Dumbledore is Gay? That's creepy.
doofy
Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for him". And how
Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
santosh
I hope you're joking?
RobMac
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffct9v$1fo$1...@aioe.org...
Nope. JKR herself outed good'ole Dumblydore....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071020/D8SCUJG00.html
Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would periodically catch DD
looking at him" (that was outside the necessary plot development)....where'd
that one come from??
Um....I kinda agree with the last bit, tho....
How odd that JKR's outing of Dumbledore comes (heh heh) on Michael Gambon's
birthday, no less!!!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mr Markham
> "santosh" <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ffct9v$1fo$1...@aioe.org...
>
> > doofy wrote:
>
> >> Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being Minister
> >> of
> >> Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for him". And how
> >> Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
>
> >> I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
>
> > I hope you're joking?
>
>
> Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would periodically catch DD
> looking at him" (that was outside the necessary plot development)....where'd
> that one come from??
>
> Um....I kinda agree with the last bit, tho....
>
> How odd that JKR's outing of Dumbledore comes (heh heh) on Michael Gambon's
> birthday, no less!!!
>
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Well,when you think about all the crap that JK Rowling took from fans
for the years that the Harry Potter series was going, what with
incessant questions and pleas not to kill favorite characters......if
I were her, I'd fuck with people's perceptions about the characters
every goddamned day of my life. "What? How does Hagrid's life really
turn out? He goes fucking mental when he figures out he'll never get
laid by that French giantess and he gets drunk and climbs up a spire
at Hogwarts like King Kong, except Hagrid's got a magic never-emptying
Glock that he shoots all the kids with. First thing, he blows the head
off Miss McGonagle in, like, one shot.
That " ' Unbeatable wand'" thing? You *know* where I was going with
that. Severus Snape? Dumbledore's bitch in every way. What, you guys
didn't figure that out?"
James Egan
I believe JKR was joking about Dumbledore being gay, because of the black
helicopter conspiracy theories and fan fiction circulating on the
Internet. She refers to Dumbledore's being gay as"fan fiction":
Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."
Also, there was never any indication in any of her books that Dumbledore
was gay. Just because be didn't have a love interest doesn't mean he's
gay. Neither did McGonagle and others. Regardless, if she attempts to
turn Dumbledore into some gay crusade, I'll lose my respect for the
woman, which was already diminished by her obsession with the death and
the killing of characters that would inevitably break children's hearts.
The woman is obsessed with death!
Hey, I know, why don't JKR make Dumbledore gay AND a child molester! That
would coincide with her obsession of teaching young children that bad
things happen! Give me a break.
DaveD
"doofy" <no...@notme.com> wrote in message
news:4719f238$0$14075$742e...@news.sonic.net...
For god's sake, you can care about someone without fancying them. I'm very
close to a number of female friends but don't fancy any of them. There's
plenty of acceptable reasons why Dd would have "cared too much" for Harry -
a sense of having failed him by not helping protect his parents better, for
having educated Riddle and given him too many chances and not enough
direction resulting in him becoming the monster who killed Harry's parents,
and seeing a child who's been through hell yet is loving and courageous,
perhaps the qualities Dd himself values most.
I think his concern in that sentence was that he was losing objectivity and
he was afraid his reasoning might be compromised. And he didn't want to
become MoM because he knew power was his weakness - sounds pretty decent to
me, not creepy.
DaveD
DaveD
"James Egan" <jega...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4PSdnbmv9p73nYfa...@comcast.com...
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:18:52 -0700, doofy wrote:
>
>> Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being Minister of
>> Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for him". And how
>> Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
>>
>> I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
>
>
> I believe JKR was joking about Dumbledore being gay, because of the black
> helicopter conspiracy theories
What "black helicopter" theories??? (Hope I'm not opening a huge can of
worms with that question...)
> ...and fan fiction circulating on the
> Internet. She refers to Dumbledore's being gay as"fan fiction":
>
> Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
> "Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."
But that's just it - his love WAS his great tragedy: he was in love with
Grindenwald which blinded him to the evil side of Gw's philosophy - at least
for a while, till his better judgement reasserted itself. So she was
actually being quite honest (though also slightly misleading - as ever!) -
we just didn't know it yet because we didn't know the backstory about Dd and
Gw being friends years ago (and perhaps more than that).
But it sounds to me like she was serious about it in the interview, hence
the note to the screenwriter, and it also supports the story arc in the last
book.
> Also, there was never any indication in any of her books that Dumbledore
> was gay. Just because be didn't have a love interest doesn't mean he's
> gay. Neither did McGonagle and others. Regardless, if she attempts to
> turn Dumbledore into some gay crusade, I'll lose my respect for the
> woman, which was already diminished by her obsession with the death and
> the killing of characters that would inevitably break children's hearts.
> The woman is obsessed with death!
I don't think Dd being (almost incidentally) gay has to be a "gay crusade".
It's just a fact, the same way he had piercing blue eyes and a long beard.
He was tall, and oh yeah, he was also gay. Big deal. Why make it into
anything bigger?
> Hey, I know, why don't JKR make Dumbledore gay AND a child molester! That
> would coincide with her obsession of teaching young children that bad
> things happen! Give me a break.
Well at least you seem to understand gay doesn't equal child molester - I
think... Though that would probably bring them together in many reader's
eyes. Not really worth answering that point though.
Anyway, we see lots of established couples in the books - Arthur and Molly,
Tonks and Remus, Lily and James - as well as more ephemeral or more recent
ones such as Hagrid and Madam Maxime; Hermione and Viktor first, then Ron;
Ron and LavLav then Hermy; Harry and Cho then Ginny; Ginny and - well, quite
a few boys before Harry! So why not a gay couple somewhere in the backstory
that's just alluded to? Just reflective of life, no "Big Point" or
anything - unless you choose to make it one.
