Salon.com once again promoting pedos.

[BmorePat87]

(05-30-2016, 01:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  



LULZ. It was because you felt the wrong word was used; similar to another thread where you objected when I used Emotional Sex. It is just petty and par for the course; unless you truly didn't understand the intent of the message(s). 

I addressed that initial comment based on the words you used. If you're not intelligent enough to use a word correctly, that's not my problem.

Based on where you then tried to direct the back and forth, I began to believe you meant to use the word "sexuality" differently. I'm guessing my presumption was correct. 

[BmorePat87]

If I were petty, I'd quote a dictionary just as bfine loves to do.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 12:10 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I addressed that initial comment based on the words you used. If you're not intelligent enough to use a word correctly, that's not my problem.

Based on where you then tried to direct the back and forth, I began to believe you meant to use the word "sexuality" differently. I'm guessing my presumption was correct. 

This is the original quote:

bfine32 Wrote:Why do folks want to take away a 12 year old's right to consent to sex? Don't we give them the right to choose their sexuality at that age and have abortions without parental permission?

Sexuality mean referring to male or female. I used the word I meant to use and nothing unintelligent about it. As anyone can see a differentiation was made between sex  (the act) and sex (male and female) You came back with about something being "innate".  

Anybody should be able to read the quote and respond to the message; unless they were truly confused by the words used.

The question still remains: Why do we advocate a child being able to choose their sexuality (relating to being male or female) but we do not allow them to choose to be involved in a sexual (the act) relationship?


Here's the answer in case you are still confused by the words used: We should not. We should have them follow their biological makeup until they reach the age of consent.

The truth of the matter is (as pointed out by Dino) and hopefully you have enough integrity to admit: You saw a word you disagreed with and dismissed the context of the message out of pettiness. 


Hopefully, I did not use a wrong word, term, meaning, ect...

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This is the original quote:



Sexuality mean referring to male or female. I used the word I meant to use and nothing unintelligent about it. As anyone can see a differentiation was made between sex  (the act) and sex (male and female) You came back with about something being "innate".  

Anybody should be able to read the quote and respond to the message; unless they were truly confused by the words used.

The question still remains: Why do we advocate a child being able to choose their sexuality (relating to being male or female) but we do not allow them to choose to be involved in a sexual (the act) relationship?


Here's the answer in case you are still confused by the words used: We should not. We should have them follow their biological makeup until they reach the age of consent.

The truth of the matter is (as pointed out by Dino) and hopefully you have enough integrity to admit: You saw a word you disagreed with and dismissed the context of the message out of pettiness. 


Hopefully, I did not use a wrong word, term, meaning, ect...

Using a word incorrectly and continuing to use it incorrectly after you've been told that you are using it incorrectly is unintelligent. If you meant "Sex", say "sex". "Sexuality" does not mean whether or not someone is male or female. You spoke of age of consent laws and said sexuality. I took that word at its meaning because the context fit. You then followed it up with asking about promiscuity. Again, I took the word at its meaning since you were again talking about having sex and sexuality refers to one's sexual orientation and behavior. 

Going forward, the word you're looking for is "sex", but if you want to continue to use the word "sexuality", feel free. Your ignorance has been acknowledged and I will make note of what you truly mean anytime you say it.

As for your question " Why do we advocate a child being able to choose their sexuality (relating to being male or female) but we do not allow them to choose to be involved in a sexual (the act) relations?"

If parents do not want their kid identifying as another gender, they are not obligated to buy them clothes, call them another name, or take them to therapy. However, if they are ok with it, there's nothing making it illegal because it hasn't been deemed to be psychologically and physically harmful to the minor. 

[GMDino]

(05-31-2016, 07:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Using a word incorrectly and continuing to use it incorrectly after you've been told that you are using it incorrectly is unintelligent. If you meant "Sex", say "sex". "Sexuality" does not mean whether or not someone is male or female. You spoke of age of consent laws and said sexuality. I took that word at its meaning because the context fit. You then followed it up with asking about promiscuity. Again, I took the word at its meaning since you were again talking about having sex and sexuality refers to one's sexual orientation and behavior. 

Going forward, the word you're looking for is "sex", but if you want to continue to use the word "sexuality", feel free. Your ignorance has been acknowledged and I will make note of what you truly mean anytime you say it.

As for your question " Why do we advocate a child being able to choose their sexuality (relating to being male or female) but we do not allow them to choose to be involved in a sexual (the act) relations?"

