Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > Celeb Talk/Gossip
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 08-30-2012, 08:00 PM
Ok. Who will be the more dominating out of this couple?

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-30-2012, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
No, I am just saying what is the next step. I have not once equated the two, so for a mod or anyone else to make the assumption is wrong. There will always be some group wanting "equal rights" if they feel they do not have them. Gay/Lesbians are the group now fighting. I would honestly say transgendered will fall next but most of the general population group transgendered with gay so I just went to the next step which is pedophiles. They too will feel the need for equal rights and with society becoming more and more retardedly liberal how can you deny it? The ACLU is already fighting for their rights. Why do certain people seem to ignore that and somehow can only respond with "oh my gawwd you just said gays are pedophiles" when in fact no I did not. I am just stating what comes next in the chain of events. Do you honestly think that once gay marriage is legalized (and sadly it will be) that that is it? No more need to fight for anyones equality? We are done as a society? Do you really think that?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-30-2012, 08:46 PM
ZZZzzz....
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-30-2012, 08:51 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to bore you with all this fancy booklearnin'...
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-30-2012, 09:41 PM
There. Fixed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
One of my friends worked for Rosie during her short lived talk show and she said Rosie was the "biggest bitch in the known universe" so I really dont feel sorry for making fun of her.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-31-2012, 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Sorry. Didn't mean to bore you with all this fancy booklearnin'...


History is proving you wrong. If you like I can link you to several definitions of the word "wrong" and its synonyms if you like? You seem to like the idea of links speaking for you instead of using your big words.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-31-2012, 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Stay classy, Joblo Schmoes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Neither children (pedophilia) nor animals (beastiality) are what you would call "consenting adults" who can legally sign and enter a lawful contract of any kind. Therefore there will never, ever be any legitimate argument to give them civil rights and there is not a single, sizable group or groundswell seeking such rights, and there never, ever will be of any kind.

To even entertain the thought that such a concept is anywhere remotely similar to the struggles for gays to achieve civil rights is fucking retarded.
I may not always agree with you, but when I do, I strongly agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
One of my friends worked for Rosie during her short lived talk show and she said Rosie was the "biggest bitch on the planet" so I really dont feel sorry for making fun of her.
One time I rode an elevator with Rosie, and she farted. It sounded like a city bus coming to a stop. You know, that squeak noise. I looked over at her and she wouldn't even make eye contact. It was kinda fucked up. Haha. Nah man, I'm making this up. The truth is that one time I had eaten a lot of fibrous foods and had gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
The next logical step, based on the way our society is heading (downward spiral) is for pedophile rights. Ask the ACLU, they will agree with me.
Do you have a citation or is this theoretical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
Ok. Who will be the more dominating out of this couple?
Love will dominate all.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-31-2012, 12:01 PM
You guys are going at this all wrong. Everyone knows that you start the slippery slope argument with polygamy, not pedophilia. Duh. Then it goes to horse fuckers, and then to people who want to marry potatoes. If you're gonna bring the derp, at least get it right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
I may not always agree with you, but when I do, I strongly agree with you.
Thanks, dude. You're okay too. I could suggest we start a bromance, but, based on this thread, it would obviously lead to raping children and/or animals, and I'm just not into that.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-31-2012, 12:44 PM
Rosie married way out of her league !
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-31-2012, 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
You guys are going at this all wrong. Everyone knows that you start the slippery slope argument with polygamy, not pedophilia. Duh. Then it goes to horse fuckers, and then to people who want to marry potatoes. If you're gonna bring the derp, at least get it right.
http://blogcritics.org/politics/arti...e-left-behind/

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/08/38540

http://theacru.org/acru/aclu_protection_of_a_pedophile/


Just 3 of the countless articles out there proving my point. Hell the #2 at Wikipedia supports is as well. If joblo's right hand man had no problems with pedophelia, would you still visit this site?

