[]

1. If a man exclusively rapes male children, that makes him a homosexual, by definition. (Though not the child.)

2. Of course, same holds true for a man who exclusively rapes little girls, he would be a heterosexual by definition. But that does not mean all heterosexuals rape children, likewise, there's zero implication that all homosexuals are open to sex with minors. However, I'd be hesitant to exclude without some sort of unbiased statistic. It could be heterosexuals have the bigger problem, I won't exclude that possibility either without an unbiased statistical study.

2. It can be argued that children are sexless (I agree, while conceding many may be effeminate or masculine, no child is born sexual. Being an effeminate male preferring the company of men does not a homosexual make, just as liking to watch football does not a football player make.) But that proves that "born that way" is extremely problematic if children have no sex at all. It's logically strange to say that someone has no sex at all for years and years, and then over a decade later, argue, without any possibility to the contrary, that they were 'born that way.'
I had to be told about sex, I wasn't born with that knowledge, and if I go to prison or go without release for six months, my standards are pretty flexible. Prized bulls have their seed extracted using vibrators. When the bull sees the vibrator, the bull goes dangerously wild. Nobody is so absurd as to suggest the bull was "born that way".

3. I think that it's very damaging to everyone to suggest that we are all "born that way" one way or the other. We are "condemned to be free" in my opinion, though I quickly concede the bull and the human beings can become locked into one mode or the other, having once either chosen or having had it chosen for them by another by force or coercion.


"the assumption that pedo = homo has probably led to more discrimination and prison rapes that short selling heroin. A child is not really a man or a woman, just a child."

I would agree that sometimes, for social gain, we should employ 1984 style reworking of the language. But I always bias towards knowledge over sophistry, "newspeak" where we change the obvious definition of a word to something else.

If someone presented a serious, unbiased study proving that
a) homosexuals almost never have sex with underage persons and
b) homosexuals have dramatically more attacks in prison with a large total

then I would consider re-defining the term "homosexual" to mean something other than the plain meaning of the word.

However, since it is taboo to have any studies of homosexuals (since it is no longer considered a disease) we must remain largely ignorant due to the barrier against discovery of what trends there actually are in the homosexual group.
And since children may be targeted by homosexuals, then those victims deserve to at least find out one way or the other, therefore, I reject the asserted redefinition of the term "homosexual" excluding sexual contact with same sex underaged persons, just as I would exclude redefining "heterosexual" to exclude pedophiles for the same reason.

I think that whenever we hear that someone "lives on a dollar a day" what they're leaving out is that they get their food in some other way than paying for it with cash.

Bob works in the field for 16 hours. He gets all his meals while working. Free clothing, medical care (if he breaks his leg, the local shaman will bind it with twine or something) and if his wife has a baby, the midwife will help deliver baby number 11 ... in exchange for a bushel of wheat or who knows.

My point is that when there is no money, there are other types of economies. I admit I wouldn't want to be there.

Imagine a tribe in the jungle. No money at all. So they don't eat? No, they get their food by working for it, somehow, in exchange for something, perhaps services rendered, etc.

PS: What do you say to a woman who has two black eyes?

Answer:
You don't need to say anything, she's been told twice already.


(just kidding, take it easy, there's a man in Brazil who gets hit by his wife, so, therefore, it's just as big a problem for men as for women, after all, there's that one guy...)

A "rapist" is not "completely different" than a "heterosexual."

I would assume, except for males who rape boys, that most rapists are heterosexual.

Pedophiles, thus, being a subset of homosexuals when they exclusively rape boys.

Similarly, a male who rapes a young girl is a heterosexual who rapes little girls.

They are not exclusive definitions at all.

Except that a man raping a boy excludes "heterosexual" and a man raping a girl excludes "homosexual".

The problem as I see it:
1. Campaign contributions = bribes.
Imagine if I 'contributed' to jury members or the judge
It's not 'free speech' by a jury / judge, so it's not free speech as protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court got it wrong.

2. We think we have a very free society. We don't for most things. People coming from other countries don't think so, we're mired in millions of regulations. Every time you come to a red light at 2am and there's no cars coming for miles, and you wait, you're being disciplined, marching at the orders of your masters.

3. Borrowing by the Fed. By having an infinite supply of money, the Fed has taken power and left the tax payers / property holders the bill.

4. Illegal immigration. Yea, I'd do it, too, if I were stuck in some Marxist Spanish country. But we shouldn't let it happen because it devalues our people. It's destroyed the Black community by taking their niche jobs of maidservice and janitorial work, and it's taken away many of our jobs for our entry-level teenage workers (especially the Black teen who will now go for years, after high school, and not have employment at that most crucial time, and each and every one of us is devalued because the 500,000,000 people flooding the workforce.

Not only is it my opinion, I'm right.

Years ago there was a fellow here who would frequently write,
I AM THE CHEESE!!!!

We're talking 15 years ago.

They don't have laissez-faire (no restrictions) style capitalism in China, perhaps it was just threshold of low-restricted capitalism that does the trick?

Further, wasn't there the problem of the Company Town, where the workers were being exploited (not getting much of the wealth they generated) until the labor unions came along?

I do agree that you can't pay more than the market will hold, example, teachers demand more money on the basis of being important, but they don't realize that no matter how 'important' their teachings are, it's a more desirable task than, say, roofing or plumbing, which pays more (usually).

I think we have socialism via the progressive tax.

Tax = theft, but it's a theft the masses have demanded in exchange for their votes.

If you think I don't have a clear point, you're right.

How so?

I played years ago before Utopia came out.
Eventually I preferred the Utopia forums over Earth, but never really played Utopia.

I used to h ave long debates on religion rebutting Christian missionaries.

It's nice to see the same yellow color of the old boards, though obviously some tech upgrades.

Large part of my life playing Earth 2025.

I was able to ask any question on those old forums and get very high quality answers, anything from statistics for restocking my warehouse (true! I got an excellent reply based on usage history on what I should order for supplies / trends). My wife would also ask me to relay questions and the answers always included high quality.

For a long time there was this one guy who always just wrote something like , The Cheese! The Cheese! over and over again. It took ten years for me to finally laugh at that.