• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Republicans Seem To Have A Big Pedophile Problem


I'm just wondering if any of our forum "grammar" nazis will now begin a crusade about how "child" means a certain age range and not any particular minor as if there's a distinction that matters in this context.
I have three children and the youngest is now 42, but each of them is still my child. The word child has never had definite boundaries and common usage has pushed the upper limit higher in the past couple centuries. The laws that deal with this sort of thing seldom use the word child. This is probably more to do with Legalese preferring Latin root words, so minor wins out over child. Minority, in the eyes of the law is very specifically defined.

That said, calling someone a "minor molester" doesn't have the same punch.
 

Was this already mentioned? It's all so similar, I am getting confused.
 

Was this already mentioned? It's all so similar, I am getting confused.
It was probably another MAGA pastor.
 

Was this already mentioned? It's all so similar, I am getting confused.
I wasn't even joking.

 

Was this already mentioned? It's all so similar, I am getting confused.
It was probably another MAGA pastor.

Ya this was a different pedo Texas Megachurch guy I posted a couple days ago.

 
And now we have a celebrated Texas Republican, once Governor of Texas and now Senator, saying we should stop going after pedophiles.

That means Ted Cruz is a pedophile.
No. It could mean he's protecting someone who is a pedophile.
 
What words actually mean is not a "semantic loophole". I do not think it's appropriate for >30 to go after, say, 15 year olds, but it's not "pedophilia" either, as the latter refers specifically to an attraction to prepubescent children.
Yup. I'll go a bit farther and say I do not think it's appropriate for anyone to go after someone substantially younger regardless of age. But that does not mean I think it's automatically wrong for an age gap relationship to exist. Sometimes proximity turns into something more, tread with caution but I do not consider such automatically wrong. (Fair disclosure: I'm the younger half of such a situation. Neither of us even thought the other was available, there certainly was no going after. It was just we both came to realize that our hearts had their own idea about the situation.)

While I think it is wrong to pay a 17 year old for sex, it certainly is not "pedophilia", since a 17 year old is developmentally hardly different from an 18 year old, or even a 20 year old.
Yup. I'd go further and say that the age of consent for sex work should be 21, but it's not a matter of pedophilia.
 
The sad part is that this pedophile problem isn't confined to one party. As long as you keep saying "they are doing it" it won't get fixed.
He said, when it is, in fact, largely confined to one party.

To see which party, check out to see which senators vote down age requirements for marriage and which people support child beauty pageants...
You want me to say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one" so that I can say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one".... The standard derail. Not interested.

It isn't confined to one party, and neither party has institutional support for pedophilia.
 
The sad part is that this pedophile problem isn't confined to one party. As long as you keep saying "they are doing it" it won't get fixed.
He said, when it is, in fact, largely confined to one party.

To see which party, check out to see which senators vote down age requirements for marriage and which people support child beauty pageants...
You want me to say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one" so that I can say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one".... The standard derail. Not interested.
Ironically, the standard derail is “It isn't confined to one party”.
 
The sad part is that this pedophile problem isn't confined to one party. As long as you keep saying "they are doing it" it won't get fixed.
He said, when it is, in fact, largely confined to one party.

To see which party, check out to see which senators vote down age requirements for marriage and which people support child beauty pageants...
You want me to say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one" so that I can say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one".... The standard derail. Not interested.
Ironically, the standard derail is “It isn't confined to one party”.
The standard derail is for both parties to throw examples of the other party at each other. That enables both participants to ignore the larger problem, the way you are doing.
 
The larger problem is the alignment behind pedophiles that is apparent within the Republican party, and largely absent of the Democrats.
 
The larger problem is the alignment behind pedophiles that is apparent within the Republican party, and largely absent of the Democrats.
Plenty of dems who don't like Bill or Hillary Clinton too (impossible for right wingers to understand this).
 
The sad part is that this pedophile problem isn't confined to one party. As long as you keep saying "they are doing it" it won't get fixed.
He said, when it is, in fact, largely confined to one party.

To see which party, check out to see which senators vote down age requirements for marriage and which people support child beauty pageants...
You want me to say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one" so that I can say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one".... The standard derail. Not interested.
Ironically, the standard derail is “It isn't confined to one party”.
The standard derail is for both parties to throw examples of the other party at each other. That enables both participants to ignore the larger problem, the way you are doing.
I ignore nothing which is why I pointout
1) your whataboutism derail, and
2) your “not confined to one party “ means pedophilia is a problem for the Libertarian party.
 
The sad part is that this pedophile problem isn't confined to one party. As long as you keep saying "they are doing it" it won't get fixed.
He said, when it is, in fact, largely confined to one party.

To see which party, check out to see which senators vote down age requirements for marriage and which people support child beauty pageants...
You want me to say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one" so that I can say "here's one" so that you can say "here's one".... The standard derail. Not interested.
Ironically, the standard derail is “It isn't confined to one party”.
The standard derail is for both parties to throw examples of the other party at each other. That enables both participants to ignore the larger problem, the way you are doing.
I ignore nothing which is why I pointout
1) your whataboutism derail, and
2) your “not confined to one party “ means pedophilia is a problem for the Libertarian party.
Possibly even in the immediate sense, given the fact he's deflecting from active, current discussions of current pedophilia involving primary players within the party with irrelevant garbage.
 
Back
Top Bottom