lifestyle. I've never argued that it is exclusively confined to the homosexual lifestyle. The reason that there is a discussion about this is because certain people are trying to argue that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophelia, which to me is an attempt to completely misrepresent the gay lifestyle, an attempt to perpetuate idealized myths about homosexuality that are completely false. Therefore, there is a connection between pedophelia and homosexuality; namely, 1) both are forms of deviant sexual behaviour, 2) homosexuals (not all, but probably with greater frequency) also engage in pedophelia.

I do; time to bring it back.

I don't make up answers, and my answers are based both on fact and reason. I'm under the impression that you're still in need of clarifying the difference between pedophelia when it involves women assaulting children and gay men assaulting children. It would seem to me that there is a certain double-standard here: you think that gay men who engage in "man-boy" love are not pedophiles?

Okay, if the best you can muster is insults, maybe you should be considering what to do about your deficiencies. If he has put up any "facts" then the fact that he buries them in repetative, rambling posts generally ranging from 1500-3000 words, in which he makes copius [many] ad hominem [personal] attacks, insulting accusations means that I have stopped reading his posts. Some of the facts that I've discussed in my posts are so common knowledge, can be verified by simply googling the topic, that it's not even worth "sourcing" my comments. Please, kid, don't think too highly of yourself or the likes of Rue--I've read more on a wider variety of topics that either of you ever will. "Ask a scholar which one that is." Never'll have to ask you, that's for sure...

...

Geez, nobody wants to clarify this? Didn't this person also have a lesbian relationship with a 23 year old person connected with the school? Like I said, the media won't cover this story the way it should be...

Funny, I don't ever recalling saying any of that. Could you please show me exactly where I made those exact assertions? Incidently, the Bible wasn't written "2000 years ago". I guess that means you don't like Muslims, Hindus or Jews (to name but a few), either--but are just too scared to say anything for fear of being called a racist or anti-semite.

Sorry, but if you seriously think that's he's governed by "the truth" after reading any of his ramblings, then all I can think of are bannable phrases about your state of mind.

How quick you are to label someone you don't agree with. I don't see it as being either narrow minded nor bigoted to not wish abnormal sexual behaviour to exist in society to any great extent. Personally, I think people who engage in these practices are narrow minded because they allow themselves to be primarily driven by the urge to satisfy base sexual desires, engage in irrational, hedonistic activities. What's really sad is a society that has lost all sense of right and wrong and cloaks base and immoral behaviour in the guide of being good, "open-minded" and and "expression of love" rather than corrupting, self-destructive and destructive to society as is really the case.

I don't bother reading his ramblings, so I don't care what he says. He's governed by other motivations.

If it's not "cut and dry" then why are you making such statements? Any researcher will tell you that the majority of people who engage in pedophelic behaviour do not view childdren as their sole or primary interest. If you're so keen on having proof provided every time someone makes a statement you don't agree with, then let's see you provide some for your ludicrous assertions.

It's not a matter of my repeating the phrase that makes it true, rather that fact that this is the case makes what I write in my phrase true. One could argue that just because you deny it doesn't mean that it is true. Sorry, but pederasty is something that is openly advocated by the gay community. Yes there is a link: pederastry. Pederasty is "love" between boys as young as 12 and older men. Is this not pedophelia, in your opinion? I never said I wasn't. I don't make excuses or condone deviant sexual behaviour perpetrated by heterosexuals, especially when the victims are children. My point is, though, this is not the case with homosexuals; everybody here seems to be defending or denying such behaviour by homosexuals. It's bad enough that arguments are made that they aren't sexual deviants in the first place, but to defend them when they engage in other forms of sexual deviance...? Well, again, yes there is a direct link.

So a woman engaging in sex acts with 12-14 year old girls is pedophile, but gay men who engage in "man-boy love" (pederasty) with 12-14 year old boys are not pedophiles???

Look, I asked you if your questions were in reference to "fire inspectors" and all you had to do is answer "yes". Instead you did what you did. For what blessed reason would use the term "fire inspectors" if it didn't appear in the article??? Obviously, by the nature of my post, I was skeptical about the theories being put forward by the Indians. The are able to look at a burned down structure and determine conclusively who was responsible? Hence "fire inspectors" was indeed used sarcastically. Perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks to assist those less able to infer meaning from context, those incapable of appreciating the subtleties of the English language. No, you posted the article because my post starting "Well, let's see..." made you feel like an imbicile and you just got really pissed off.

From forum Rules and Guidelines: "POSTING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL Copyright infringement is illegal on these forums. Therefore, please do not post articles in their entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use the quote ( ) feature to highlight the important parts of the article and provide a thorough summary for others. You must also provide sufficient credit to the author and a link to the original article in your post. If the article cannot be found online, then at the end of the post provide an appropriate cite using any of the available citing formats, MLA, APA, etc. Find out more information on Fair Dealing in Canada. http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf"

YES!!!!!