If parents do not want their kid identifying as another gender, they are not obligated to buy them clothes, call them another name, or take them to therapy. However, if they are ok with it, there's nothing making it illegal because it hasn't been deemed to be psychologically and physically harmful to the minor. 

Far be it from me to try and figure out what Daniel meant (LULZ) but I *think* he was trying ask about actual sex...the physical act.  And why we don't let minors have sex legally but let them chose to decide if they feel like the opposite sex.

Which is creepy that the argument being used is that if Tom is 15 and feels like a girl that should be we allow 12 year olds to have sex with adults too.

But that would at least explain his insistence that he used the "right" word for his "argument".

That said I find it a false equivalent as you pointed out that no one is forcing parents to allow anything.  Also someone dressing themselves is different that allowing consent from someone else for the act of sex.

Maybe that's just me. 

[*PhilHos*]

(05-30-2016, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When a black person is attacked just because of the color of skin then that puts EVERY person with that color of skin in fear.

No, it doesn't. There may have been a time back in the 50s or 60s when that was true, but not nowadays. Though this might be true of SOME protected classes (i.e. women and gays) even today. But in any event ...

(05-30-2016, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Hate crimes are something like terrorism because there are more vistims effected.  Therefore the punishment should be more severe.

ALL crimes affect more than just the victims directly involved. If a home in your neighborhood was burgled (and homeowner and perpetrator were of a different ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation as you), would YOU not be a little more worried? If you heard of a mugging or murder of a black guy on a street you frequent, the next time you found yourself on said street, would YOU not be a little more apprehensive?

I understand what Benton said in his reply to my post, but I'm talking about the exact same crime with just different reasons for them, not different crimes. I can't think of a reason why killing someone in cold blood is somehow worst if your motive was because of their skin color or because you wanted something they had.

I know that as much as we'd like our justice system to not have gray areas, I recognize they exist, but this shouldn't be one of them. If the crime is the same, the punishment should be the same (generally speaking).

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 07:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Using a word incorrectly and continuing to use it incorrectly after you've been told that you are using it incorrectly is unintelligent. If you meant "Sex", say "sex". "Sexuality" does not mean whether or not someone is male or female. You spoke of age of consent laws and said sexuality. I took that word at its meaning because the context fit. You then followed it up with asking about promiscuity. Again, I took the word at its meaning since you were again talking about having sex and sexuality refers to one's sexual orientation and behavior. 

Going forward, the word you're looking for is "sex", but if you want to continue to use the word "sexuality", feel free. Your ignorance has been acknowledged and I will make note of what you truly mean anytime you say it.

As for your question " Why do we advocate a child being able to choose their sexuality (relating to being male or female) but we do not allow them to choose to be involved in a sexual (the act) relations?"

If parents do not want their kid identifying as another gender, they are not obligated to buy them clothes, call them another name, or take them to therapy. However, if they are ok with it, there's nothing making it illegal because it hasn't been deemed to be psychologically and physically harmful to the minor. 

The word was not used incorrectly, just as emotional sex was not used incorrectly in a previous thread. You just have assumed the duties of being word police in this forum and it is petty in nature. I did speak  of age of consent for sex and I clearly made a contrast to it when I said if we can do this,  then why can't we do that. Any reasonable person can read that and determine the the second use of the word sex related to being male or female. 

I could go full Pat and harp on the fact that your last sentence that states a kid identifying as "another" gender is incorrect; however, I clearly understood what you meant and it only addresses parental involvement, It does not address proclamation made by the President of the United States and laws passed by various courts.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Far be it from me to try and figure out what Daniel meant (LULZ) but I *think* he was trying ask about actual sex...the physical act.  And why we don't let minors have sex legally but let them chose to decide if they feel like the opposite sex.

Which is creepy that the argument being used is that if Tom is 15 and feels like a girl that should be we allow 12 year olds to have sex with adults too.

But that would at least explain his insistence that he used the "right" word for his "argument".

That said I find it a false equivalent as you pointed out that no one is forcing parents to allow anything.  Also someone dressing themselves is different that allowing consent from someone else for the act of sex.

Maybe that's just me. 

Hell you cracked the code. It is only "creepy" if you think a child should be able to have sex with an adult. I was merely pointing to the logic of why we give them the right (and enforce laws) the identify with a gender that differs from their biological sex (male/female Pat); yet we don't give them the right to consent to sex (the act Pat) that differs from their biological age. 