http://gawker.com/372140/
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-31-2012, 02:16 PM
You have to love the audacity of the "slippery slope" argument in regards to gay marriage because it implies that at least SOME group has to be discriminated against or else America will become a free-for-all for pervs.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-31-2012, 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
You have to love the audacity of the "slippery slope" argument in regards to gay marriage because it implies that at least SOME group has to be discriminated against or else America will become a free-for-all for pervs.
So your thinking is that no one should be discriminated against? Including pedophiles?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-31-2012, 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
So your thinking is that no one should be discriminated against? Including pedophiles?
"Pedophile" is not a legitimate demographic.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-31-2012, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
"Pedophile" is not a legitimate demographic.

And who legitimizes such things?

"At the end of 2001, about 83,000 state prison inmates, or about 6.8 percent, were male sex offenders who had committed a rape or sexual assault against a minor under age 18, according to Allen Beck, chief of corrections statistics for the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. "


Older fact I know but that number has grown to closer to 9% now which I do not have a quote for but that number is from a Dateline special on air less than 6 months ago. Now take into account that many pedophiles go on for years, if not forever, without getting caught you have to wonder how large of a pedophile population is out there. I would say that makes a legitimate demographic sadly, the ACLU agrees with that. Call them.

Another quote -

"According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there are four million pedophiles in the U.S. However, measuring is a tricky business, because many child molesters are not caught.

In fact, it's not known exactly how many people are pedophiles. But researchers are studying the problems and they say that child molestation is a major public health problem. If child molestation were a flu, it would be treated like an epidemic.

Dr. Gene Abel has directed six U.S. government research projects on sexual violence and published over 100 scientific papers on the subject, according to the CNN Special Report "Thieves of Childhood." He estimates that between one and five percent of our population molests children. Each child molester creates many, many victims. "A conservative figure would be at least 20 percent of all females and at least 7 percent of all males have been molested," notes Abel."
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-31-2012, 04:20 PM
Those don't prove anything to your point. Those articles are specifically about privacy issues and the legality of owning porn. The ACLU isn't trying to make child-man marriage legal in anyway; it's trying to protect people from prosecution for simply possessing certain images. Nice try, but not the same thing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-31-2012, 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Those don't prove anything to your point. Those articles are specifically about privacy issues and the legality of owning porn. The ACLU isn't trying to make child-man marriage legal in anyway; it's trying to protect people from prosecution for simply possessing certain images. Nice try, but not the same thing at all.
Yea because I am sure child porn is going to be where it stops. Had you also taken the time to read the links, one of them specifically points out how they come to the defense of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). That group does a little more than want to collect kiddy porn........
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-31-2012, 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
That group does a little more than want to collect kiddy porn........
But the ACLU isn't defending that "little more".
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-31-2012, 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
But the ACLU isn't defending that "little more".

Ahhh too bad you don't know what you are talking about, not only do they defend it, they do it pro bono. The same group who fights against the right to say God Bless America in schools is more than happy to represent a pedophile, again pro bono. Known child predators getting free representation.


I can keep going with this but it has gotten WAY off topic at this point so we can either circle back around or feel free to private message me OR start a thread in the political sub section to discuss further.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-31-2012, 08:46 PM
And if anyone bothered to read about the exact case talked about in the first 2 links, it wasn't even kiddie porn - it was an issue they had with the way the law was written, which according the ACLU, would have made it illegal, images where, for instance, 20 year old women were dressed as schoolgirls. It also, according to the ACLU, would have made it illegal to take pictures of kids that weren't obscene.

From the words of the ACLU:

Quote:
H.R. 4623 seeks to ban ""virtual child pornography,"" and prohibit ""pandering"" of images as child pornography even if the images are not obscene or child pornography. It creates a whole new category of prohibited speech, prohibits using sexually explicit materials to facilitate offenses against minors, creates extraterritorial jurisdiction, and creates a database of minors who have been exploited in the creation of child pornography.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material, and therefore will likely meet the same fate as the provisions stricken from the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...aphy-preventio

That first link is grossly inaccurate in its conclusions. It essentially is making up what the case is all about, while ignoring ACLUs own assertions.

