Except my argument doesn't work because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. The statement I was arguing against is still ridiculous, but it's not shown to be wrong by the particular argument that I made against it.
I had read your other posts; you simply don't get it. You made the the case that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation on par with homosexuality and heterosexuality.
I have since learned that "sexual orientation" does, strangely, connote approval, and that homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are the only approved sexualities. Thus to say that pedophilia is a sexual orientation actually does imply that pedophilia has achieved a level of recognition on par with homosexuality, which of course it hasn't. So you are right that saying "sexual orientation" does make what one is saying about homosexuality, and putting pedophilia into that context is indeed offensive - it was my mistake.
That being said, a response as from a member of an angry mob still isn't a good way to point out a language mistake, but at least now I know where that came from.
No, the concept of "orientation" is one of gender preference and nothing else.
Yes, that seems to be the public definition. Though actually, from the way people here and in the Wikipedia talk page use the word, it seems that for something to be a political orientation means for it to be on the approved list of general things to be attracted by (general as in not just a fetish). It just so happens that the only approved things on that list are variations of being attracted to males or females.
An example of this is how it was continually pointed out that I was wrong because pedophilia is bad. That only makes sense if sexual orientation is about being approved of rather than being just a fixed thing about gender. In the Wikipedia talk page, one person is pointing out that asexualism (being sexually attracted to nothing) is sometimes being included in sexual orientation because there is no duty to have sex with anyone. I.e. the argument is that asexualism should be on the approved list because it isn't bad.
That seems like an interesting thing to discuss, though I think even you can see that it's not a discussion I'm going to want to have with you. So I bid you good day.
If your suggesting their inability to predict the outcome because of some "randomness" then it stands to reason you are suggesting there is no randomness in the financial sector.
I have suggested no such thing, and neither have I stated any opinion on whether or not they are in fact good at predicting sports games or the economy. Good troll reply to a post about a troll summary. Your only mistake was the mishtake - made it too obvious.
This makes no sense. They might have been completely right that some particular team was most likely to win, but then the randomness of the game made it so that the most likely winner didn't win. We have no way to tell. To evaluate their ability to predict correctly, you would need data for how well they did over the course of many world cups. Besides, they can't possibly do better than the quality of their data and the extent to which that data actually allows to predict the outcome. E.g. if they fail to predict the outcome of a game of stone-paper-scissors, that is hardly saying they aren't good at their jobs. This summary has nothing to do with science, it's a blatant troll.
The link to Wikipedia is the only constructive thing I've seen from you - it was one good move, at least. The essence of the concept of sexual orientation is those things that a person can involuntarily be sexually attracted to and that take a general enough form that it can't be described as a mere fixation or fetish. It seems indeed that I was wrong, because the distillation of this essence in English speaking countries has apparently morphed into a list of a few approved things for people to be attracted to. So there simply is no word for things that people are attracted to that rise beyond a mere fetish, at least not if you want to be politically correct. I was unable to imagine this level of political correctness until some actual evidence opened my eyes. I still have a hard time with the cognitive dissonance of something like that being true of a language like English.
I'm just glad that this is an anonymous forum since otherwise I'd have images of mobs burning down my house. The appropriate response to a language mistake of this nature is to say "Actually, sexual orientation is defined in a very specific way. Here's a link. So your example does not count as a counterexample." What I got was "pedophilia is bad so you are both wrong and evil." Which still makes no sense.
I see that by your reasoning this makes me "incurably stupid". Not that you care, but I'm only writing this post because right is right. That you happen to be right in particular about the definition of sexual orientation does nothing to change my opinion of your behavior in this discussion.
Is there enough fissile material being produced to power the entire nation?
That would be strange, since that would constitute a huge amount of overproduction since fissile material isn't at this time powering the entire nation.
We Americans need to get away from this magic bullet mentality of one thing will solve all our problems.
Build enough nuclear reactors and it really will solve a lot of your energy problems. The problems with nuclear are political rather than technical - it's not that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, it's that people don't want to.
Giving a loan at less than the going rate is still spending money, because you could have lent those money at the going rate, so you are out the discount that you are giving on the cheap loan. However, as I understand it, the government isn't actually giving a loan in this case, it is guaranteeing the loan. Which means the government does not have to put up the 2 billion, but it will have to reimburse the people giving the loan if the company is unable to pay back. That is still spending money - the money you are spending is on average two billion dollars times the chance that the company won't make a profit. We don't have a good idea of what that chance is, even though it is surely non-zero. So money is being spent, we just can't tell how much it is.