DaveD
doofy
> "santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ffct9v$1fo$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>doofy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being Minister
>>>of
>>> Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for him". And how
>>>Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
>>>
>>>I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
>>
>>I hope you're joking?
>>
>>
>
>
> Nope. JKR herself outed good'ole Dumblydore....
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071020/D8SCUJG00.html
>
> Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would periodically catch DD
> looking at him" (that was outside the necessary plot development)....where'd
> that one come from??
At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting. Seems like it
happened when DD was also trying to avoid looking at Harry in OOTP.
Could be a couple other times.
doofy
>
> "doofy" <no...@notme.com> wrote in message
> news:4719f238$0$14075$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>> Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being Minister
>> of Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for him". And how
>> Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
>>
>> I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
>
>
>
> For god's sake, you can care about someone without fancying them. I'm
> very close to a number of female friends but don't fancy any of them.
That must mean you're gay! ;-) Just kidding.
doofy
About which part?
DaveD
Huh? I think I missed something there (or confused myself lol) - I am gay!
I'm also close to male friends and don't fancy (many of) them either.
DaveD
Ron Hunter
It doesn't, to you, and to me, but to the majority it DOES. The truth
doesn't matter to those so blinded by hysteria that refuse to believe
facts. If you want to see just how MANY people believe that, try going
to a public park and watching the children. That is a middle aged male,
alone, in a park watching the children play. You won't have to wait
long for the police. Take a camera with you, and I promise you WILL get
a trip to the station.
Mr Markham
Wow. You got trolled by Jk Rowling. Now that is the real magic, the
magic of being trolled by a celebrity.
That is The Shit, baby.
nospam
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever from ANY of the books that
Dumbledore was gay, yet you assert that he was in love with Grindenwald.
You only want it to be true.
>
>> Also, there was never any indication in any of her books that Dumbledore
>> was gay. Just because be didn't have a love interest doesn't mean he's
>> gay. Neither did McGonagle and others. Regardless, if she attempts to
>> turn Dumbledore into some gay crusade, I'll lose my respect for the
>> woman, which was already diminished by her obsession with the death and
>> the killing of characters that would inevitably break children's hearts.
>> The woman is obsessed with death!
>
>
> I don't think Dd being (almost incidentally) gay has to be a "gay crusade".
> It's just a fact, the same way he had piercing blue eyes and a long beard.
> He was tall, and oh yeah, he was also gay. Big deal. Why make it into
> anything bigger?
Hollywierd and the liberal media IS on a gay crusade, constantly
celebrating homosexuality, or as they say, running it up a flagpole.
It's so obvious. I have nothing against gays, only the liberal
establishment's constant pushing of the gay agenda. In case you haven't
heard, it's a political issue between the liberals and evil Christians.
Read some of the other threads in this newsgroup and see how derogatory
they speak of Christains.
>
>> Hey, I know, why don't JKR make Dumbledore gay AND a child molester! That
>> would coincide with her obsession of teaching young children that bad
>> things happen! Give me a break.
>
>
> Well at least you seem to understand gay doesn't equal child molester - I
> think... Though that would probably bring them together in many reader's
> eyes. Not really worth answering that point though.
If you are not aware of the correlation between homosexuality and child
molestation, you need to look it up.
>
> Anyway, we see lots of established couples in the books - Arthur and Molly,
> Tonks and Remus, Lily and James - as well as more ephemeral or more recent
> ones such as Hagrid and Madam Maxime; Hermione and Viktor first, then Ron;
> Ron and LavLav then Hermy; Harry and Cho then Ginny; Ginny and - well, quite
> a few boys before Harry! So why not a gay couple somewhere in the backstory
> that's just alluded to? Just reflective of life, no "Big Point" or
> anything - unless you choose to make it one.
By including references to gays it IS a big point. Haven't you heard
about "My Two Dads", or any of the pro-homosexual books being pushed down
childrens and parents throats in the public schools? It's a big issue!
As I said, I don't have anything against gays, but I don't want my
children being indoctrinated at such a young age either.
>
> DaveD
doofy
>
> "doofy" <no...@notme.com> wrote in message
> news:471a13fb$0$14090$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>> DaveD wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "doofy" <no...@notme.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4719f238$0$14075$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>
>>>> Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being
>>>> Minister of Magic, and kept telling Harry he "cared too much for
>>>> him". And how Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't need that. However, Michael Gambon does give off gay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For god's sake, you can care about someone without fancying them. I'm
>>> very close to a number of female friends but don't fancy any of them.
>>
>>
>> That must mean you're gay! ;-) Just kidding.
>
>
>
> Huh? I think I missed something there (or confused myself lol) - I am
> gay! I'm also close to male friends and don't fancy (many of) them either.
Then they must be ugly! Still kidding.
doofy
>>> Hey, I know, why don't JKR make Dumbledore gay AND a child molester!
>>> That
>>> would coincide with her obsession of teaching young children that bad
>>> things happen! Give me a break.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well at least you seem to understand gay doesn't equal child molester
>> - I think... Though that would probably bring them together in many
>> reader's eyes. Not really worth answering that point though.
>>
>>
>
> It doesn't, to you, and to me, but to the majority it DOES. The truth
> doesn't matter to those so blinded by hysteria that refuse to believe
> facts. If you want to see just how MANY people believe that, try going
> to a public park and watching the children. That is a middle aged male,
> alone, in a park watching the children play. You won't have to wait
> long for the police. Take a camera with you, and I promise you WILL get
> a trip to the station.
Define "child". There is a very strong undercurrent in the gay
community about an attraction to youth. I think that attraction to
teens in mid to late puberty might be a gray area that doesn't really
get addressed in the argument of gay vs child molester. This is
discussed by some older gays as they see their relative attractiveness
dwindle as they get older (well, don't we all, but this is more so).
So, legal definition aside, what is the cultural definition of young men
vs teenager?
And I'm not really wanting to get up in arms on this, just positing some
things. I also know of three gay men who were in my public school
system, and often had teenagers over for beer. You can say that is a
small statistic, but when you're confronted with it, it looms a bit larger.
RobMac
> celebrating homosexuality, or as they say, running it up a flagpole.
> It's so obvious. I have nothing against gays, only the liberal
> establishment's constant pushing of the gay agenda. In case you haven't
> heard, it's a political issue between the liberals and evil Christians.
> Read some of the other threads in this newsgroup and see how derogatory
> they speak of Christains.
Please define "Gay Agenda"
I always hear the Cristian Right spouting this stuff, but no one *EVER* has
a definition of what it is and why they're so scared of it.
Please, enlighten us all....
> If you are not aware of the correlation between homosexuality and child
> molestation, you need to look it up.
Where? There has NEVER been any evidence that gays are more or less inclined
toward child molestation than the heterosexual variety of pervert. This,
again, is something that is spouted, and perpetuated, by the Christian Right
without any merit or basis in fact.
Bigots.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
Eric Bohlman
news:2q-dnSNL0YnZgIfa...@comcast.com:
> If you are not aware of the correlation between homosexuality and
> child molestation, you need to look it up.
See http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
Where you'll find that said correlation is zero. If you're going to
reference Cameron or Reisman, keep in mind that several experts in child
sexual abuse have had to threaten legal action against them for deliberate
misquoting.
Bill Blakely
No, JKR said it was true. Did you read the news?
Yeah, right, you don't have anything against gays except the fact
they're child molesters.
I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard phrases like "I have nothing
against gays..." used without it being a prelude to a round of
gay-bashing.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
santosh
> DaveD wrote:
<snip>
>> Well at least you seem to understand gay doesn't equal child molester
>> - I think... Though that would probably bring them together in many
>> reader's eyes. Not really worth answering that point though.
>>
>>
> It doesn't, to you, and to me, but to the majority it DOES. The truth
> doesn't matter to those so blinded by hysteria that refuse to believe
> facts. If you want to see just how MANY people believe that, try
> going to a public park and watching the children. That is a middle
> aged male, alone, in a park watching the children play. You won't
> have to wait long for the police. Take a camera with you, and I
> promise you WILL get a trip to the station.
So bad? It hasn't /yet/ got to this level of hysteria over here.
Fish Eye no Miko
> RobMac wrote:
> > Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
> > periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
> > the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
> > come from??
>
> At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people still believe
this gay=pedophile shit?
Fish Eye no Miko
> Define "child". There is a very strong undercurrent in
> the gay community about an attraction to youth.
As opposed to straight guys, who would NEVER show an attraction to
underaged girls.
Please... people of both genders and all sexualities are attracted
younger people. To try to make it a "gay" thing ignores the fact that
it's a HUMAN thing.
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an intersection.
And you have to question the motivations of gay men who want to be scout
masters, or priests, or any other position where they get broad access
to young men. No, it is not a 100% correlation. However, it might be
somewhere along the lines of 10-25%. No, I don't have any "proof"
except for my observations in school.
Is a gay man coming on to an older male teen considered child
molestation? And I'm not talking about DD looking at Harry here. I'm
trying to set a baseline.
santosh
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 7:41 am, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RobMac wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
>>>>periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
>>>>the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
>>>>come from??
>>>
>>>At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
>>
>>
>> Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
>>
>> Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people still believe
>> this gay=pedophile shit?
>>
>
> Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an intersection.
How are "gay" child molesters any worse than regular ones? You are
either a paedophile or you are not. It's that simple.
And if you are _not_ a paedophile and your sexual activities are with
consenting adults then what matters whether you're gay or straight?
> And you have to question the motivations of gay men who want to be
> scout masters, or priests, or any other position where they get broad
> access to young men. No, it is not a 100% correlation.
"Correlations" can be engineered to show virtually anything you want. It
doesn't prove a damn thing.
<snip>
> Is a gay man coming on to an older male teen considered child
> molestation? And I'm not talking about DD looking at Harry here. I'm
> trying to set a baseline.
This is a grey area. Obviously some minima is needed for meaningful
legal procedures, but in real life things are more complicated. I think
for any case involving people over 17 years of age, a fair study of the
actual case has to be made, rather than pronouncing judgement just
based on the age of one of the parties involved.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> > doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> >>RobMac wrote:
> >>
> >>>Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
> >>>periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
> >>>the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
> >>>come from??
>
> >>At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
>
> > Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
>
> > Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people
> > still believe this gay=pedophile shit?
>
> Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an
> intersection.
There's also an intersection of "straight" and "pedophile". Before
this revelation, you ever assume DD was staying at Hogwarts to diddle
the female students?
> And you have to question the motivations of gay men who
> want to be scout masters, or priests, or any other position
> where they get broad access to young men.
And what of straight men who have access to young women? And women
who have access to young adult members of whichever gender they're
attracted to? I've seen a fair number of articles about female
teachers having sex with their underaged students.
> No, it is not a 100% correlation. However, it might be
> somewhere along the lines of 10-25%.
Which is probably the same percentage among straight men.
> No, I don't have any "proof" except for my observations in
> school.
