'orrible little kids are born like it apparantly

[Turkish]

Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children

 

Paedophiles don't necessarily act upon their urges. Again, this is similar (but not quite) to your quick condemnation (rather crudely) of homosexuality. Would someone (again) choose to be homosexual? Do they like the lifestyle? Or is it, perhaps, as with when you see a woman (and they see some men/women depending upon their gender), and they feel 'sexual' attraction? No one would really choose either of these things, imo, they may possibly be conditioned in some way (but again, such tendencies have been ever present throughout history, just more closeted in some times/cultures than others), they just happen. To quickly dismiss it as 'wrong' and blame the persons concerned, is pretty disgusting and ignorant tbh. Though I'd expect nothing less from you.

 

Right, so you're saying being a paedophile isn't wrong? And you think i am disgusting......

 

BTW my comments about gays were tounge in cheek, although i stand by my comments about paedophiles and rapists.

[Ludwig]

Right, so you're saying being a paedophile isn't wrong? And you think i am disgusting......

 

BTW my comments about gays were tounge in cheek, although i stand by my comments about paedophiles and rapists.

 

The 'wrong' comment was wrt homosexuality, whether clear or not, cba to read it again. Whether any deviant sexual preference is 'right' or 'wrong' is not really for me to comment on, so long as others rights aren't infringed upon. To what extent is the sanctity of a child destroyed, by a paedophile 'idolising' them (cf the first part or so of Nabokov's 'Lolita') compared to that of any woman you ever think of (without their knowledge) in a sexual manner? Which is more 'rapey'? Aren't they both as 'wrong' as one another, why should one be considered worse, when the person concerned with one has as little control over their 'preferences' (again, remember they're not acting upon them) as any normal hot-blooded male fantasising over a woman? It's not particularly clear/simple ground.

[Turkish]

The 'wrong' comment was wrt homosexuality, whether clear or not, cba to read it again. Whether any deviant sexual preference is 'right' or 'wrong' is not really for me to comment on, so long as others rights aren't infringed upon. To what extent is the sanctity of a child destroyed, by a paedophile 'idolising' them (cf the first part or so of Nabokov's 'Lolita') compared to that of any woman you ever think of (without their knowledge) in a sexual manner? Which is more 'rapey'? Aren't they both as 'wrong' as one another, why should one be considered worse, when the person concerned with one has as little control over their 'preferences' (again, remember they're not acting upon them) as any normal hot-blooded male fantasising over a woman? It's not particularly clear/simple ground.

 

If you cant see the difference between an adult male looking and enjoy pictures of an adult female and being sexually attracted to that and an adult male looking at pictures of a young child and becoming sexually attracked to it then you are serious disturbed. Even more so by the fact that you feel you cant comment on if paeodophilla is wrong or not.

[Ludwig]

If you cant see the difference between an adult male looking and enjoy pictures of an adult female and being sexually attracted to that and an adult male looking at pictures of a young child and becoming sexually attracked to it then you are serious disturbed. Even more so by the fact that you feel you cant comment on if paeodophilla is wrong or not.

 

What is the difference? An unsuspecting adult female is being 'violated' just as much as an unsuspecting young child. It's somewhat different if you're looking at pornography (adult), where the persons concerned have consented to use in this fashion, but if you're ****ing over pictures of some random person on Facebook, it's just as bad as ****ing over pictures of children. There really isn't any difference between the two, despite what the (essentially absurd) conditioned notions inside you forces you to believe.

[Turkish]

What is the difference? An unsuspecting adult female is being 'violated' just as much as an unsuspecting young child. It's somewhat different if you're looking at pornography (adult), where the persons concerned have consented to use in this fashion, but if you're ****ing over pictures of some random person on Facebook, it's just as bad as ****ing over pictures of children. There really isn't any difference between the two, despite what the (essentially absurd) conditioned notions inside you forces you to believe.

 

Well, as it happens i wouldn't do either. One is absolutely sick and the other is just plain sad, i dont think i need to clarify which one is which. However i am truely amazed, that anyone can fail to see the difference between being sexually aroused by a picture of an attractive adult woman and a picture of a child. So what is your view on these people found with child pornography on their computers? Should they be jailed? What about people with adult pornography on their computers? Shoud they be treated the same?

Edited 1 October, 2010 by Turkish

[Ludwig]

Well, as it happens i wouldn't do either. One is absolutely sick and the other is just plain sad, i dont think i need to clarify which one is which. However i am truely amazed, that anyone can fail to see the difference between being sexually aroused by a picture of an attractive adult woman and a picture of a child. So what is your view on these people found child child pornography on their computers? Should they be jailed? What about people with adult pornography on their computers? Shoud they be treated the same?