I'm not sure I understand. I'm assuming that the debt of the US government is finite at any given time. In that case it is irrelevant how eager banks are to buy that debt/lend, since there is only so much Treasury debt to be had. After that, the banks will have to do something else with their money. So if the state spent less money, they would lend less from the banks, who would then be forced to find other places to put their money.
The only situation where I can see that your line of reasoning succeeds is if the banks are simply holding the money and doing nothing with it - i.e. the bank is putting the money it has in a mattress and that's it. Is that what is going on on a large scale?
Your advice would have been timely in the early 1990s and maybe even in the early 2000s. It's completely useless right now.
I'm not giving advice, I'm articulating my puzzlement at this metric of "jobs created" and saying why it puzzles me. At the end I offered a possible reason for why this metric is used, though I don't see how that is advice.
I'm not sure I understand. Won't the funds to support the people who would be unemployed without this project equal the funds to support the people who are unemployed because of the project? I.e. the people who would be employed by those funds otherwise, but now they are unemployed.
I'm always puzzled at this notion that if you allocate money to some project, and as a result that project hires somebody to do a job, then you've created a job. I suppose it is true if we compare what you've done to keeping that money in a mattress. However, if you put it in a bank then the bank is going to invest the money which will move that money into the hands of someone who is doing something with it. That "doing something" is likely going to entail hiring someone at some point. So it mostly doesn't matter how you allocate money: it's mostly always going to create jobs. The government is taking money from people through taxes, thereby preventing those people who originally held the money from putting that money somewhere where it could create jobs - like putting it in the bank, investing it or perhaps just buying sodas. So the government doesn't directly create jobs by allocating money to a project, since jobs would have been there anyway by not collecting that money through taxes in the first place.
Now the economy is not a zero sum game, so it may still sometimes be a good idea to have the government redistribute money to projects that will benefit the country or humankind in the long term, e.g. where those projects wouldn't obtain funding otherwise because the benefits of the project are external and won't be enjoyed directly by the person undertaking the project. Perhaps this project will do that, and perhaps in benefiting us all it will even indirectly create many more jobs than those that are directly necessary for carrying out the project. What I'm puzzled by is just the idea that the direct employees of the project represent "jobs created" when a similar number of jobs would likely exist anyway if the project never existed. I guess the most you can say is that jobs have been created in one state/town/place by removing a similar number of jobs from other states/towns/places, and that is a benefit to the place that is receiving those jobs. So a politician presenting such a project will want to focus on the benefit of jobs created in one place and downplay the harm of removing those jobs elsewhere.
I don't know too much about the US, but my understanding was that if you have no income and no money, then that doesn't get you anything from the government. If it weren't for private charity, people with no income would die from starvation or exposure. In that case there isn't a notion of paying people to sit at home, though perhaps I'm wrong when I think that the government in the US doesn't give money to people with no other income. Am I?
I'm sorry, my other response was undeservedly and inappropriately polite. The truth is, it's just not worth my time to continue a discussion with someone who displays a level of reading comprehension that makes a statement like this possible:
You have stated you are inconsiderate and proud of it.
and this:
You are asserting a definition that's non standard and backing it up with "she's wronger than me."
and this:
(dishonest quote by way of being made up)
Pedophilia [...] isn't even explicitly about homosexuality.
No, it's implicitly about homosexuality.
[...] However, I do agree that pedophilia isn't about homosexuality. In you contending that it is, [...]
I never contended it is. I contended that others have, in an attempt to malign homosexuality have invoked pedophilia, and as such it is at best an inappropriate comparison.
I'm willing to believe that normally you are a well-balanced and delightful fellow. However, there is no talking to you on this subject, and so I won't. I bid you good day.
Most of your post is contentless ad hominem venting that it's pointless to address. It seems mostly directed at making you yourself happier, which I guess I support so good for you.
Pedophilia [...] isn't even explicitly about homosexuality.
No, it's implicitly about homosexuality.
I never made the statement you attribute to me - the [...] you use is dishonestly used. However, I do agree that pedophilia isn't about homosexuality. In you contending that it is, we are entering a weird world where you are advertising that homosexuals are indeed inextricably linked to pedophilia, and you are doing this to in some way defend homosexuality from people like me who have no problem with it. If that is the case then your sensibilities have been traumatized so throughly by people out to vilify homosexuality that you are now unwittingly doing their bidding.