And yet, you use them to make assumptions about a fictional character
who has shown no such predilections.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> DaveD wrote:
>
> > Well at least you seem to understand gay doesn't equal
> > child molester - I think... Though that would probably
> > bring them together in many reader's eyes. Not really worth
> > answering that point though.
>
> It doesn't, to you, and to me, but to the majority it DOES.
> The truth doesn't matter to those so blinded by hysteria that
> refuse to believe facts. If you want to see just how MANY
> people believe that, try going to a public park and watching
> the children. That is a middle aged male, alone, in a park
> watching the children play. You won't have to wait long
> for the police. Take a camera with you, and I promise
> you WILL get a trip to the station.
That's not "gay = pedophile", that "MALE=pedophile". Which is just as
ridiculous.
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
> On Oct 20, 1:58 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>
>>>doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>RobMac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
>>>>>periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
>>>>>the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
>>>>>come from??
>>
>>>>At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
>>
>>>Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
>>
>>>Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people
>>>still believe this gay=pedophile shit?
>>
>>Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an
>>intersection.
>
>
> There's also an intersection of "straight" and "pedophile". Before
> this revelation, you ever assume DD was staying at Hogwarts to diddle
> the female students?
Seems like Harry was the focus of his attentions. And, given JKR's
"revelation", it does make things feel creepy.
>
>
>>And you have to question the motivations of gay men who
>>want to be scout masters, or priests, or any other position
>>where they get broad access to young men.
>
>
> And what of straight men who have access to young women? And women
> who have access to young adult members of whichever gender they're
> attracted to? I've seen a fair number of articles about female
> teachers having sex with their underaged students.
I would be unopposed to that too. However, I'm more opposed to someone
trying to coerce someone into a sex act that doesn't match their sexual
preferences.
>
>
>>No, it is not a 100% correlation. However, it might be
>>somewhere along the lines of 10-25%.
>
>
> Which is probably the same percentage among straight men.
No argument.
>
>
>>No, I don't have any "proof" except for my observations in
>>school.
>
>
> And yet, you use them to make assumptions about a fictional character
> who has shown no such predilections.
I'm saying it makes things feel creepy.
santosh
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 1:58 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>>
>>>>doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>RobMac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
>>>>>>periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
>>>>>>the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
>>>>>>come from??
>>>
>>>>>At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
>>>
>>>>Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
>>>
>>>>Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people
>>>>still believe this gay=pedophile shit?
>>>
>>>Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an
>>>intersection.
>>
>>
>> There's also an intersection of "straight" and "pedophile". Before
>> this revelation, you ever assume DD was staying at Hogwarts to diddle
>> the female students?
>
> Seems like Harry was the focus of his attentions.
Because he was crucial for the larger War against the Dark.
> And, given JKR's
> "revelation", it does make things feel creepy.
Not to me. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay, not that he was a
paedophile. You seem to consider both terms as synonymous.
<snip>
santosh
Not quite. I have sneaky suspicion that the second of those equations
might have some truth behind it.
doofy
doofy
> santosh wrote:
>> Not to me. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay, not that he was a
>> paedophile. You seem to consider both terms as synonymous.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
> I'm saying it feels creepy, and the possibility is there.
Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile, but I
think we're possibly getting there, though it will be a target with
multiple bull-eyes, depending on the person.
And this has diverged considerably from DD anyway. I'm more thinking
about the three men from my school days.
santosh
> doofy wrote:
>> santosh wrote:
>>> Not to me. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay, not that he was a
>>> paedophile. You seem to consider both terms as synonymous.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>> I'm saying it feels creepy, and the possibility is there.
>
>
>
> Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile,
You mean _your_ personal definition [...]
doofy
Actually I'm trying to draw people focus to an area the tends to get
glossed over in the gay vs pedophile argument.
Since there is no instances of anything overt in DD actions, or
interactions, that is out of the equation. I'm just trying to focus a
bit on this one area and see if it might clear up some "differences of
opinion".
My personal definition is the 18 years old age of consent. I realize
there's gray areas in that. However, I have a much stronger aversion to
someone trying to force an alien sexual predilection on a younger
person. I think it "CAN" lead to more damage, but this is all theoretical.
Do I condone sex between teens and an adult of the opposite sex? No.
Just in case that was coming.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> >>>Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people
> >>>still believe this gay=pedophile shit?
> >>
> >>Do you known what a Venn diagram is? There is an
> >>intersection.
> >
> > There's also an intersection of "straight" and "pedophile".
> > Before this revelation, you ever assume DD was staying at
> > Hogwarts to diddle the female students?
>
> Seems like Harry was the focus of his attentions.
Wow. The kid who's gonna save the world got most of is attention.
What a shock.
Besides, maybe you're forgetting that the books form Harry's POV. The
only time we ever saw DD was when he was around Harry!
> And, given JKR's "revelation", it does make things
> feel creepy.
No, it might creep YOU out, but that's your problem.
> >>And you have to question the motivations of gay men who
> >>want to be scout masters, or priests, or any other position
> >>where they get broad access to young men.
>
> > And what of straight men who have access to young women?
> > And women who have access to young adult members of
> > whichever gender they're attracted to? I've seen a fair number
> > of articles about female teachers having sex with their
> > underaged students.
>
> I would be unopposed to that too.
"Unoposed"? You'd be ok with it?
> However, I'm more opposed to someone trying to
> coerce someone into a sex act that doesn't match
> their sexual preferences.
Well, yeah.
And this has what to do with anything?
> >>No, it is not a 100% correlation. However, it might be
> >>somewhere along the lines of 10-25%.
>
> > Which is probably the same percentage among straight
> > men.
>
> No argument.
And yet, DD's being the Headmaster only became a problem for you after
it was revealed he was gay.
> >>No, I don't have any "proof" except for my observations in
> >>school.
>
> > And yet, you use them to make assumptions about a
> > fictional character who has shown no such predilections.
>
> I'm saying it makes things feel creepy.
No, it makes things feel creepy FOR YOU. Which is your issue, and
nothing to do with anything that's actually in the books.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile,
You're on the largest depository of knowledge in the HISTORY OF THE
WORLD, and you can't find out a definition of a word?
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
> On Oct 20, 2:17 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>
>
>>And, given JKR's "revelation", it does make things
>>feel creepy.
>
>
> No, it might creep YOU out, but that's your problem.
>
Yes. And your point?
>>>And what of straight men who have access to young women?
>>>And women who have access to young adult members of
>>>whichever gender they're attracted to? I've seen a fair number
>>>of articles about female teachers having sex with their
>>>underaged students.
>>
>>I would be unopposed to that too.
>
>
> "Unoposed"? You'd be ok with it?
>
Sorry, got lost in a double negative. And I thought I was being smart.
I am opposed to it.
>
>>However, I'm more opposed to someone trying to
>>coerce someone into a sex act that doesn't match
>>their sexual preferences.
>
>
> Well, yeah.
> And this has what to do with anything?
>
>
My feeling creepy. Is your debate style always riddled with personal
attacks? Mine is sometimes. I'm just asking.
>>>>No, it is not a 100% correlation. However, it might be
>>>>somewhere along the lines of 10-25%.
>>
>>>Which is probably the same percentage among straight
>>>men.
>>
>>No argument.
>
>
> And yet, DD's being the Headmaster only became a problem for you after
> it was revealed he was gay.
>
I said it made me feel creepy.
>
>>>>No, I don't have any "proof" except for my observations in
>>>>school.
>>
>>>And yet, you use them to make assumptions about a
>>>fictional character who has shown no such predilections.
>>
>>I'm saying it makes things feel creepy.
>
>
> No, it makes things feel creepy FOR YOU. Which is your issue, and
> nothing to do with anything that's actually in the books.
None of this is actually in the books. It's a debate. So, at what age
of the victim is someone considered a pedophile?
Name an age. Bet you can't do it without a personal attack.
doofy
Your definition will suffice, since, I believe, you first threw the word
out on this thread. I could be wrong about that. I'm trying to bring
some light on the "gay vs pedophile" argument and why there might be
some disagreements.
I realize your continued answer will likely be this is my problem, but
just humor me and give your own response.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Actually I'm trying to draw people focus to an area the
> tends to get glossed over in the gay vs pedophile
> argument.
Which is what?
> Since there is no instances of anything overt in DD
> actions, or interactions, that is out of the equation.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
And if that's out of the equation, why are you still talking about
this here? This is for discussions of Harry Potter, not your own
sexual issues.
> I'm just trying to focus a bit on this one area and see
> if it might clear up some "differences of opinion".
> My personal definition is the 18 years old age of consent.
Which is actually not that common. In many places, it's younger than
that.
> I realize there's gray areas in that. However, I have a
> much stronger aversion to someone trying to force an
> alien sexual predilection on a younger person.
You can't make people gay.
> I think it "CAN" lead to more damage, but this is all
> theoretical.
And yet you keep bringing it up.
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
Ok, this was the post I remembered, but you were not the first to bring
up the pedophile issue.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> > doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile,
> >
> > You're on the largest depository of knowledge in the
> > HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and you can't find out a
> > definition of a word?
>
> Your definition will suffice, since, I believe, you first threw
> the word out on this thread.
Only because you were practically saying it.
> I could be wrong about that. I'm trying to bring some
> light on the "gay vs pedophile" argument and why there
> might be some disagreements.
There are disagreements because YOU implied that DD was a pedophile,
based entirely on the revelation that he's gay. And you wonder why
people would disagree with that?
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> > doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> >>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> >>And, given JKR's "revelation", it does make things
> >>feel creepy.
>
> > No, it might creep YOU out, but that's your problem.
>
> Yes. And your point?
You're saying it in a way that implies that it's a fact we would all
agree with.
Is that what you meant by a personal attack? The reason I keep
pointing out that this is your issue is that you keep saying it makes
things "feel creepy", which is a general statement that relates to
more than just you. If it makes you feel creepy, you need to state it
that way, and not state it so generally.
> >>>And what of straight men who have access to young
> >>>women? And women who have access to young adult
> >>>members of whichever gender they're attracted to?
> >>>I've seen a fair number of articles about female
> >>>teachers having sex with their underaged students.
> >>
> >>I would be unopposed to that too.
>
> > "Unoposed"? You'd be ok with it?
>
> Sorry, got lost in a double negative. And I thought I was
> being smart. I am opposed to it.
Ok.
> >>However, I'm more opposed to someone trying to
> >>coerce someone into a sex act that doesn't match
> >>their sexual preferences.
>
> > Well, yeah.
> > And this has what to do with anything?
>
> My feeling creepy. Is your debate style always riddled
> with personal attacks?
How is asking you the relevance of your point a personal attack? This
is a Harry Potter ng, and you're talking about things that have
nothing to do wit HP.
> > And yet, DD's being the Headmaster only became a
> > problem for you after it was revealed he was gay.
>
> I said it made me feel creepy.
Yes, I know that. And I'm pointing out that this only happened after
he was revealed to be gay.
> > No, it makes things feel creepy FOR YOU. Which is your
> > issue, and nothing to do with anything that's actually in the
> > books.
>
> None of this is actually in the books. It's a debate. So, at
> what age of the victim is someone considered a pedophile?
