T1B

Horribly written article, and incorrect facts.

What it did get correct is the CA law does protect pedophilia in a sexual orientation way. However, this will likely go unenforced unless a pedophile sues to become a day care worker.

Papa Willie wrote:http://www.rethinksociety.com/governmen ... r-ca-bill/

Well - I guess DiS will be happy, anyway...

Still jealous of our weather, our beaches, our mountains, our deserts, our food, our beer, our wine, and California Girls, I see.

Mikey wrote: Still jealous of our weather, our beaches, our mountains, our deserts, our food, our beer, our wine, and California Girls, I see.

Papa can speak for himself, but for me only one of those fits. I will concede that your weather for the most part is amazing. Your Mountains get an honorable mention because of Lake Tahoe, but you have to split that with Nevada.

The rest invoke zero jealousy.

If someone loves California so much they'll just move there. People do it every day. It's not like there's some protective force field up keeping out all the transplants who just want to gorge themselves on all the wonderful and majestic things California has to offer.

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote: Still jealous of our weather, our beaches, our mountains, our deserts, our food, our beer, our wine, and California Girls, I see.

Papa can speak for himself, but for me only one of those fits. I will concede that your weather for the most part is amazing. Your Mountains get an honorable mention because of Lake Tahoe, but you have to split that with Nevada.

The rest invoke zero jealousy.

I can tell you're just not the jealous type.

I, for one, am jealous in that I don't imagine Zep would have ever wrote a song titled "Going to Missouri"

smug fuckin' Cali's

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:If someone loves California so much they'll just move there.

We're talking about shutyomouth here. It's a monumental struggle to move any farther than the refrigerator.

Left Seater wrote:Horribly written article, and incorrect facts.

What it did get correct is the CA law does protect pedophilia in a sexual orientation way.

It's not a law, it's a bill. Fat chance it'll ever become law.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:If someone loves California so much they'll just move there.

We're talking about shutyomouth here. It's a monumental struggle to move any farther than the refrigerator.

You're fatter than me, and you love pedophiles. Fag.

The only thing fatter than you is you in a fun-house mirror (& maybe smackaholic), and you're obsessed with pedophiles. Did you "know" one when you were younger?

Besides, I'm not fat. Just large boned. And no I won't PM you a picture of my large bone.

I love California. I love living here. I hate being taxed up the ass to live here. I hate the libs in office. I hate the CA DMV where I spent 3 hours of my life today.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Horribly written article, and incorrect facts.

What it did get correct is the CA law does protect pedophilia in a sexual orientation way.

It's not a law, it's a bill. Fat chance it'll ever become law.

Try to keep up here, Diego. When a bill is passed by both houses and not vetoed by the gov, it becomes law. This is exactly what happened in CA. SB1172 went thru committee, both houses, etc, etc. The fact that it has already drawn legal challenges also verifies it became law.

Left Seater wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Horribly written article, and incorrect facts.

What it did get correct is the CA law does protect pedophilia in a sexual orientation way.

It's not a law, it's a bill. Fat chance it'll ever become law.

Try to keep up here, Diego. When a bill is passed by both houses and not vetoed by the gov, it becomes law. This is exactly what happened in CA. SB1172 went thru committee, both houses, etc, etc. The fact that it has already drawn legal challenges also verifies it became law.

You're right that I wasn't quite up to speed, but not in the way that you thought.

While the bill has been signed into law, it doesn't say what you or your right-wing article suggest. Feel free to hook us up with a link to the actual section of the law that says that pedophilia is a recognized relationship.

No surprise that that a thumper is yet again bleating derogatory bullshit about a law that bans "conversion therapy" being used by holy rolling adults on gay/lesbian children.

So Diego, you were proven wrong and in an attempt to regain a little self worth you just started swinging at anything and everything. Take a moment to just take a breath cause you are just kicking your own ass.

Wait.


Wait.


Wait.


Feel better? Calmer? Now go back and read the part where I say the article is horribly written. Take another break.

I didn't take anything in that article as fact. I went and did my own research. I also read the entire bill that became law. I also saw that there were multiple lawsuits against this law and one resulted in an injunction for only three individuals. I also found that there were questions on the Assembly floor about the bill's definition of sexual orientation. The Bill's author defended the Bill's language in saying they needed to cast the nets wide. As such the bill that became law does not exclude pedophilia as a sexual orientation. While having nothing to do with the CA law, this same view point of pedophilia as a sexual orientation has been defended on the US House floor by Dems from both FL and CA.

As to your final swing about conversion therapy, the horribly written article at worst is neutral on the practice and actually offers support for the law.

Read, pause, think, pause, then decide if you should use your lib talking/attacking points. This is a perfect example of one where you should have passed.

trev wrote:I love California. I love living here. I hate being taxed up the ass to live here. I hate the libs in office. I hate the CA DMV where I spent 3 hours of my life today.

Make an appointment at the DMV. It's easy to do online and you won't have to wait.
Online registration renewal is also very easy if you have a computer and a bank account.

Mikey wrote:Online registration renewal is also very easy if you have a computer and a bank account.

Planning ahead and using technology, so rich liberal of you.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Mikey wrote:Online registration renewal is also very easy if you have a computer and a bank account.

Planning ahead and using technology, so rich liberal of you.

Rich liberal?
Nah, I just don't want to have to mix with the common riffraff you generally find waiting around at the DMV.

Left Seater wrote:So Diego, you were proven wrong and in an attempt to regain a little self worth you just started swinging at anything and everything. Take a moment to just take a breath cause you are just kicking your own ass.

Wait.


Wait.


Wait.