Just a recap: Lena wrote that you can't oppose one kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation and then be in favor of another kind, because then you position is logically inconsistent. That's easily seen to be false, and an easy way to see that is to point out that most people would not favor employing pedophiles in a kindergarten, which is a kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation, yet I'm sure we can all agree that it is not logically inconsistent to e.g. be in favor of gay marriage and oppose pedophiles in kindergartens.
If, based on that, you go off the handle and think that such an argument contains a statement that homosexuality is at the same moral level as pedophilia (as Lena did), then it is you who are the problem. There is no such statement embedded in that argument. However, once you aggressively extract such a statement, when it isn't there, you are for one showing a great defensiveness on the subject that extends to situations entirely unrelated to it. That does nothing to dismiss the claim you are trying to attack - on the contrary. You end up advertising a contention that had never been brought up and never would have been brought up until you yourself (well, Lena) did.
My point is that not only does this superfluous offense taking and subsequent attack-mode not succeed in the goal of defending homosexuality, in fact it only succeeds in the opposite goal of further linking homosexuality and pedophilia by advertising that bizarre idea. Further, it paints people who support homosexuality as a mob of rabid attack dogs ready to pounce on any imagined slight. I support homosexuality and I don't need that kind of publicity, and neither do the great number of well-balanced homosexuals out there.
I don't understand how there could possibly be any kind of an argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.
Is bestiality a sexual orientation, or a fetish? Are you honestly unable to even understand if someone were to assert that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are the only "orientations" and all other variations are distinguished with different wording, such as calling them fetishes or such?
Yes, in many cases it is up to you to if you want to call something a fetish or a sexual orientation. No, pedophilia is not a fetish though that is a clever attempt. What is more to the point is that even if you insist on classifying pedophilia as a fetish, using the word sexual orientation about pedophilia as opposed to fetish is not offensive, and the statement made by Lena that this is supposed to be about is still clearly wrong even if pedophilia wasn't a sexual orientation - which of course it is.
And, in any case, homosexuality acted on doesn't harm anyone. But sexual abuse of a child is a crime that causes harm. That's why using one to talk about the other is so offensive. And I don't understand how you can not get that.
Sigh, I'm not doing that and so what you are saying is irrelevant and I don't understand how it is possible to miss that. Pedophilia is an easily understood (or so I thought) counterexample to a statement Lena made that isn't even explicitly about homosexuality. It's not hard to understand and it's only offensive to someone who is very confused or looking to take offense based on a keyword match. If you would read what I've been saying rather than going on what other people imagine me to be saying, you would see that.
You made the the case that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation on par with homosexuality and heterosexuality.
I'm blown away by this. On one hand, I don't understand how there could possibly be any kind of an argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. On the other hand, I never made any sort of claim that practicing pedophilia is on par with practicing homosexuality or heterosexuality. In fact, I made an argument whose entire point revolves around this not being the case. You got it completely backwards and it's mystifying to me how you could continue to get it so backwards after having it so carefully explained.
It seems to me from your posts that you are very sensitive to equivocating homosexuality and pedophilia, and for that reason you are seeing it occur in places where no person without such an issue would see it occur. In this case you are reading this equivocation into a post that is in fact based on recognizing that practicing pedophilia is despicable while practicing homosexuality is not.
You seem to be so hung up on this that you even continue this line of thought after having your mistake carefully explained to you. I'm not writing this to aggravate you, I'm writing this in the perhaps naive hope that you can view what you are doing from a perspective that is not distorted by your past experiences which it seems are quite hurtful indeed.
It seems you believe that calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is somehow saying a positive thing about pedophilia, because it puts pedophilia into the same category as non-problematic things such as heterosexuality and homosexuality. Being a sexual orientation is not a badge of honor, it's just a category of things some of which are problematic and some of which are not. If that's not clear, here is an example that I hope you can read in the intended way: I'm guessing that Hitler, Osama bin Laden and many other terrible people eat breakfast and that Jesus also ate breakfast (assuming such a person existed). This puts Hitler and Osama bin Laden in the same category of people as Jesus, namely the category of people who eat breakfast. The appropriate answer to something like that is not to somehow attempt to prove that obviously Hitler and Osama bin laden don't eat breakfast because they are so evil that they can't possibly be in any category that Jesus is in. The appropriate response is to just recognize that there are categories that include both evil and decent people, and eating breakfast is one of them. That doesn't insult Jesus, it's just a fact, and denying it doesn't lead to anything good. In the same way the category of sexual orientations include things that are problematic and things that are not.
