MovieChat Forums > BillySlater > Replies
BillySlater's Replies
Well thats the case with most beautiful young actresses, that's not exactly going out on a limb.
Probably because Audrey at 33 could still pass for 25.
Me too.
From what I heard, they would bring Worm back.
Its been brought up quite alot over the years by the original writers, there is no script though AFAIK.
Okay but I still wouldn't watch 9 seasons of a show, I thought was bad.
I find that logic weird. Bad to me is unwatchable.
Yes, you know better than a pathologist.
Paris did look amazing back then. It's a shame how it looks now.
"FF: "The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
BS: This is another straw man."
I was referring to the study you presented as being a strawman response since I never suggested this ----> "To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children."
Knowing that homosexuals disproportionately commit paedophilia has nothing to do with "how often the group as an entity are accused". I haven't even looked at the study but the premise sound incredibly flawed.
"Given that you have shown that you do not like homosexuals because you claim, falsely, that 'they are more likely to be paedos' then me expressing a suspicion that you are just selecting a reason to condemn them, is an attack on your preferred arguments more than you - and is still just a suspicion, not an assertion. If you think it is, you need to get out more."
Agreeing with the BSA that homosexuals should not be scout leaders is not "condemning them".
Its good common sense. Just as I would agree, that young men should not be girl guide leaders or should go out camping with young girls but no one cares about offending heterosexual men because they aren't a politically protected group.
Animals are not relevant to the argument, since animals do not have the same capacity for moral decisions as humans do. I don't make excuses for "immorality in the Bible". I just don't consider God's actions as immoral. Being that he is the source of truth and righteousness, as the Creator of the universe, it is literally impossible for him to be immoral.
"I have to actually assess situations and understand WHY it's bad to do certain actions."
Your concept of bad is corrupted though, since you have your own corrupted standards of good and bad compared to a sinless, perfect, holy and just God.
The NHS cutting their funding, doesn't "discredit" them or invalidate their study. Government funding cuts happen all the time, the organization though still exists.
"Yeah, right. However a mere suspicion is not a strawman."
Right, I never said it was. Was more akin to an ad hominem.
"homosexuals are often paedos". Now you are straw-manning me. I said, homosexuals are disproportionately more likely commit paedophilia than straight men. Based on the study, that is a true statement.
Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?
Objective: To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children. Conclusions: The children [352] studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8008535/
I can't believe you need to be shown this. The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic.
This is another straw man.
"The unfortunate suspicion is that you want homosexuals to be paedophiles so as to condemn them without appearing homophobic."
This is your own false assumption. I was merely pointing out that, the doco was going out of its way not to offend homosexuals which was blatantly apparent.
I thought you could read through the sarcasm. Saying an expert panel convened and gave their opinion on something, isn't scientific at all.
I was merely making an observation about like-minded liberals like yourself, who frequently call out celebrities for being gay and yet say a man who solely targets boys for sexual pleasure isn't homosexual. I said it knowing, your most likely response was that I was straw-manning you, that's fine. The point still stands, someone who gets sexual gratification with someone of the same sex, is homosexual. Age isn't relevant. The definition of a homosexual isn't based on age.
"And I think my morality is substantially less corrupted than yours."
That could well be true, but you have nothing to base that on since you don't know me, so that strikes me as a strange comment.
I agree in a sense though as we are both sinners, our moralities have been corrupted and its in our nature to love sin, the difference is that I realized as a flawed and sinful being, my need for repentance of my sins against a Holy, perfect and just infinite God.
"re: your source The Lantern Project: In 2015 their funding was withdrawn by the NHS and their other 3rd sector backers. After 2015 they no longer offered counselling and now only respond to emails and send out reading material to support those who reach out to them. Funny that."
Yep, how funny they had support withdrawn by the woke NHS, for studies with findings that weren't politically correct (cast homosexuals in an unfavourable light).
"As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143,"
Yeah "an expert panel convened", that sounds real scientific.
Once, you decide to sexually assault children of the same gender, you lose your rights to be called a heterosexual, regardless of whatever your adult preferences are. Of course there are male paedophiles, that are solely satisfied by preying on young boys, and don't bother seeking adult relationships, that doesn't mean they aren't gay. lol
Its funny how Tom Cruise, can be called gay on here for far less, but if you sexually penetrate 300 boys as an adult male, you still aren't gay! MC logic for you folks.
"If sinners were temporarily punished, it would still be immoral. Punishment is only useful to correct someone's behavior."
Punishment isn't exclusively rehabilitative. The criminial justice system punishes also as a form of retribution. We execute people, and lock them up for life, that has nothing to do with rehabilitation.
"If hell is eternal, it's completely arbitrary. My crimes are finite. If I experience every bit of the pain I caused, then any further punishment is unjust."
Your crimes/sins are finite against an infinite God requiring infinite punishment not to mention your morality is also corrupted so you have no idea on what punishment is just or unjust.
"You are entitled to your opinion. But according to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, there is no consensus on whether belief in God or being Christian is required to go to heaven. "
Yes but I don't base my soteriology on a survey, I base it on what's written in scripture. There is no consensus in surveys because many Christians who claim to be Christian are not.
I also don't know about "early Christian texts" that are not part of the Bible. I would consider them apocrypha.
I am not concerned about where I am going next though. I am not trying to earn my salvation. Scripture says you are saved once you truly believe. The concern is for others who are not saved, that said, there is only so much you can do and say to an unbeliever.
Yeah, nah. It's an ensemble piece yes, but McQueen still got top billing. That makes him the star as early as 1963.