Feel better? Calmer? Now go back and read the part where I say the article is horribly written. Take another break.

I didn't take anything in that article as fact. I went and did my own research. I also read the entire bill that became law. I also saw that there were multiple lawsuits against this law and one resulted in an injunction for only three individuals. I also found that there were questions on the Assembly floor about the bill's definition of sexual orientation. The Bill's author defended the Bill's language in saying they needed to cast the nets wide. As such the bill that became law does not exclude pedophilia as a sexual orientation. While having nothing to do with the CA law, this same view point of pedophilia as a sexual orientation has been defended on the US House floor by Dems from both FL and CA.

As to your final swing about conversion therapy, the horribly written article at worst is neutral on the practice and actually offers support for the law.

Read, pause, think, pause, then decide if you should use your lib talking/attacking points. This is a perfect example of one where you should have passed.

Again, please state the section of the law that states that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. TIA.

Of course pedophilia is a sexual orientation. An abnormal one. Even more abnormal than homosexuality.

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).[1][2][3][4] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

The term has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.[5] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it is a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.[1]

smackaholic wrote:Of course pedophilia is a sexual orientation. An abnormal one. Even more abnormal than homosexuality.

And a criminal orientation at that.

Again, please state the section of the law that states that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. TIA.

Which section of any states criminal code do you want to cite ? Does not matter if it is an "orientation" or not. It is an perverted devious CRIMINAL behavior, that when any individual is caught doing it, or proved in a court of it, they should be stood up and their perverted brains blown out with a large caliber gun, leaving no trace of their sick brain matter on this earth.

Derron...I don't disagree.

But allow me to clarify my question....

Where in the law does it state that pedophilia is an acceptable orientation? It doesn't, nor will it ever (rightfully so).

If your claim is true why wouldn't the author of the CA bill support language that specifically stated pedophilia is not an orientation? Further why would others take to the US House floor to support pedophilia as an orientation and therefore protected?

Left Seater wrote:If your claim is true why wouldn't the author of the CA bill support language that specifically stated pedophilia is not an orientation? Further why would others take to the US House floor to support pedophilia as an orientation and therefore protected?

Are you really that stupid?

First off, what makes you think (beyond your need to smear homosexual relationships with pedophilia) that the author would think such language should be part of the bill? Has the author ever made independent statements that support your claim that they support pedophilia as an acceptable orientation? This sounds more like Left Behinder is just having more hallucinations errrr "visions.".

Secondly, even if the author did support pedophilia as an orientation they were probably smart enough to know that such language in the bill would torpedo any chance a legislative body would pass such a measure. Any individually elected representative can make a foolish statement, but that doesn't mean they're going to get a whole legislative body to pass a bill supporting that idiotic notion. I guess you're just not astute enough to understand such concepts.

Astute?

Diego in Seattle wrote: It's not a law, it's a bill. Fat chance it'll ever become law.

Diego in Seattle wrote:
First off, what makes you think (beyond your need to smear homosexual relationships with pedophilia) that the author would think such language should be part of the bill? Has the author ever made independent statements that support your claim that they support pedophilia as an acceptable orientation?

What part of this didn't you understand?

Left Seater wrote: there were questions on the Assembly floor about the bill's definition of sexual orientation. The Bill's author defended the Bill's language in saying they needed to cast the nets wide. As such the bill that became law does not exclude pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Secondly, even if the author did support pedophilia as an orientation they were probably smart enough to know that such language in the bill would torpedo any chance a legislative body would pass such a measure. Any individually elected representative can make a foolish statement, but that doesn't mean they're going to get a whole legislative body to pass a bill supporting that idiotic notion.

Thanks for kicking your own ass again. You keep missing the forest but for all the trees. Of course the Bill's author knew that including specific language defining pedophilia as a protected sexual orientation would kill the bill. However, by keeping the Bill's language specifically broad and undefined he could argue that it was in fact protected after the bill became law. If someone can read the second amendment and say that it doesn't give an individual the right to own a gun, some can just as easily argue this law protects pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Hell, just look no further that the differing legal opinions from the lawyers that post here on damn near every issue.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Are you really that stupid?

Nope, but thanks for proving you are.

So can I or can't I call a pedophile a faggot?

R-Jack wrote:So can I or can't I call a pedophile a faggot?

I am going to go with no on this.

While I am not down with faggotry, and people can do what they want with other consenting adults, being a fag does not mean your a pedophile. I suppose there are cases where they are a fag and a pedophile, but for the most part I think the majority of fags are not pedophiles.

A pedophile is the lowest form of humanity there is. Predatory sexual behavior towards a minor child deserves the death penalty as far as I am concerned. No comparison at all in my opinion.

What about pedos with a desire for young boys. Can I call them faggots?

Catholic priests works better.

R-Jack wrote:What about pedos with a desire for young boys. Can I call them faggots?

What about young boys with a desire for pedos.
What do you call them?

Diego in Seattle wrote:(beyond your need to smear homosexual relationships with pedophilia)

Yeah! The nerve of that guy! Who does he think he is?

Sincerely,

Mikey wrote:

R-Jack wrote:What about pedos with a desire for young boys. Can I call them faggots?

What about young boys with a desire for pedos.
What do you call them?

Male pedos or female pedos? This shit matters.

The wife and I decided to cheat Cal of the taxes they've been stealing from me. We sold the house, bought an Airstream, "moved" to Texas, and are now traveling at our leisure all the while giving myself a 10.3% payraise courtesy of the Lone Star state. Now I'm enjoying sunsets on the beach on Coronado Island. Governor Moonbeam can suck it!