In your post you make an argument that pedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation because it's really just about committing horrible crimes. E.g. you say that pedophiles do not pursue consensual relationships - what they do is rape and molest. This line of reasoning shows a misunderstanding of what the word pedophile means and what a sexual orientation is. A pedophile is not someone who has sex with children, a pedophile is someone who is aroused by children and who for that reason feels an urge to have sex with children. A pedophile does not have to act on that urge, just as you or I don't have to attempt to have sex with someone just because we'd like to have sex with that person. So it is true that raping children (i.e. having sex with them) is not a sexual orientation, because that is an actual action while a sexual orientation is not an action. In the same way being a man and having sex with women is not a sexual orientation, but being a man and feeling a desire to have sex with women does constitute a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about desire and not actions, and so the consequences of actually acting on that desire is completely irrelevant to classifying something as a sexual orientation or not. For that precise reason calling something a sexual orientation is not endorsing that thing, and it is not saying something negative about other things that are also sexual orientations.
I'm sure the law mentions gender, but the law does not treat women and men differently. The law is about sexual orientation because it is people of a certain sexual orientation that it treats differently, not people of a certain gender. Homosexual is a sexual orientation and not a gender last time I checked.
You aren't the first asshole to completely be unable to think for yourself you fucking moron. If you had stopped to think even for a second or if you had read my responses to the other posts then you would have discovered that the entire point here is that homosexuality is not like pedophilia in that homosexuality is just fine and pedophilia isn't, and so not all discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem even if discrimination against homosexuals is a problem. The only one talking about and advertising a connection here between homosexuality and pedophilia is you.
I doubt gay employees are required to disclose that they are gay. Obviously then Google can't reimburse them, but then Google probably doesn't mind not reimbursing the gay people who do not want it to be known that they are gay.
Actually you didn't state at any point in your post that you disagreed with me. My post was written with the assumption that you believed that what you wrote was in opposition to what I wrote, even though it wasn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Except my argument doesn't work because pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. The statement I was arguing against is still ridiculous, but it's not shown to be wrong by the particular argument that I made against it.
I had read your other posts; you simply don't get it. You made the the case that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation on par with homosexuality and heterosexuality.
I have since learned that "sexual orientation" does, strangely, connote approval, and that homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality are the only approved sexualities. Thus to say that pedophilia is a sexual orientation actually does imply that pedophilia has achieved a level of recognition on par with homosexuality, which of course it hasn't. So you are right that saying "sexual orientation" does make what one is saying about homosexuality, and putting pedophilia into that context is indeed offensive - it was my mistake.
That being said, a response as from a member of an angry mob still isn't a good way to point out a language mistake, but at least now I know where that came from.
No, the concept of "orientation" is one of gender preference and nothing else.
Yes, that seems to be the public definition. Though actually, from the way people here and in the Wikipedia talk page use the word, it seems that for something to be a political orientation means for it to be on the approved list of general things to be attracted by (general as in not just a fetish). It just so happens that the only approved things on that list are variations of being attracted to males or females.
An example of this is how it was continually pointed out that I was wrong because pedophilia is bad. That only makes sense if sexual orientation is about being approved of rather than being just a fixed thing about gender. In the Wikipedia talk page, one person is pointing out that asexualism (being sexually attracted to nothing) is sometimes being included in sexual orientation because there is no duty to have sex with anyone. I.e. the argument is that asexualism should be on the approved list because it isn't bad.
That seems like an interesting thing to discuss, though I think even you can see that it's not a discussion I'm going to want to have with you. So I bid you good day.
If your suggesting their inability to predict the outcome because of some "randomness" then it stands to reason you are suggesting there is no randomness in the financial sector.
I have suggested no such thing, and neither have I stated any opinion on whether or not they are in fact good at predicting sports games or the economy. Good troll reply to a post about a troll summary. Your only mistake was the mishtake - made it too obvious.
This makes no sense. They might have been completely right that some particular team was most likely to win, but then the randomness of the game made it so that the most likely winner didn't win. We have no way to tell. To evaluate their ability to predict correctly, you would need data for how well they did over the course of many world cups. Besides, they can't possibly do better than the quality of their data and the extent to which that data actually allows to predict the outcome. E.g. if they fail to predict the outcome of a game of stone-paper-scissors, that is hardly saying they aren't good at their jobs. This summary has nothing to do with science, it's a blatant troll.