My opinion is public policy should prohibit both until they reach the age on consent. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 01:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The word was not used incorrectly, just as emotional sex was not used incorrectly in a previous thread. You just have assumed the duties of being word police in this forum and it is petty in nature. I did speak  of age of consent for sex and I clearly made a contrast to it when I said if we can do this,  then why can't we do that. Any reasonable person can read that and determine the the second use of the word sex related to being male or female. 

I could go full Pat and harp on the fact that your last sentence that states a kid identifying as "another" gender is incorrect; however, I clearly understood what you meant and it only addresses parental involvement, It does not address proclamation made by the President of the United States and laws passed by various courts.

So if "sexuality" was not used incorrectly, you were indeed asking about sexual orientation?

If the answer is anything but "yes" then you used the word incorrectly. I'm happy to address my answer to your question if you're done trying to argue about your poor word choice. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 01:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So if "sexuality" was not used incorrectly, you were indeed asking about sexual orientation?

If the answer is anything but "yes" then you used the word incorrectly. I'm happy to address my answer to your question if you're done trying to argue about your poor word choice. 

Good thing you don't focus on the word and are not petty in nature. This is ********  and I will concede that I should have used a word that you acknowledge as proper. I blame myself for this going off the rails because I used sexuality  to describe which sex a minor identifies with.  

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 02:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good thing you don't focus on the word and are not petty in nature. This is ********  and I will concede that I should have used a word that you acknowledge as proper. I blame myself for this going off the rails because I used sexuality  to describe which sex a minor identifies with.  

I addressed your post which was entirely devoted to your incorrect use of the word "sexuality" and did not focus on my answer to your question. I also don't acknowledge the word as proper, the English language does.

If you want to continue the conversation about trans kids instead of focusing on your ignorance of the word "sexuality", we can. I've already suggested that we do. I'm not sure why you are now whining about us focusing on your misuse of that word when you had a chance to remain on topic by responding to my answer but instead decided to just talk about using words...

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 02:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I addressed your post which was entirely devoted to your incorrect use of the word "sexuality" and did not focus on my answer to your question. I also don't acknowledge the word as proper, the English language does.

If you want to continue the conversation about trans kids instead of focusing on your ignorance of the word "sexuality", we can. I've already suggested that we do. I'm not sure why you are now whining about us focusing on your misuse of that word when you had a chance to remain on topic by responding to my answer but instead decided to just talk about using words...

Not the I'm rubber you're glue defense. 

Nah, I think I'll talk to other people about it; perhaps Dino. He at least understood the original question posed. You just keep an eye out for folks using the wrong words. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 02:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not the I'm rubber you're glue defense. 

Nah, I think I'll talk to other people about it; perhaps Dino. He at least understood the original question posed. You just keep an eye out for folks using the wrong words. 

Are you well? I asked why you're choosing to not address my answer while concurrently getting upset about the fact that we're not addressing the question. 

You've now responded "Not the I'm rubber you're glue defense. "


I will suggest now for the 3rd time in 3 posts: Why don't we address my answer to your question?

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 02:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Are you well? I asked why you're choosing to not address my answer while concurrently getting upset about the fact that we're not addressing the question. 

You've now responded "Not the I'm rubber you're glue defense. "


I will suggest now for the 3rd time in 3 posts: Why don't we address my answer to your question?

You mean like I did in post# 147? To which your response was something more about how the word was used wrong. I recommend you read it again, not focus on the choice of words, and see if your point was addressed.

i am well; how are you? 

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You mean like I did in post# 147? To which your response was something more about how the word was used wrong. I recommend you read it again, not focus on the choice of words, and see if your point was addressed.

i am well; how are you? 

So you don't want to address my answer more than just acknowledging that you understood it? Please don't act like a victim because you devoted a whole sentence to saying "I understood your response" on the tail end of your tantrum about why you should be able to use words incorrectly.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2016, 06:03 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you don't want to address my answer more than just acknowledging that you understood it? Please don't act like a victim because you devoted a whole sentence to saying "I understood your response" on the tail end of your tantrum about why you should be able to use words incorrectly.

Go back to post #147 and read the words that follow I understood your response.....

Keep digging this hole.

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2016, 06:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Go back to post #147 and read the words that follow I understood your response.....

Keep digging this hole.

The post you you quoted in #147 addressed that. Do you have anything you want to add?