Scouts welcome the gays

[Symmetry]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

i don't understand why you intentionally get yourself into losing arguments. there are so many better ways to troll.

Perhaps I'm not a troll, perhaps I argue for what I believe to be right, rather than what will get me in to Stalin's pants. Just a thought. Let me know if you think about my post.

[betiko]

I ll give my opinion from what i know about french boyscouts.
Here it s 100% catholic and 100% for boys. You got other organizations for catholic girls, for protestant girl or boys ect.. And also some that are none religious.
If you are openly gay, why go to boy scouts that are catholic? The church doesn t accept it so it s normal that it can be an issue. Go to none religious boy scout like organizations.
There is a contradiction between one s beliefs and one s sexuality if you are gay and catholic. Why make it more complicated? For boy scouts or scouts leaders i mean.
Like you can t be gay and a priest (officially).

[betiko]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

i don't understand why you intentionally get yourself into losing arguments. there are so many better ways to troll.

Perhaps I'm not a troll, perhaps I argue for what I believe to be right, rather than what will get me in to Stalin's pants. Just a thought. Let me know if you think about my post.

I think what John meant was "gay men are sometimes pedophiles" and that you are just not getting his point.

[Symmetry]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

i don't understand why you intentionally get yourself into losing arguments. there are so many better ways to troll.

Perhaps I'm not a troll, perhaps I argue for what I believe to be right, rather than what will get me in to Stalin's pants. Just a thought. Let me know if you think about my post.

I think what John meant was "gay men are sometimes pedophiles" and that you are just not getting his point.

Oh I understood his point. I've been on the receiving end for quite some time of his disgust,

[tzor]

Do you believe a private business should be allowed to put up a sign on the front door that says "Whites Only?"

If it is truly private, yes, as much as I would normally detest that practice. The Knights of Columbus, is a fraternal organization of Roman Catholics. Non Roman Catholics cannot be members. Many social clubs used to be white only, although they have dropped that restriction in these more modern times. The Loyal Order of Moose, and the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barbershop Quartet Singing in America used to be a whites only organization. (Wherein the old bad joke was that "there is no such thing as a chocolate mouse.")

However, once they open up beyond "membership" then they are required to not discriminate.

[thegreekdog]

I understand your point mets, but you are making a jump from an organization/associations to a private business. But there are more relevant comparisons, such as "blacks only" colleges.

You think there are ""blacks only" colleges."? Citation needed.

No. He's referring to HBCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... iversities

HBCs allow non-blacks to attend.

And for what it's worth, I think that private institutions (those that do not receive direct government assistance) should be permitted to have a "whites only" sign on their door.

[Phatscotty]

I understand your point mets, but you are making a jump from an organization/associations to a private business. But there are more relevant comparisons, such as "blacks only" colleges.

You think there are ""blacks only" colleges."? Citation needed.

No. He's referring to HBCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... iversities

HBCs allow non-blacks to attend.

And for what it's worth, I think that private institutions (those that do not receive direct government assistance) should be permitted to have a "whites only" sign on their door.

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

[thegreekdog]

I understand your point mets, but you are making a jump from an organization/associations to a private business. But there are more relevant comparisons, such as "blacks only" colleges.

You think there are ""blacks only" colleges."? Citation needed.

No. He's referring to HBCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... iversities

HBCs allow non-blacks to attend.

And for what it's worth, I think that private institutions (those that do not receive direct government assistance) should be permitted to have a "whites only" sign on their door.

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

I don't think they accept token people from other races. Not sure where you got that from.

[Phatscotty]

I understand your point mets, but you are making a jump from an organization/associations to a private business. But there are more relevant comparisons, such as "blacks only" colleges.

You think there are ""blacks only" colleges."? Citation needed.

No. He's referring to HBCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... iversities

HBCs allow non-blacks to attend.

And for what it's worth, I think that private institutions (those that do not receive direct government assistance) should be permitted to have a "whites only" sign on their door.

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

I don't think they accept token people from other races. Not sure where you got that from.

I just learned that Hispanics seem to be somewhat of an exception. Of the top 25 black colleges, they go about 75-80% black, 18% Hispanic, and 2% for everything else

one example here is Howard University


http://collegestats.org/college/howard- ... admissions

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... I would need to see a comparison of non-black applicants and their relative high school GPAs and SATs compared to black applicants before I will be able to comment on the idea that HBCs accept only token people from other racial groups. I don't know a single white person that applied to an HBC, but that is, of course, anecdotal evidence.

As late as 2001, my college had an all-black dorm.

[Symmetry]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

[Phatscotty]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

you aren't serious, are you?

[Symmetry]

Thanks. Yes while it is true that they accept token people of other races, they do literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door.

Pics of the signs, or STFU.

you aren't serious, are you?

Apparently they "literally have a "for blacks" sign on their door". I'm interested in seeing those signs. Who wouldn't be?

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you believe a private business should be allowed to put up a sign on the front door that says "Whites Only?"

They can go ahead and try. Let's see what happens to their clientele in this day and age.

Besides, places have that de facto policy regardless of the expected outcomes of federal intervention.

[thegreekdog]

Besides, places have that de facto policy regardless of the expected outcomes of federal intervention.

Like HBCs, for example. Or the Klu Klux Klan.

[BigBallinStalin]

Besides, places have that de facto policy regardless of the expected outcomes of federal intervention.

Like HBCs, for example. Or the Klu Klux Klan.