The link to Wikipedia is the only constructive thing I've seen from you - it was one good move, at least. The essence of the concept of sexual orientation is those things that a person can involuntarily be sexually attracted to and that take a general enough form that it can't be described as a mere fixation or fetish. It seems indeed that I was wrong, because the distillation of this essence in English speaking countries has apparently morphed into a list of a few approved things for people to be attracted to. So there simply is no word for things that people are attracted to that rise beyond a mere fetish, at least not if you want to be politically correct. I was unable to imagine this level of political correctness until some actual evidence opened my eyes. I still have a hard time with the cognitive dissonance of something like that being true of a language like English.
I'm just glad that this is an anonymous forum since otherwise I'd have images of mobs burning down my house. The appropriate response to a language mistake of this nature is to say "Actually, sexual orientation is defined in a very specific way. Here's a link. So your example does not count as a counterexample." What I got was "pedophilia is bad so you are both wrong and evil." Which still makes no sense.
I see that by your reasoning this makes me "incurably stupid". Not that you care, but I'm only writing this post because right is right. That you happen to be right in particular about the definition of sexual orientation does nothing to change my opinion of your behavior in this discussion.
Is there enough fissile material being produced to power the entire nation?
That would be strange, since that would constitute a huge amount of overproduction since fissile material isn't at this time powering the entire nation.
We Americans need to get away from this magic bullet mentality of one thing will solve all our problems.
Build enough nuclear reactors and it really will solve a lot of your energy problems. The problems with nuclear are political rather than technical - it's not that it couldn't or shouldn't be done, it's that people don't want to.
Plus, you get a giant sniper laser beam ready to vaporize anyone you don't like. You even get to blame God for the killings out of the sky.
Giving a loan at less than the going rate is still spending money, because you could have lent those money at the going rate, so you are out the discount that you are giving on the cheap loan. However, as I understand it, the government isn't actually giving a loan in this case, it is guaranteeing the loan. Which means the government does not have to put up the 2 billion, but it will have to reimburse the people giving the loan if the company is unable to pay back. That is still spending money - the money you are spending is on average two billion dollars times the chance that the company won't make a profit. We don't have a good idea of what that chance is, even though it is surely non-zero. So money is being spent, we just can't tell how much it is.
The only situation where I can see that your line of reasoning succeeds is if the banks are simply holding the money and doing nothing with it - i.e. the bank is putting the money it has in a mattress and that's it. Is that what is going on on a large scale?
Your advice would have been timely in the early 1990s and maybe even in the early 2000s. It's completely useless right now.
I'm not giving advice, I'm articulating my puzzlement at this metric of "jobs created" and saying why it puzzles me. At the end I offered a possible reason for why this metric is used, though I don't see how that is advice.
I'm not sure I understand. Won't the funds to support the people who would be unemployed without this project equal the funds to support the people who are unemployed because of the project? I.e. the people who would be employed by those funds otherwise, but now they are unemployed.
I'm always puzzled at this notion that if you allocate money to some project, and as a result that project hires somebody to do a job, then you've created a job. I suppose it is true if we compare what you've done to keeping that money in a mattress. However, if you put it in a bank then the bank is going to invest the money which will move that money into the hands of someone who is doing something with it. That "doing something" is likely going to entail hiring someone at some point. So it mostly doesn't matter how you allocate money: it's mostly always going to create jobs. The government is taking money from people through taxes, thereby preventing those people who originally held the money from putting that money somewhere where it could create jobs - like putting it in the bank, investing it or perhaps just buying sodas. So the government doesn't directly create jobs by allocating money to a project, since jobs would have been there anyway by not collecting that money through taxes in the first place.
Now the economy is not a zero sum game, so it may still sometimes be a good idea to have the government redistribute money to projects that will benefit the country or humankind in the long term, e.g. where those projects wouldn't obtain funding otherwise because the benefits of the project are external and won't be enjoyed directly by the person undertaking the project. Perhaps this project will do that, and perhaps in benefiting us all it will even indirectly create many more jobs than those that are directly necessary for carrying out the project. What I'm puzzled by is just the idea that the direct employees of the project represent "jobs created" when a similar number of jobs would likely exist anyway if the project never existed. I guess the most you can say is that jobs have been created in one state/town/place by removing a similar number of jobs from other states/towns/places, and that is a benefit to the place that is receiving those jobs. So a politician presenting such a project will want to focus on the benefit of jobs created in one place and downplay the harm of removing those jobs elsewhere.