 

Did you not read where I clarified the pornography issue? Children can't consent in the same way adults can, 'normal' pornography is thus fine, whereas child pornography is akin to videos of rape (so 'wrong' [in my eyes]). The point is that the distinction between adults being 'sad' and others being into children isn't well-defined (if such a distinction can be defined) at all. I'm not saying it's either 'right' or 'wrong' (I'd personally say it is 'wrong' [however this is a subjective preference {are these words too big for you? I can explain them if you like}]) as my view is entirely subjective.

[Turkish]

Did you not read where I clarified the pornography issue? Children can't consent in the same way adults can, 'normal' pornography is thus fine, whereas child pornography is akin to videos of rape (so 'wrong' [in my eyes]). The point is that the distinction between adults being 'sad' and others being into children isn't well-defined (if such a distinction can be defined) at all. I'm not saying it's either 'right' or 'wrong' (I'd personally say it is 'wrong' [however this is a subjective preference {are these words too big for you? I can explain them if you like}]) as my view is entirely subjective.

 

Do you know what, after that patronising little comment, i am going to end this discusion here and now as i've no interest in petty insults in a discussion like this.

 

Have you never looked at a picture of a woman/man depending on your preference and thought "yeah she's hot" "yeah i would"? If you cant see the difference between this and an adult looking a child and thinking this, then i despair.

Edited 1 October, 2010 by Turkish

[View From The Top]

Whether any deviant sexual preference is 'right' or 'wrong' is not really for me to comment on, so long as others rights aren't infringed upon.

 

So you can't bring yourself to say that paedophilia is wrong?

 

With that attitude I would hope that you have no access to children. Ever.

[Deppo]

I can only conclude that Turkish is sick of being labelled "thick", "vile bum bandit" and "paedo" and needs to try and prove something to strangers on the internet who don't know the reality and have no way of proving either way.

[scotty]

Noun 1. paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children

 

Paedophiles don't necessarily act upon their urges. Again, this is similar (but not quite) to your quick condemnation (rather crudely) of homosexuality. Would someone (again) choose to be homosexual? Do they like the lifestyle? Or is it, perhaps, as with when you see a woman (and they see some men/women depending upon their gender), and they feel 'sexual' attraction? No one would really choose either of these things, imo, they may possibly be conditioned in some way (but again, such tendencies have been ever present throughout history, just more closeted in some times/cultures than others), they just happen. To quickly dismiss it as 'wrong' and blame the persons concerned, is pretty disgusting and ignorant tbh. Though I'd expect nothing less from you.

 

actually, the kebab muncher has raised an interesting debate here, probably unwittingly. He's right that forcing yourself on somebody else is just plain wrong whether they are adults who dont want to engage sexually with you or children who arent in a position to say no. The gay issue is different, as far as I'm concerned I dont care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, but ask yourself this before condemning anyone for their preferences: if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality considered to be abnormal, would you be capable of setting aside your preference for the opposite sex and going with the homosexual flow (so to speak)?

[Turkish]

actually, the kebab muncher has raised an interesting debate here, probably unwittingly. He's right that forcing yourself on somebody else is just plain wrong whether they are adults who dont want to engage sexually with you or children who arent in a position to say no. The gay issue is different, as far as I'm concerned I dont care what consenting adults do behind closed doors, but ask yourself this before condemning anyone for their preferences: if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality considered to be abnormal, would you be capable of setting aside your preference for the opposite sex and going with the homosexual flow (so to speak)?

 

but that is impossible to entertain, without hetrosexuality there would be no reproduction, so humans would die out. It's a totally alien concept as for the majority the natural human urge is to reproduce. Despite my previous tounge in cheek comments re gays, i dont have a problem with what they do behind closed doors, but i cant possibly imagine what it would be like if this was the norm.

[Ludwig]

So you can't bring yourself to say that paedophilia is wrong?

 

With that attitude I would hope that you have no access to children. Ever.

 

No, I can bring myself to say that it's wrong. But I can't say that it's objectively so.

[Verbal]

right, so everyone that is strongly opposed and condeming of rapist and peodphiles is a closet rapist or peodphile? Madness.

 

Absolutely correct, yes. That would be the logical conclusion.

[Saintandy666]

This report is bull****. It shows a possible genetic link in 16% of the cases of ADHD it looked at. It shows that many genetics could be one factor, but not the only factor. At present, these 'findings' are not substantiated enough to actually prove anything. It is mere coincidence as far as I am concerned until further information is discovered.

 

I hate all newspapers and how they misrepresent scientific papers. Often, if you go and read the paper for yourself after the media storm, you'll find what the paper says and concludes isn't really what the headline is.

[Turkish]

This report is bull****. It shows a possible genetic link in 16% of the cases of ADHD it looked at. It shows that many genetics could be one factor, but not the only factor. At present, these 'findings' are not substantiated enough to actually prove anything. It is mere coincidence as far as I am concerned until further information is discovered.

 

I hate all newspapers and how they misrepresent scientific papers. Often, if you go and read the paper for yourself after the media storm, you'll find what the paper says and concludes isn't really what the headline is.

 

For gods sake dont let Ludwig or Chrisobee read this, they'll accuse you of being illinformed and bigoted. You should be banned for life for having those views.

Edited 2 October, 2010 by Turkish

[Turkish]

Absolutely correct, yes. That would be the logical conclusion.

 

Absolutely, makes perfect sense. So in fact everyone that fought the Nazis in the war was actually a wannabe Nazi? Sucide bombing muslims actually really want to be white, English or American Christians and love them? Even bringing it down to our level of this forum, everyone that codemened the saints boys banged up for the trouble against Pompey, calling them scum, ban them from for life etc was actually jealous and wants to be football hooligan themselves. Makes total sense.

[Verbal]

Absolutely, makes perfect sense. So in fact everyone that fought the Nazis in the war was actually a wannabe Nazi? Sucide bombing muslims actually really want to be white, English or American Christians and love them? Even bringing it down to our level of this forum, everyone that codemened the saints boys banged up for the trouble against Pompey, calling them scum, ban them from for life etc was actually jealous and wants to be football hooligan themselves. Makes total sense.

 

No, it just applies in special cases, as outlined above.

 

If you were a reading man, I might recommend The Imp of the Perverse, by Edgar Allan Poe.

Edited 2 October, 2010 by Verbal

[Turkish]

No, it just applies in special cases, as outlined above.

 

If you were a reading man, I might recommend The Imp of the Perverse, by Edgar Allan Poe.

 

only when it suits then yeah.

[Verbal]

only when it suits then yeah.

 

Yes, when there's someone in mind.

[scotty]

but that is impossible to entertain, without hetrosexuality there would be no reproduction, so humans would die out. It's a totally alien concept as for the majority the natural human urge is to reproduce. Despite my previous tounge in cheek comments re gays, i dont have a problem with what they do behind closed doors, but i cant possibly imagine what it would be like if this was the norm.

 

not necessarily, (plenty of lezzers get some male friend to w*nk into a syringe for them,) but that wasnt really the point I was making. Would you honestly be able to alter your desire for the female form if society required it? I'm dam sure I couldnt, so dont think I should judge someone else on their inability to do so.

[Turkish]

not necessarily, (plenty of lezzers get some male friend to w*nk into a syringe for them,) but that wasnt really the point I was making. Would you honestly be able to alter your desire for the female form if society required it? I'm dam sure I couldnt, so dont think I should judge someone else on their inability to do so.

 

no i couldn't, but then again is that down to social conditioning? If from the day you are born, your parents are gay, you are surrounded by gays and hardly any hetrosexuals and it is pumped into you by the media, parents, friends, schools etc that being attracted to the same sex is normal and the opposite sex is taboo, then you are massively likely to become gay. We will never know because this will never happen.

Going back the point about paeodphiles, i really dont know if they are born like it or not, IMO i dont think they are, i think it is down to factors that during their younger lives as you dont become sexually aware until you are, what 12, 13? But even small children know that peaodophilla is wrong, illegal and vile wereas being gay is not. Maybe you cant help having these desires, i really dont know, but what i do know is that people that act on those sort of desires know they are wrong and are vile, and as i said earlier, exactly the same as raping a woman then claiming you couldn't help it, you are born attracted to women and wanting to sh*g them Everyone apart from those with serious mental or physical disabilites are in control of their own actions and know right from wrong.

[Joensuu]

but that is impossible to entertain, without hetrosexuality there would be no reproduction, so humans would die out. It's a totally alien concept as for the majority the natural human urge is to reproduce. Despite my previous tounge in cheek comments re gays, i dont have a problem with what they do behind closed doors, but i cant possibly imagine what it would be like if this was the norm.

 

Both homosexuality and Pederasty were all the rage in ancient Greece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

 

It may seem like a totally alien concept to us, but here is an example of a society which publically accepted both. Reproduction was still maintained, as most men were married and fathered children as well.

 

It may seem weird to us, but if it was the social norm that you were born into and brought up with, would it still seem weird? Not engaging would have made you the isolated person doing something different. My guess is that almost everyone would have participated, had bisexuality been the done thing.

[Turkish]

no i couldn't, but then again is that down to social conditioning? If from the day you are born, your parents are gay, you are surrounded by gays and hardly any hetrosexuals and it is pumped into you by the media, parents, friends, schools etc that being attracted to the same sex is normal and the opposite sex is taboo, then you are massively likely to become gay. We will never know because this will never happen.

Going back the point about paeodphiles, i really dont know if they are born like it or not, IMO i dont think they are, i think it is down to factors that during their younger lives as you dont become sexually aware until you are, what 12, 13? But even small children know that peaodophilla is wrong, illegal and vile wereas being gay is not. Maybe you cant help having these desires, i really dont know, but what i do know is that people that act on those sort of desires know they are wrong and are vile, and as i said earlier, exactly the same as raping a woman then claiming you couldn't help it, you are born attracted to women and wanting to sh*g them Everyone apart from those with serious mental or physical disabilites are in control of their own actions and know right from wrong.

 

Both homosexuality and Pederasty were all the rage in ancient Greece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

 

It may seem like a totally alien concept to us, but here is an example of a society which publically accepted both. Reproduction was still maintained, as most men were married and fathered children as well.

 

It may seem weird to us, but if it was the social norm that you were born into and brought up with, would it still seem weird?

 

does that answer your question?

[Joensuu]

does that answer your question?

 

So your answer is 'no ... but then again', which I feel is pretty much a 'maybe'. Which I guess puts us in a similar position, i.e. we don't know, but assume that social factors (nurture) can influence what is seen as normal. In terms of sexuality, I think everyone can be seen as being a percentage gay/straight. Some people are clearly one way or another, some experiment with both. Often those most comfortable with their sexuality are the ones most likely to be relaxed when the subject is raised; whereas those who are uncomfortable often act more defensively.

 

As for paedophilia, I think we are using a single word to encapsulate a whole range of different thoughts and activities. How can a 17 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend be considered in the same way as an adult and a toddler? For me there needs to be subdivisions made.

 

Obviously, anything without consent is massively wrong. But at what age can consent be given? The laws of different countries suggest consent varies widely. If you take 14 year olds, many of them are emotionally immature, and IMO couldn't possibly offer consent. However, some at the same age are fully aware of all the variables, and can make a considered, informed decision. Likewise, there are 19 year old who are simply not emotionally mature enough to sensibly offer consent.

 

Then you need to consider power relations. If a relationship has a power imbalance (at any age), even if the weaker party says that they are offering consent, are they actually capable of making that decision impartially?

 

Then there needs to be consideration of physical development. Puberty provides us with a logical, natural point of change.

 

Then there are passive paedophiles, ones who fantasise, but who control their urges. Shouldn't society support these people, try to help them resist temptation, rather than paint them with the same brush.

 

I think the current law is a hash. Simplifying the situation by throwing down an age for consent in a single swipe fails to protect older teenagers who aren't yet emotionally mature enough to make the decision, while cutting the civil liberties of those who are younger and are emotionally more mature. Also, some serious change in the law should occur at the point of puberty (currently there is no legal change), with penalties for adults engaging in pre-pubescent activity being significantly harsher than post-puberty. I think tarring both activities with the same brush is appalling. Perhaps legally, one should continue to be 'Paedophilia', the other 'Pederasty' (which in Ancient Greece mostly involved teenagers, not younger children).

 

However, when it comes to the more difficult post-puberty legality, I think it is hard for any government to get right. Each case is different, and IMO judges and juries should have some flexibility. However, as per the current rape legislation, this can't be allowed to bias against the victims.

 

Last point, IMO, part of the problem with society today is the media-fuelled anxiety against paedophiles. If you read the Express or Daily Heil, you'd get the impression that there is a paedophile in every hedge, and lurking around every corner. We have always had paedophilia, it's not a new phenomena. It has probably increased in line with the increasing population; meaning children are at approximately the same risk they always have been. The only difference is the widespread fear the media have worked the public into. The result is that adults find it awkward to approach children in public; meaning if a child is littering, bullying, swearing, etc, adults now feel less inclined to intervene, and tell them off, for fear of being branded a paedophile. Likewise, if you see a kid playing in public, 40 years ago you might have been able to speak to them, perhaps even teach them something, but not today. We have to stop this irrational fear of paedophiles; it is weakening so much that was once good in our society.

[scotty]

no i couldn't, but then again is that down to social conditioning? If from the day you are born, your parents are gay, you are surrounded by gays and hardly any hetrosexuals and it is pumped into you by the media, parents, friends, schools etc that being attracted to the same sex is normal and the opposite sex is taboo, then you are massively likely to become gay. We will never know because this will never happen.

Going back the point about paeodphiles, i really dont know if they are born like it or not, IMO i dont think they are, i think it is down to factors that during their younger lives as you dont become sexually aware until you are, what 12, 13? But even small children know that peaodophilla is wrong, illegal and vile wereas being gay is not. Maybe you cant help having these desires, i really dont know, but what i do know is that people that act on those sort of desires know they are wrong and are vile, and as i said earlier, exactly the same as raping a woman then claiming you couldn't help it, you are born attracted to women and wanting to sh*g them Everyone apart from those with serious mental or physical disabilites are in control of their own actions and know right from wrong.