Nothing that explicit, but good enough examples. I was thinking of small town stores which are run by racist hicks.

[warmonger1981]

If this is about equal rights and skin color or sexual preference plays no part. Shouldn't a white person be able to join an all Black-African American dating site. Or gays be allowed to join E-Harmony? E-Harmony was forced to accept gays by a court ruling from what Ive heard. E-Harmony is a Christian dating site. Is this fair or should organizations have a chouce who they cater to????

[Lootifer]

If this is about equal rights and skin color or sexual preference plays no part. Shouldn't a white person be able to join an all Black-African American dating site. Or gays be allowed to join E-Harmony? E-Harmony was forced to accept gays by a court ruling from what Ive heard. E-Harmony is a Christian dating site. Is this fair or should organizations have a chouce who they cater to????

My stance on the matter:

Clear and obvious ones...
- Any organisation that recieves direct or indirect support from the government should conform to the governments policy on bigotry/equality (this includes tax breaks)
- Any organisation that does not recieve direct or indirect support is free to do what it likes

Slightly murkier territory...
- Any organisation that promotes positive bigotry (see: here) should be able to recieve direct or indirect support from the government if, and only if, through democratic process it is approved
- Any organisation that promotes negative bigotry (see: here) should be able to have sanctions and other restrictions placed on it even if it recieves no direct or indirect support from the government - again this should be approved through democratic process where possible, but in this case it may not be efficient to do so and maybe best to use some kind of precident based ruling system.

[thegreekdog]

Any entity that receives direct government support should be subject to government rules on whatever. That excludes tax breaks.*

* Lootifer is of the opinion, apparently, that the natural state of affairs is for there to be a tax. Thus, a tax break, to Lootifer apparently, is the government giving back money that is rightfully the government's money. I take the polar opposite stance (and my stance is correct given that the government must COLLECT the money from the taxpayer before it can give it back).

[Lootifer]

Any entity that receives direct government support should be subject to government rules on whatever. That excludes tax breaks.*

* Lootifer is of the opinion, apparently, that the natural state of affairs is for there to be a tax. Thus, a tax break, to Lootifer apparently, is the government giving back money that is rightfully the government's money. I take the polar opposite stance (and my stance is correct given that the government must COLLECT the money from the taxpayer before it can give it back).

Maybe I am being stupid here but all I meant was entity x pays 30% tax; entity y which is subject to the same tax rules as entity x pays 25% as they receive a 5% discount on their tax for reason z. Entity y is receiving government support from my pov.

[Woodruff]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

So that's a good enough sample for "gay men are abuse boys", but you need actual studies to show that heterosexual men abuse boys just as frequently?

i don't understand why you intentionally get yourself into losing arguments. there are so many better ways to troll.

As opposed to...

[john9blue]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

So that's a good enough sample for "gay men are abuse boys", but you need actual studies to show that heterosexual men abuse boys just as frequently?

yes.

if symmetry were smart he would have countered with something like "ron paul supporters are racist", which is true (there exist ron paul supporters that are racist) but doesn't mean much.

at any rate, i'm not sure why he's going for the "homophobe" angle of attack, since i'm not a homophobe at all... it would be more accurate to call me a racist or sexist, since those can actually be backed up (to some extent) by statistics (whereas homophobia is just an irrational fear)

[Woodruff]

would you like me to find two news articles about two gay men who are pedophiles to prove my point?

So that's a good enough sample for "gay men abuse boys", but you need actual studies to show that heterosexual men abuse boys just as frequently?

yes.

That seems awfully...arbitrary and unfair. Why be arbitrary and unfair?

NOTE: I also fixed my statements you quoted above where I apparently didn't do English very gooder, but I don't believe it changed the meaning of the words other than to make them more easily understood.

[john9blue]

So that's a good enough sample for "gay men abuse boys", but you need actual studies to show that heterosexual men abuse boys just as frequently?

yes.

That seems awfully...arbitrary and unfair. Why be arbitrary and unfair?

NOTE: I also fixed my statements you quoted above where I apparently didn't do English very gooder, but I don't believe it changed the meaning of the words other than to make them more easily understood.

because one is a question of existence, and the other is a question of frequency. it would be like equating asking if extraterrestrial life exists (almost certainly, we don't need empirical evidence to figure that out) with what % of planets have extraterrestrial life (a hotly debated question that would be very difficult to answer)

i think you already know this, which is why you initially typed "gay men are abusing boys" before your edits.

[Woodruff]

So that's a good enough sample for "gay men abuse boys", but you need actual studies to show that heterosexual men abuse boys just as frequently?

yes.

That seems awfully...arbitrary and unfair. Why be arbitrary and unfair?

NOTE: I also fixed my statements you quoted above where I apparently didn't do English very gooder, but I don't believe it changed the meaning of the words other than to make them more easily understood.

because one is a question of existence, and the other is a question of frequency.

Yet there was NO "question of existence" prior to your statements...no one was stating that homosexuals don't ever abuse boys (including Symmetry)...you were simply providing "evidence of existence" because you seemed to believe it was supportive of your idea that homosexuals abuse boys more often than heterosexuals and it gave you a strawman to fight against.

i think you already know this, which is why you initially typed "gay men are abusing boys" before your edits.

Except that ISN'T what my initial statement was, which you can clearly see because it's still there in it's original spot. If I had wanted to hide it, I would have changed it there too. It was simply a poorly worded statement, as I said it was. Stop being dishonest, John. I know you can do it if you try really hard!