I don't know too much about the US, but my understanding was that if you have no income and no money, then that doesn't get you anything from the government. If it weren't for private charity, people with no income would die from starvation or exposure. In that case there isn't a notion of paying people to sit at home, though perhaps I'm wrong when I think that the government in the US doesn't give money to people with no other income. Am I?
You have stated you are inconsiderate and proud of it.
and this:
You are asserting a definition that's non standard and backing it up with "she's wronger than me."
and this:
(dishonest quote by way of being made up)
Pedophilia [...] isn't even explicitly about homosexuality.
No, it's implicitly about homosexuality.
[...] However, I do agree that pedophilia isn't about homosexuality. In you contending that it is, [...]
I never contended it is. I contended that others have, in an attempt to malign homosexuality have invoked pedophilia, and as such it is at best an inappropriate comparison.
I'm willing to believe that normally you are a well-balanced and delightful fellow. However, there is no talking to you on this subject, and so I won't. I bid you good day.
Pedophilia [...] isn't even explicitly about homosexuality. No, it's implicitly about homosexuality.
I never made the statement you attribute to me - the [...] you use is dishonestly used. However, I do agree that pedophilia isn't about homosexuality. In you contending that it is, we are entering a weird world where you are advertising that homosexuals are indeed inextricably linked to pedophilia, and you are doing this to in some way defend homosexuality from people like me who have no problem with it. If that is the case then your sensibilities have been traumatized so throughly by people out to vilify homosexuality that you are now unwittingly doing their bidding.
Just a recap: Lena wrote that you can't oppose one kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation and then be in favor of another kind, because then you position is logically inconsistent. That's easily seen to be false, and an easy way to see that is to point out that most people would not favor employing pedophiles in a kindergarten, which is a kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation, yet I'm sure we can all agree that it is not logically inconsistent to e.g. be in favor of gay marriage and oppose pedophiles in kindergartens.
If, based on that, you go off the handle and think that such an argument contains a statement that homosexuality is at the same moral level as pedophilia (as Lena did), then it is you who are the problem. There is no such statement embedded in that argument. However, once you aggressively extract such a statement, when it isn't there, you are for one showing a great defensiveness on the subject that extends to situations entirely unrelated to it. That does nothing to dismiss the claim you are trying to attack - on the contrary. You end up advertising a contention that had never been brought up and never would have been brought up until you yourself (well, Lena) did.
My point is that not only does this superfluous offense taking and subsequent attack-mode not succeed in the goal of defending homosexuality, in fact it only succeeds in the opposite goal of further linking homosexuality and pedophilia by advertising that bizarre idea. Further, it paints people who support homosexuality as a mob of rabid attack dogs ready to pounce on any imagined slight. I support homosexuality and I don't need that kind of publicity, and neither do the great number of well-balanced homosexuals out there.
I don't understand how there could possibly be any kind of an argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation.
Is bestiality a sexual orientation, or a fetish? Are you honestly unable to even understand if someone were to assert that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are the only "orientations" and all other variations are distinguished with different wording, such as calling them fetishes or such?
Yes, in many cases it is up to you to if you want to call something a fetish or a sexual orientation. No, pedophilia is not a fetish though that is a clever attempt. What is more to the point is that even if you insist on classifying pedophilia as a fetish, using the word sexual orientation about pedophilia as opposed to fetish is not offensive, and the statement made by Lena that this is supposed to be about is still clearly wrong even if pedophilia wasn't a sexual orientation - which of course it is.
And, in any case, homosexuality acted on doesn't harm anyone. But sexual abuse of a child is a crime that causes harm. That's why using one to talk about the other is so offensive. And I don't understand how you can not get that.
Sigh, I'm not doing that and so what you are saying is irrelevant and I don't understand how it is possible to miss that. Pedophilia is an easily understood (or so I thought) counterexample to a statement Lena made that isn't even explicitly about homosexuality. It's not hard to understand and it's only offensive to someone who is very confused or looking to take offense based on a keyword match. If you would read what I've been saying rather than going on what other people imagine me to be saying, you would see that.
I'm not sure why you're still arguing this point, it makes no sense.
