If you read the originator's response in
Message 78 to NJ's
Post 73.
Is has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the laws of the U.S., which to remind you for the umpteenth time is the topic here.
Since the originator had already noted, in very large lettering, that those issues were off topic; there was no need to act. In a situation like that I tend to wait and see if others heed the originator.
Unfortunately, you picked up on the off topic portion, made your question personal and inflammatory.
Whether you like what NJ wrote or not, he did not make it personal. He presented his position and the originator deemed it off topic.
quote:
How is my calling on him to justify his rhetoric "arguing the person" when his rhetoric is not?
I find it very hard to believe that you don't understand the difference in the wording.
NJ writes:
Either sailors are prone to debauchery (very likely, actually), or pedophilia is on the rise.
Rrhain writes:
Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?
NJ writes:
When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things.
Rrhain writes:
Tell us, NJ, what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?
Why is it we allow heterosexuality but don't allow you to rape your infant son?
quote:
If we don't allow racism, why do we allow homophobia? If it is always inappropriate to call people who aren't white rapists, why is it acceptable to call people who aren't straight rapists?
If he had said that it would have been considered inappropriate and inflammatory, but that is not what he said.
It is not our job to censor minority or offensive views, but to make sure they are not presented in a manner contrary to the forum guidelines.