 

I'm sure its got plenty to do with social conditioning, there is a higher than average percentage of gay blokes from the public school sector where they are segregated from women in their sexually formative years. (Its also interesting to note how many ex public schoolboys seem to like a bit of flagellation.) And quite a few straight-as-a-die men suddenly find that when the only option they have is other men, such as in a prison situation, well perhaps they could tolerate it after all........

 

Agree entirely about the paedophile point which is an entirely different issue. In that case, of course its wrong and should be prevented from happening.

[Turkish]

 

So your answer is 'no ... but then again', which I feel is pretty much a 'maybe'. Which I guess puts us in a similar position, i.e. we don't know, but assume that social factors (nurture) can influence what is seen as normal. In terms of sexuality, I think everyone can be seen as being a percentage gay/straight. Some people are clearly one way or another, some experiment with both. Often those most comfortable with their sexuality are the ones most likely to be relaxed when the subject is raised; whereas those who are uncomfortable often act more defensively.

 

As for paedophilia, I think we are using a single word to encapsulate a whole range of different thoughts and activities. How can a 17 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend be considered in the same way as an adult and a toddler? For me there needs to be subdivisions made.

 

Obviously, anything without consent is massively wrong. But at what age can consent be given? The laws of different countries suggest consent varies widely. If you take 14 year olds, many of them are emotionally immature, and IMO couldn't possibly offer consent. However, some at the same age are fully aware of all the variables, and can make a considered, informed decision. Likewise, there are 19 year old who are simply not emotionally mature enough to sensibly offer consent.

 

Then you need to consider power relations. If a relationship has a power imbalance (at any age), even if the weaker party says that they are offering consent, are they actually capable of making that decision impartially?

 

Then there needs to be consideration of physical development. Puberty provides us with a logical, natural point of change.

 

Then there are passive paedophiles, ones who fantasise, but who control their urges. Shouldn't society support these people, try to help them resist temptation, rather than paint them with the same brush.

 

I think the current law is a hash. Simplifying the situation by throwing down an age for consent in a single swipe fails to protect older teenagers who aren't yet emotionally mature enough to make the decision, while cutting the civil liberties of those who are younger and are emotionally more mature. Also, some serious change in the law should occur at the point of puberty (currently there is no legal change), with penalties for adults engaging in pre-pubescent activity being significantly harsher than post-puberty. I think tarring both activities with the same brush is appalling. Perhaps legally, one should continue to be 'Paedophilia', the other 'Pederasty' (which in Ancient Greece mostly involved teenagers, not younger children).

 

However, when it comes to the more difficult post-puberty legality, I think it is hard for any government to get right. Each case is different, and IMO judges and juries should have some flexibility. However, as per the current rape legislation, this can't be allowed to bias against the victims.

 

Last point, IMO, part of the problem with society today is the media-fuelled anxiety against paedophiles. If you read the Express or Daily Heil, you'd get the impression that there is a paedophile in every hedge, and lurking around every corner. We have always had paedophilia, it's not a new phenomena. It has probably increased in line with the increasing population; meaning children are at approximately the same risk they always have been. The only difference is the widespread fear the media have worked the public into. The result is that adults find it awkward to approach children in public; meaning if a child is littering, bullying, swearing, etc, adults now feel less inclined to intervene, and tell them off, for fear of being branded a paedophile. Likewise, if you see a kid playing in public, 40 years ago you might have been able to speak to them, perhaps even teach them something, but not today. We have to stop this irrational fear of paedophiles; it is weakening so much that was once good in our society.

 

i have to say, i agree with pretty much everything you say, f*ck it, lets be mates, fancy meeting for a pint before the Tranmere game?

[Smirking_Saint]

i have to say, i agree with pretty much everything you say, f*ck it, lets be mates, fancy meeting for a pint before the Tranmere game?

 

Best mate whore !!!

[Turkish]

Best mate whore !!!

 

dont be jealous, you are my realy bessie mate xxx

[1976_Child]

Typical ill informed rubbish on here. ADHD is an awful condition and as much an illness as any other you care to name. However, there is a stigma attached to it which is not justified. Contrary to belief many children with ADHD don't actually create undue problems. ADHD affects around one in 50 children in the UK, making them fidgety, restless, impulsive and easily distracted, sometimes it may cause them problems at home and school. However, many of the problems are caused by a lack of understanding about the illness, good parenting as well as teaching will minimise the problems for others but the sufferer is often neglected as a result. There is no cure, although medication and behavioural therapy can help reduce symptoms.

 

Boll0x. ADHD is just a noncy Guardian term for 'ill-behaved'. Call a spade a spade. Kids with 'ADHD' are just badly raised little devils. Funny how 'ADHD' cases started to go through the roof just after the cane was banned.

[Robsk II]

How is that a guardian term? More utter ignorance from you. I read that paper if any, and it's far more realistic about things like that than other papers.

[chrisobee]

How is that a guardian term? More utter ignorance from you. I read that paper if any, and it's far more realistic about things like that than other papers.

 

Well said, I have nothing to add.

[1976_Child]

How is that a guardian term? More utter ignorance from you. I read that paper if any, and it's far more realistic about things like that than other papers.

 

the guardian is read by pseudo-socialists who live in nice comfy houses and want to be seen to rub along with the working classes but are, in fact, poncy middle class. It gives them a real buzz to read a 'left wing' paper whilst sipping expensive freshly-ground coffee at the breakfast table before carting their precious kids off to the good 'state' school they bent every rule in the book to get them into so they don't need to mix with the poor, but can still tell themselves that they are in favour of state education.

[Robsk II]

In that case, the so called 'working classes' you refer to are usually comfortable anyway, or if they're not it's because they are lazy pr*cks who never bothered to learn anything and better themselves. The state lets plenty of people down, but never so many as moronic parents who should enver have children beccause they never invest in them any sort of values, wok ethic or sense of fairness to their fellow man. They tell themselves they are the 'real' Britain, purely because they are fooled into backwards, tribalistic ways of thinking, and it's nice and easy because no idea ever challenges you in such a self-pitying yet self-satisfied bubble. You never have to be sensible, rational, or show any compassion to anyone until it suits you to do so, ie Diana, maddie McCann, kenneth bigley. They then read the Mail and go along with it's largely nonsensical hate filled rubbish because it gives them a sense of entitlement and various groups to blame for the predicament other than themselves.. so they get behind ludicrous hate campaigns for things like 'PC gone mad' and so on, without ever knowing a damn thing about it in 99% of cases.

 

Sweeping generalisation, but at least I am aware of mine, unlike you with yours. I've worked for the last 7 years in jobs that could be better paid because I value what they do. I've probably done more for our society than you ever will, and have more understanding about things like ADHD because I have had professional reasons to do so. I am in agreement that it's massively over-used as a term, but I've also seen a relatively few peple who clearly have something like what it describes. Instead of moaning about the guardian, and lefties, and pinkos, and commies, how about you use your brain? I know it's hard, but you clearly think you're intelligent. How about constructing some thoughts based on facts for once?

[1976_Child]

In that case, the so called 'working classes' you refer to are usually comfortable anyway, or if they're not it's because they are lazy pr*cks who never bothered to learn anything and better themselves. The state lets plenty of people down, but never so many as moronic parents who should enver have children beccause they never invest in them any sort of values, wok ethic or sense of fairness to their fellow man. They tell themselves they are the 'real' Britain, purely because they are fooled into backwards, tribalistic ways of thinking, and it's nice and easy because no idea ever challenges you in such a self-pitying yet self-satisfied bubble. You never have to be sensible, rational, or show any compassion to anyone until it suits you to do so, ie Diana, maddie McCann, kenneth bigley. They then read the Mail and go along with it's largely nonsensical hate filled rubbish because it gives them a sense of entitlement and various groups to blame for the predicament other than themselves.. so they get behind ludicrous hate campaigns for things like 'PC gone mad' and so on, without ever knowing a damn thing about it in 99% of cases.

 

Sweeping generalisation, but at least I am aware of mine, unlike you with yours. I've worked for the last 7 years in jobs that could be better paid because I value what they do. I've probably done more for our society than you ever will, and have more understanding about things like ADHD because I have had professional reasons to do so. I am in agreement that it's massively over-used as a term, but I've also seen a relatively few peple who clearly have something like what it describes. Instead of moaning about the guardian, and lefties, and pinkos, and commies, how about you use your brain? I know it's hard, but you clearly think you're intelligent. How about constructing some thoughts based on facts for once?

 

who said I was moaning at lefties, pinkos or commies? Go back and read what I said. Also go and read the thread I started about Ed Miliband. Maybe I am more left wing than you give me credit for. Maybe I am no 'wing'.

 

"I've probably done more for our society than you ever will" : you have absolutely no way of knowing this, let alone write it.

 

Back to ADHD: there are some - a very small some - of kids who are bordering on Aspergers and need special attention. There used to be special schools for these genuine special needs kids. But guess what? In the name of 'inclusion' New Liebour closed them and made these kids attend regular school. How daft was that? But for the majority of so-called ADHD kids they are nothing more than unruly, undisciplined brats - usually from households where there is no parental discipline and probably no male role-model. It is convenient for the school to label them as ADHD so that they can side-step the gritty task of educating them, and so when it comes to the Ofsted inspection they are able to ring-fence the naughty brats. I read one report that said that in one school in London 20% of kids had 'ADHD'. Now, you tell me if that is even statistically possible, let alone plausible.

[Robsk II]

Look, much though I enjoy 'batner' with you, I was jsut obejecting to your weird view of the guardian, which I'm honestly sure would side with you - and, as you may not have understood, me - in saying that ADHD is very, very often given as a 'condition' when a kid is just naughty for other reasons. I understand this and have seen it far more than you realise. So we're not even arguing about it, you weirdo.

[Essruu]

I am at a loss to understand why so many of you think homosexuals are 'normal'.

 

Nobody really answered my question as to whether you think gays are a result of nature or nurture. I believe that proper gays are born like it. Mr X has said he didn't choose to be 'this way', which suggests that he thinks he was indeed born with the affliction. Others have touched on it being a genetic defect / brain chemical imbalance that causes it. I'm not going to go in depth into the similarities of the non-standard sexual urges and preferences between gays, pedophiles and those that practice bestiality; But they all clearly share similar genetical / mental defects.

 

My point about one day finding the root cause and being able to diagnose it during pregnancy and (in the unlikely event of our liberal society allowing it) having the option to terminate the birth is a serious one. The same goes for those with a propensity for mental illness, sense defects, mental cases, gender benders and a whole host of other disabilities. This country alone, spends £billions every year on treatment, care, housing, transport, benefits etc on disabled people. Be honest with yourselves: nobody wants to have a Downs Syndrome kid, one with disabilities, a retarded one or a gay one. Why should we waste that much money if an option becomes available (like with Downers) to terminate and try again for a healthy one who will benefit society and not be a drain on it.

 

Granted, Mr X and other gays wouldn't be here today if this option was available; But neither would all of the disabled people, pedophiles and other suchlike.

 

I'm talking here about those BORN gay through defective genes. The ones who 'turn' gay are as a result of an overly tolerant society who, if anything, confuse the confused into thinking it's normal and acceptable to dabble in homosexuality as a life choice. Take away those that are born like it by accepting that it's a defect and dealing with it, stop encouraging gay couple to adopt and confuse normal kids, stop everyone saying 'each to their own' and you start to deal with the problem and stop normal kids from 'turning' by nurture.

[Baj]

Essruu. The biggest confusion you make is deeming what is "acceptable" based on society as it exists at the moment. What's easier, to plough research into identifying homosexuality at a foetal stage, or understanding that it is only considered "unacceptable" by a decreasing amount of the population (of you which you are one), who seem incapable of accepting anything outside of the society they know, and equally that society changes over time.

 

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, get over it.

[holepuncture]

I am at a loss to understand why so many of you think homosexuals are 'normal'.

 

Nobody really answered my question as to whether you think gays are a result of nature or nurture. I believe that proper gays are born like it. Mr X has said he didn't choose to be 'this way', which suggests that he thinks he was indeed born with the affliction. Others have touched on it being a genetic defect / brain chemical imbalance that causes it. I'm not going to go in depth into the similarities of the non-standard sexual urges and preferences between gays, pedophiles and those that practice bestiality; But they all clearly share similar genetical / mental defects.

 

My point about one day finding the root cause and being able to diagnose it during pregnancy and (in the unlikely event of our liberal society allowing it) having the option to terminate the birth is a serious one. The same goes for those with a propensity for mental illness, sense defects, mental cases, gender benders and a whole host of other disabilities. This country alone, spends £billions every year on treatment, care, housing, transport, benefits etc on disabled people. Be honest with yourselves: nobody wants to have a Downs Syndrome kid, one with disabilities, a retarded one or a gay one. Why should we waste that much money if an option becomes available (like with Downers) to terminate and try again for a healthy one who will benefit society and not be a drain on it.

 

Granted, Mr X and other gays wouldn't be here today if this option was available; But neither would all of the disabled people, pedophiles and other suchlike.

 

I'm talking here about those BORN gay through defective genes. The ones who 'turn' gay are as a result of an overly tolerant society who, if anything, confuse the confused into thinking it's normal and acceptable to dabble in homosexuality as a life choice. Take away those that are born like it by accepting that it's a defect and dealing with it, stop encouraging gay couple to adopt and confuse normal kids, stop everyone saying 'each to their own' and you start to deal with the problem and stop normal kids from 'turning' by nurture.

 

Utterly hillarious, nice one.

 

A few interesting points in there, just find it really funny the way you are suggesting posters on this forum that are faggers should have been terminated at pregnancy!

 

I absolutely love women, beautiful women, its my main passion in life... love it.

 

So i find gayers a bit wierd, and I agree with the social tolerance sending mixed messages. I cant begin to contemplate a couple of gay men adopting and raising a son, the child would be serverely messed up.

 

Men are men in my opinion, we hunt, gather, provide and raise families... essentially, we eat, sleep and ****.

 

Just dont get the whole fudge packing thing. That said its great kicking my birds back door in, but not some hairy bloke, no way.

 

I worked in a pub with a gayer once, you would never have guessed it in a million years... proper bloke, justy loved getting done by men, never understood it but I didnt have a problem with it as he was a quality bloke.

 

Its them flambouyant (sp.) types who mince around like proper ****ing gayers, what the **** is all that about? I refuse to believe that people are genetically defected and born gay, and as a result have to prance about like some retard. That is down to social tolerance and I have absolutely no time for these type of faggers, its just rediculous...

[dune]

I'm talking here about those BORN gay through defective genes. The ones who 'turn' gay are as a result of an overly tolerant society who, if anything, confuse the confused into thinking it's normal and acceptable to dabble in homosexuality as a life choice. Take away those that are born like it by accepting that it's a defect and dealing with it, stop encouraging gay couple to adopt and confuse normal kids, stop everyone saying 'each to their own' and you start to deal with the problem and stop normal kids from 'turning' by nurture.

 

You are a bigot. I bet if u had MrX in ur taxi and he unexpectedly realised he'd got no money you'd be straight down to the nearest cottage for payment in bum fun.

[dune]

Look, much though I enjoy 'batner' with you, I was jsut obejecting to your weird view of the guardian, which I'm honestly sure would side with you - and, as you may not have understood, me - in saying that ADHD is very, very often given as a 'condition' when a kid is just naughty for other reasons. I understand this and have seen it far more than you realise. So we're not even arguing about it, you weirdo.

 

I wonder if ginger is more of less sexually arousing to a gay person than to a str8 person?

 

Any life stories to add to this?

[AndyNorthernSaints]

This thread reminds me why myself and alot of others don't post on here anymore. Turkisk, 1976 Saints and Stanley Dun©e continue to post homophobic, racist biggoted thick views on here. I thought these posts and trolling were not allowed on here? this site will not last long i'm afraid if these idiots are allowed to continue. Maybe they can have thier own Redneck/homophobic/racist/right wing agenda forum to themselves so everyone else does not have to read there bile.

[Joensuu]

This thread reminds me why myself and alot of others don't post on here anymore. Turkisk, 1976 Saints and Stanley Dun©e continue to post homophobic, racist biggoted thick views on here. I thought these posts and trolling were not allowed on here? this site will not last long i'm afraid if these idiots are allowed to continue. Maybe they can have thier own Redneck/homophobic/racist/right wing agenda forum to themselves so everyone else does not have to read there bile.

 

You're right.

 

IMO, the real reason that this forum has gone downhill, is because 'b-anter' (or whatever is was called 'ban-ter'?) closed and all the less desirables emigrated back to saintsweb.

[Turkish]

I am at a loss to understand why so many of you think homosexuals are 'normal'.

 

Nobody really answered my question as to whether you think gays are a result of nature or nurture. I believe that proper gays are born like it. Mr X has said he didn't choose to be 'this way', which suggests that he thinks he was indeed born with the affliction. Others have touched on it being a genetic defect / brain chemical imbalance that causes it. I'm not going to go in depth into the similarities of the non-standard sexual urges and preferences between gays, pedophiles and those that practice bestiality; But they all clearly share similar genetical / mental defects.

 

My point about one day finding the root cause and being able to diagnose it during pregnancy and (in the unlikely event of our liberal society allowing it) having the option to terminate the birth is a serious one. The same goes for those with a propensity for mental illness, sense defects, mental cases, gender benders and a whole host of other disabilities. This country alone, spends £billions every year on treatment, care, housing, transport, benefits etc on disabled people. Be honest with yourselves: nobody wants to have a Downs Syndrome kid, one with disabilities, a retarded one or a gay one. Why should we waste that much money if an option becomes available (like with Downers) to terminate and try again for a healthy one who will benefit society and not be a drain on it.

 

Granted, Mr X and other gays wouldn't be here today if this option was available; But neither would all of the disabled people, pedophiles and other suchlike.

 

I'm talking here about those BORN gay through defective genes. The ones who 'turn' gay are as a result of an overly tolerant society who, if anything, confuse the confused into thinking it's normal and acceptable to dabble in homosexuality as a life choice. Take away those that are born like it by accepting that it's a defect and dealing with it, stop encouraging gay couple to adopt and confuse normal kids, stop everyone saying 'each to their own' and you start to deal with the problem and stop normal kids from 'turning' by nurture.

 

I agree Essruu, it is widely excepted that Adam was the first living human, as Adam was made in gods image then he was created as a perfect human. Adam was hetrosexual, therefore so is god. Anything other than hetrosexuality must be a genetic abberation or in some cases a victim of a "confused" society; either way anything other than hetrosexuality is a sin.