The link from Wired has a pretty enticing headline but the article isn't nearly exciting once you get past the guilt by association. Essentially, this is not much different than the ACLU defending the KKK on the grounds on their free speech.

The 3rd link, from the ACRU, the author starts by saying all his information comes from World Net Daily and personal research. This one was harder for me to get to the bottom of, mainly because it's all conjuncture with loose connections.

I looked through the ACLU cite to find where they had taken on this particular case, but no luck. So then I searched to find cases that this particular lawyer was but no luck. It wasn't until I re-read the ACRU link that I realized why.

"Mr. Reed's attorney is Bruce Elmore, Jr., who is also attorney for the ACLU in Buncombe County."

Weird. So I search Google for this particular lawyer. The first link is the ACRU's website. Below that, I find this link from superlawyers.com:

http://www.superlawyers.com/north-ca...6e66e499d.html

Quote:
Attorney Bruce A. Elmore Jr. is the founding attorney of the Asheville, North Carolina, firm, The Elmore Law Firm, P.A. A graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Mr. Elmore has been practicing law for more than 35 years. His firm focuses on cases involving personal injury, medical malpractice, nursing home abuse, railroad accidents and premises liability.

Mr. Elmore is an active participant in pro bono legal work and is actively involved in the American Civil Liberties Union and the North Carolina and Buncombe County Democratic Party.
Okay, he's "actively involved" well - that doesn't exactly mean he's a lawyer for the ACLU. I mean, I'm "actively involved" in my child's school and I'm also a counselor but that doesn't mean I'm a counselor for the school.

I look further, and sure enough Elmore acted on the board for the NC chapter of the ACLU, even as president at some point. Finding where he's represented the ACLU is harder though. It wasn't until I found this mention in an ACLU newsletter that I started getting warm. He has done cases, for sure, but they surround homeless in parks, gay marriage rights, and there is one case where he does represent the ACLU in defending a sex offender (not a pedophile) who wants access to parks.

I dunno, man. It's interesting, although icky as fuck, looking around for this kind of stuff. It beats thinking about how I'll have to get ready for work though, I guess. I tried watching Conan The Barbarian, the remake, not the classic one. Then I got pissed off that Rose McGowan was in unrecognizable makeup. That was a bummer.

This thread is making me sad. I used to be happy for Rosie O' Donnell and want to celebrate the love of people. Now I'm just upset about the cookies I've ended up with in doing all this research. Damn you, Rosie! Damn you to hell!

No, no… I don't mean it. Love. All is good. I don't mean that in a hippy way. Hell no. More like hippy hound dog.


Last edited by The Postmaster General; 08-31-2012 at 08:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-31-2012, 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
May I ask you what exactly is good about it, BG?


Good. Because it's retarded.


What exactly is stupid about Australia not recognizing same sex marriages, BG?
Geez you had to do this to me God Of war
i am just happy for them if thar is what makes them happy as a couple and to take a extra comitment maening marriage is a huge thing for many couples

Well you might think there marriage is retarded and l have to say that marraige should be between a man and woman but these days things are diffrent

Well the last time l looked Gay marriage is not reconized in Australia God Of War

This act has been put forward to the Primeminister Julia Gilard and past Primeministers and it has never been put throught parliment

I am not saying that you can not get married In Australia as a gay couple but if you show your marriage papers it is not legal ceremony

if you are a man and woman taking your vows it is taken in account God Of war

Last edited by Bondgirl; 08-31-2012 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-31-2012, 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
Ok. Who will be the more dominating out of this couple?


Well when you see the photo at the start of the thread the more dominate one would be Michelle as the groom and Rosie as the bride
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-06-2012, 07:55 AM
You're tearing me apart Joblo fourms!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump