First off, I reply to this thread because I can, and I don't make posts that are specifically designed only to insult, offend, or degrade one person, with no other purpose. I can't speak for everybody when I say that though. If Destai wanted to say something to me, he or she should have done it through a PM, but instead did it publicly. You were not involved in the conversation between Destai and myself, nor is there any reason for you to be, because I'm not saying anything specifically to him or her that isn't in plain sight for you to see. Further, this thread wasn't started by you, and when I first replied, you hadn't even made your way in here yet. I was directing those comments to somebody who for some reason comes off to me as a high school freshman, and has made no posts contributing to this thread at all, only expressing his or her confusion or contempt, and not explaining such. I have no problem with somebody having a reasonable disagreement, but when one's objective is simply to degrade another person, and nothing else, that I have a problem with. If it was used as a means to an end, I would understand, otherwise, it's childish, and there's no place for it.
When did I "attack" anybody? I've said that homosexuality, paedophilia, and beastiality are not normal or natural, are you taking that to be an "attack"?
Scott Peterson was found guilty because he was guilty. There was MUCH more than just circumstantial evidence to convict him, and the media only presented him as the main suspect and the evidence--the police were accusing him of the crime, not his victims, unlike Jackson. Only a fraction of the Jackson trial is being released anyway, and jurors aren't allowed to be involved in anything outside the courtroom that might influence their decision. During selection, lawyers try to find jurors who are unexposed to the case already, so everything they hear in the trial is something new, and their mind isn't made up before they go in there. Scott Peterson wasn't targeted for any other murders because there wasn't overwhelming evidence to link him in any other murders, as there was in the murder of his wife and child.
If you're the type of person to say "oh, whatever somebody wants to do, it's their decision", then you go ahead and keep thinking that, but it's that same type of thinking that has and will further cause the downfall of our society, and we'll end up just like Soddom and Ghomorrah.
My point with the dog was to say that if you think it's natural and normal for people to want sex with anything simply because animals do it too, then it would mean that it's "normal" for people to hump the side of the couch, or their cat.
What does Michael Jackson have to do with a thread about paedophilia? Do I really need to explain this to you, or were you simply momentarily confused?
If you disagree with me, concerning this topic or any other, then say so--hell, I invite it. If you find me "pretty outrageous at times", then go ahead and say something, that's what this entire section of the forum is for.
EDIT:
Yes, even if you just shot my dog, I'm sure we would be able to cooperate to beat the hell out of a child molester. After that, though, you better watch out, I love my dog. But not in that way, you know.Originally Posted by udsuna
I guess Christian, gun-owning, pickup-driving, military man would go about far enough in describing my spot on the political spectrum, and quite often, I do agree with udsuna. There are things we disagree on--even with homosexuality, as I've said before, I disagree with it, but I don't resent decent homosexuals (or bisexuals) because of my stance on the morality homosexuality. Paedophiles, however, are another matter entirely.