We are going to have to agree on that sentiment.
You made the the case that pedophilia is a form of sexual orientation on par with homosexuality and heterosexuality.
I'm blown away by this. On one hand, I don't understand how there could possibly be any kind of an argument that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. On the other hand, I never made any sort of claim that practicing pedophilia is on par with practicing homosexuality or heterosexuality. In fact, I made an argument whose entire point revolves around this not being the case. You got it completely backwards and it's mystifying to me how you could continue to get it so backwards after having it so carefully explained.
It seems to me from your posts that you are very sensitive to equivocating homosexuality and pedophilia, and for that reason you are seeing it occur in places where no person without such an issue would see it occur. In this case you are reading this equivocation into a post that is in fact based on recognizing that practicing pedophilia is despicable while practicing homosexuality is not.
You seem to be so hung up on this that you even continue this line of thought after having your mistake carefully explained to you. I'm not writing this to aggravate you, I'm writing this in the perhaps naive hope that you can view what you are doing from a perspective that is not distorted by your past experiences which it seems are quite hurtful indeed.
It seems you believe that calling pedophilia a sexual orientation is somehow saying a positive thing about pedophilia, because it puts pedophilia into the same category as non-problematic things such as heterosexuality and homosexuality. Being a sexual orientation is not a badge of honor, it's just a category of things some of which are problematic and some of which are not. If that's not clear, here is an example that I hope you can read in the intended way: I'm guessing that Hitler, Osama bin Laden and many other terrible people eat breakfast and that Jesus also ate breakfast (assuming such a person existed). This puts Hitler and Osama bin Laden in the same category of people as Jesus, namely the category of people who eat breakfast. The appropriate answer to something like that is not to somehow attempt to prove that obviously Hitler and Osama bin laden don't eat breakfast because they are so evil that they can't possibly be in any category that Jesus is in. The appropriate response is to just recognize that there are categories that include both evil and decent people, and eating breakfast is one of them. That doesn't insult Jesus, it's just a fact, and denying it doesn't lead to anything good. In the same way the category of sexual orientations include things that are problematic and things that are not.
In your post you make an argument that pedophilia cannot be a sexual orientation because it's really just about committing horrible crimes. E.g. you say that pedophiles do not pursue consensual relationships - what they do is rape and molest. This line of reasoning shows a misunderstanding of what the word pedophile means and what a sexual orientation is. A pedophile is not someone who has sex with children, a pedophile is someone who is aroused by children and who for that reason feels an urge to have sex with children. A pedophile does not have to act on that urge, just as you or I don't have to attempt to have sex with someone just because we'd like to have sex with that person. So it is true that raping children (i.e. having sex with them) is not a sexual orientation, because that is an actual action while a sexual orientation is not an action. In the same way being a man and having sex with women is not a sexual orientation, but being a man and feeling a desire to have sex with women does constitute a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about desire and not actions, and so the consequences of actually acting on that desire is completely irrelevant to classifying something as a sexual orientation or not. For that precise reason calling something a sexual orientation is not endorsing that thing, and it is not saying something negative about other things that are also sexual orientations.
No, it's decidedly not about sexual orientation. The law says that if you are male, you cannot marry another male (and the same with females).
I take it you don't see a contradiction between these two sentences. In that case I don't know what more there is to say.
Great! :)
I'm sure the law mentions gender, but the law does not treat women and men differently. The law is about sexual orientation because it is people of a certain sexual orientation that it treats differently, not people of a certain gender. Homosexual is a sexual orientation and not a gender last time I checked.
You aren't the first asshole to draw a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
You aren't the first asshole to completely be unable to think for yourself you fucking moron. If you had stopped to think even for a second or if you had read my responses to the other posts then you would have discovered that the entire point here is that homosexuality is not like pedophilia in that homosexuality is just fine and pedophilia isn't, and so not all discrimination based on sexual orientation is a problem even if discrimination against homosexuals is a problem. The only one talking about and advertising a connection here between homosexuality and pedophilia is you.
Don't think they had any movies or 19" servers on them
You should have checked their pants.
I doubt gay employees are required to disclose that they are gay. Obviously then Google can't reimburse them, but then Google probably doesn't mind not reimbursing the gay people who do not want it to be known that they are gay.
Actually you didn't state at any point in your post that you disagreed with me. My post was written with the assumption that you believed that what you wrote was in opposition to what I wrote, even though it wasn't.