> Name an age. Bet you can't do it without a personal attack.
I won't name an age, since that's not how human sexuality works.
Catherine Johnson.
Thom Madura
Gee - not even all Gay Priests are Pedophiles!
Yellow
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> > There's also an intersection of "straight" and "pedophile". Before
> > this revelation, you ever assume DD was staying at Hogwarts to diddle
> > the female students?
>
> Seems like Harry was the focus of his attentions. And, given JKR's
> "revelation", it does make things feel creepy.
Tell me, if Harry had instead been Harriet and Dumbledore was straight,
would this also have made you feel "creepy"?
Edward McArdle
"RobMac" <rpmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hollywierd and the liberal media IS on a gay crusade, constantly
> > celebrating homosexuality, or as they say, running it up a flagpole.
> > It's so obvious. I have nothing against gays, only the liberal
> > establishment's constant pushing of the gay agenda. In case you haven't
> > heard, it's a political issue between the liberals and evil Christians.
> > Read some of the other threads in this newsgroup and see how derogatory
> > they speak of Christains.
>
> Please define "Gay Agenda"
> I always hear the Cristian Right spouting this stuff, but no one *EVER* has
> a definition of what it is and why they're so scared of it.
> Please, enlighten us all....
>
> > If you are not aware of the correlation between homosexuality and child
> > molestation, you need to look it up.
>
> Where? There has NEVER been any evidence that gays are more or less inclined
> toward child molestation than the heterosexual variety of pervert. This,
> again, is something that is spouted, and perpetuated, by the Christian Right
> without any merit or basis in fact.
>
> Bigots.
>
>
Can I throw in that the whole basis of "resisting temptation" is that
you have to be tempted?
If a person has absolutely no temptation to hurt others, he or she gets
no points for not doing it. If someone is tempted to do some bad thing,
and they don't do it, they get holiness points. If someone has a desire
to have sex with fifteen-year-olds, but does nothing, he gets points.
But the points might be reduced because he knows he might also get into
a lot of trouble by doing it.
On a similar train of thought, there are quite a number of psychopaths.
But a majority of them never do anything bad, because they know they
would be punished.
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Edward McArdle
Thom Madura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:
"I read somewhere..." Sorry I can't be more specific! 8>)
I much earlier times a man of homosexual inclination might be constantly
nagged by his mother to get married. He realises that if he becomes a
priest she will not only stop but be proud of him. He might become an
excellent priest who never sins.
With all that pressure off nowadays, one of the reasons to become a
priest has disappeared, so the numbers drop dramatically.
I am making this up, but it seems feasible.
Blasterbot5555
all, shall we?
People who are pedophiles are neither gay nor straight, really--
they're pedophiles. It's not that they like people of their own gender
or of the opposite gender, it's that they like CHILDREN. Studies have
shown that most pedophiles choose their victims based not on gender,
but on access and availability. This is why there's a disproportionate
number of male pedophiles who prey on underage boys--because it's far
easier for them to get a job interacting with boys than girls.
Pedophile priests? Same deal. There's no such thing as an "altar
girl."
To suggest that DD might have been a pedophile now that we know he's
gay is homophobic in the extreme. There is NO CORRELATION between
homosexuality and pedophilia.
doofy
Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very smart are you?
doofy
Ok, please show me the post where I implied that. I might have after
the discussion veered in that direction, but it was not my original words.
doofy
> On Oct 20, 3:15 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>
>>>doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>
>>>>And, given JKR's "revelation", it does make things
>>>>feel creepy.
>>
>>>No, it might creep YOU out, but that's your problem.
>>
>>Yes. And your point?
>
>
> You're saying it in a way that implies that it's a fact we would all
> agree with.
> Is that what you meant by a personal attack? The reason I keep
> pointing out that this is your issue is that you keep saying it makes
> things "feel creepy", which is a general statement that relates to
> more than just you. If it makes you feel creepy, you need to state it
> that way, and not state it so generally.
Read the subject line.
So just butt out of the discussion then.
doofy
What is the age of the boy where you don't consider it pedophilia?
doofy
A tad, but still kinda weird.
doofy
If he has sex with a 17 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 16 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 15 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 14 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 13 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 12 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
If he has sex with a 11 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
doofy
Essentially what I'm getting at is that the discussion over gay vs
pedophile can depend on what people consider a pedophile.
Doesn't sound like many people here are willing to define the
parameters, but are willing to jump up and down saying gay does not
equal pedophile.
I'm aware of the two definitions and the psychological profile of
pedophiles, about the child is simply an object, not having to do with
gender preference.
I'm saying that the strong undercurrent in gay culture of an attraction
to young "men" leads to them getting painted with the same brush, and
perhaps, in some cases, not without reason. PARTICULARLY if the kid is
not gay.
But people would rather point fingers than discuss the gray area. And
so, there will always be the issue. Well, the issue will be there no
matter how much we discuss.
This guy they just caught in Thailand is considered a pedophile. He
also seems to have a transvestite boyfriend, if I read the recent
article correctly. Yes, I know, it doesn't mean all gays are
pedophiles. But I think there's a greater tendency to delve into that
"gray area" given the strong tendency of attraction to young men in that
subculture.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
> smart are you?
Fuck. You.
Fish Eye no Miko
No.
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
Yeah, sort of what I was thinking too.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Essentially what I'm getting at is that the discussion over
> gay vs pedophile can depend on what people consider
> a pedophile.
> Doesn't sound like many people here are willing to define
> the parameters,
I did.
> but are willing to jump up and down saying gay does not
> equal pedophile.
> I'm aware of the two definitions and the psychological profile
> of pedophiles, about the child is simply an object, not having
> to do with gender preference.
> I'm saying that the strong undercurrent in gay culture of an
> attraction to young "men" leads to them getting painted with
> the same brush, and perhaps, in some cases, not without
> reason. PARTICULARLY if the kid is not gay.
> But people would rather point fingers than discuss the gray area.
I *have* discussed this, actually. I mentioned that pretty much every
one is attracted to younger people, so of course gay men are.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
Ok, so how do you think I should reply to that? How would YOU reply
to it? I'm sure if someone insulted your intelligence, you'd be all
happy and smiling, right?
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 3:18 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> >>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> >>> doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile,
>
> >>>You're on the largest depository of knowledge in the
> >>>HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and you can't find out a
> >>>definition of a word?
>
> >>Your definition will suffice, since, I believe, you first threw
> >>the word out on this thread.
>
> > Only because you were practically saying it.
>
> >>I could be wrong about that. I'm trying to bring some
> >>light on the "gay vs pedophile" argument and why there
> >>might be some disagreements.
>
> > There are disagreements because YOU implied that DD was a pedophile,
> > based entirely on the revelation that he's gay. And you wonder why
> > people would disagree with that?
>
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> Ok, please show me the post where I implied that.
How about "That's creepy" Why would it be creepy?
And:
"Considering he wanted to stay at the school instead of being Minister
of Magic, and kept telling Harry he 'cared too much for him'. And how
Harry would periodically catch DD looking at him."
This does not mean you were suggesting DD was attracted to the
underage Harry? And stayed at the school to have access to underaged
boys?
> I might have after the discussion veered in that direction,
> but it was not my original words.
Well, that's why it was implied. If you had stated it outright, it
would be "explicit".
Catherine Johnson.
doofy
> On Oct 20, 11:01 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
>>>>smart are you?
>>
>>>Fuck. You.
>>
>>Yeah, sort of what I was thinking too.
>
>
> Ok, so how do you think I should reply to that? How would YOU reply
> to it? I'm sure if someone insulted your intelligence, you'd be all
> happy and smiling, right?
>
> Catherine Johnson.
>
It seems I've had to listen to one ad hominem after another from you
while I was trying to discuss this.
josephm...@netzero.com
After reading this entire thread (and others here as well), I can say
that your contributions to it have been unpleasantly homophobic from
start to finish. If there have been ad hominem retorts directed at you
by other participants, that could be a reason.
Joe Ramirez
Fish Eye no Miko
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> > doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> >>Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >>>doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
> >>>>smart are you?
> >>>
> >>>Fuck. You.
> >>
> >>Yeah, sort of what I was thinking too.
> >
> > Ok, so how do you think I should reply to that? How
> > would YOU reply to it? I'm sure if someone insulted
> > your intelligence, you'd be all happy and smiling, right?
>
> It seems I've had to listen to one ad hominem after another
> from you while I was trying to discuss this.
When have I attacked you personally? Questioning your debate methods
(bringing up things even after saying they weren't related to the ng,
generalizing your opinions to others) is not the same as attacking
your person.
Catherine Johnson.
Mynnia
> On Oct 20, 9:56 am, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> > Define "child". There is a very strong undercurrent in
> > the gay community about an attraction to youth.
>
> As opposed to straight guys, who would NEVER show an attraction to
> underaged girls.
> Please... people of both genders and all sexualities are attracted
> younger people. To try to make it a "gay" thing ignores the fact that
> it's a HUMAN thing.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
Plus, all gays are constantly thinking about sex whenever they see
someone of their own gender. Straight people would never do that!
*snark*
Thom Madura
It depends on how old HE is.
doofy
Thank you. And I should care one way or the other about that label why?
This is the usual ploy of the PC crowd, label someone an 'ic' or an
'ist' and hope it feels shame and runs away. And still the issue does
not get discussed, out of fear of being labelled something I guess.
doofy
Ok, lets say 27, for sake of argument.
Green-Eyed Chris
doofy <no...@notme.com> wrote:
I hear about pedos who say it's just no fun once the kids start walking.
--
Chris
Deevo
news:471adb48$0$14129$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Blasterbot5555 wrote:
>> Let's clear up this whole gay/straight/pedophile thing once and for
>> all, shall we?
>>
>> People who are pedophiles are neither gay nor straight, really--
>> they're pedophiles. It's not that they like people of their own gender
>> or of the opposite gender, it's that they like CHILDREN. Studies have
>> shown that most pedophiles choose their victims based not on gender,
>> but on access and availability. This is why there's a disproportionate
>> number of male pedophiles who prey on underage boys--because it's far
>> easier for them to get a job interacting with boys than girls.
>> Pedophile priests? Same deal. There's no such thing as an "altar
>> girl."
>>
>> To suggest that DD might have been a pedophile now that we know he's
>> gay is homophobic in the extreme. There is NO CORRELATION between
>> homosexuality and pedophilia.
>>
>
> If he has sex with a 17 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 16 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 15 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 14 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 13 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 12 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> If he has sex with a 11 year old boy, is he a pedophile?
Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread the answer to that question
is determined by the physical maturity of the boy in question. Now if the
question were to be about age of consent and the consent or otherwise of the
boy in question that would be much easier to answer.
Of course despite your obviously homophobic implications gay does not equal
paedophile and I find it rather disturbing that you make the connection so
readily.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
Thom Madura
Then legally - in every case - he has committed a crime UNLESS the 16 or
17 year old has been legally emancipated - which is possible in most
states in the US.
Jano
Specially straight men. They never ever think about sex, not to say with
young women. And after marriage they think about it even less, if that were
possible. That's the reason that all couples are happy ever after.
*grin*
Christian Potzinger
> And you have to question the motivations of gay men who
> want to be scout masters, or priests, or any other
> position where they get broad access to young men.
And you have to question the motivations of straight men who
want to be scout masters, or priests, or any other
position where they get broad access to young girls.
What were you saying?
--
ryl: G'Kar
mueckelein
> doofy wrote:
> > santosh wrote:
> >> Not to me. Rowling said Dumbledore was gay, not that he was a
> >> paedophile. You seem to consider both terms as synonymous.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> > I'm saying it feels creepy, and the possibility is there.
>
> Plus, I'm still trying to pin down the definition of pedophile, but I
> think we're possibly getting there, though it will be a target with
> multiple bull-eyes, depending on the person.
>
> And this has diverged considerably from DD anyway. I'm more thinking
> about the three men from my school days.
I have experienced otherwise. I ( female) was abused at the age of 10
by a paedophile man who had no tendency to homosexuality and I was 16
when my Religion - teacher at school grabbed me on my breasts saying I
shouldnt be so shy. I hit him into the face. You can imagine my grades
in his subjects after that....Having no witnesses the matter was left
open and my parents feared trouble. So nothing happened. If such a
thing happened to my daughter you can be sure I would do something
about it. That teacher wouldn´t have a quiet minute any more.
What I really wanted to point out was that you can have bad
experiences on both sides and I myself have made no bad experiences
with homosexuals. I didn´t generalize these experiences though that
all men just want sex, either. Today I´m happily married and have two
kids.
There is no relation between homosexuality and paedophelia.
You could just the same say that almost all paedophiles are men ( and
that is definately true!). Would you say that no man should work with
kids because of that?
And to your weird question when a sexual act is paedophile:
Paedophelia is a crime that requires a victim. It is a special form of
raping or/ and abuse and is forced from the victim by violence.
Violence doesn´t necessarily mean a knife, it can be psychological
violence, too. In Germany a sexual relation between persons where one
is dependent on the other ( student - teacher or patient - doctor) are
forbidden by law for good reasons.
mueckelein
I´m a bit astonished to hear such words out of your mouth. No
necessity to go down on doofy´s level. Why don´t you ask why his name
is doofy. Doofy is a word for a very stupid person in German...:-)
mueckelein
LOL!
doofy
Forget legally. I'm trying to fathom what is the "emotional" definition
in peoples minds. That might be a clue to the argument over gay vs
pedophile.
Of course, no one seems willing to go there. Even my own definition is
fuzzy between pedophile and sexual predator.
doofy
The subject of the "debate" is the confusion of gay vs pedophile.
doofy
Tell that to the guy they arrested on Thailand.
The biggest reason I'm focusing on the homosexuality aspect is someone
threw up the topic of gay vs pedophilia. A topic I did not raise.
So, I was just pursuing a line of debate to see what people consider
pedophelia to be, and how or if that crosses the gay line.
Suddenly I'm being labelled as a champion of gay = pedophile, which I do
not believe. Just seems everyone is uncomfortable with exploring the topic.
doofy
> On 21 Okt., 07:54, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
>>>smart are you?
>>
>>Fuck. You.
>
>
> necessity to go down on doofy愀 level. Why don愒 you ask why his name
> is doofy. Doofy is a word for a very stupid person in German...:-)
>
One reason I chose it, Germany aside. You would think you've just
surprised me with some sort of insult.
Christian Potzinger
[...snip...]
> Suddenly I'm being labelled as a champion of gay = pedophile,
> which I do not believe. Just seems everyone is uncomfortable
> with exploring the topic.
No, not by everyone, i never said (or suggested) something
like that. It's just that i get the impression that this is
the Case for some Poeple. I mean, just look at the amount of
Postings... it is a rather delicate Subject...
--
ryl: G'Kar
doofy
I find it typical that you throw my own intentions into black and white
terms for your own comfort level.
So, you're saying that a 27 year old who has sex with an 11 year old who
is post pubescent, and consenting, is not a pedophile?
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Just trying to define how people
feel about it so we can make some sense over why there is a debate of
gay vs pedophile.
Seems much easier to attack me for daring to bring up the topic though,
which sort of proves my point that people would just rather stay in
their comfort zone and lash out at someone who doesn't parrot whatever
your stance is.
doofy
I agree it's a delicate topic. Makes me uncomfortable, and pissed, no
matter what the sexual preference is of the perpetrator.
But most people aren't really exploring the topic. It's easier to
ridicule the person who dares to push it for debate.
I just initially said it makes me feel creepy. Someone else started
talking about pedophilia, then Fish Eye started going ballistic. And
that is pretty much where it is now.
Eric Bohlman
news:471b65d2$0$14105$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> mueckelein wrote:
>> There is no relation between homosexuality and paedophelia.
>
> Tell that to the guy they arrested on Thailand.
You can determine a statistical association from a single data point? A
"relation" between two traits means that knowing that someone possesses one
of them enables you to make a better guess about whether he possesses the
other one. You can't determine that by looking at only one person, or even
by looking only at those who possess both.
doofy
It was in response to "there is NO relationship between homosexuality
and pedophilia".
Eric Bohlman
news:471b67cc$0$14105$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> So, you're saying that a 27 year old who has sex with an 11 year old
> who is post pubescent, and consenting, is not a pedophile?
Yes (which has nothing to do with the fact that he's engaging in extremely
antisocial behavior which is illegal just about everwhere). The point is
that a pedophile finds himself sexually attracted to people who don't
display any secondary sexual characteristics (and is usually turned off by
"pubes and boobs"). This is not something that most people experience.
OTOH, finding someone who does display secondary sexual characteristics,
regardless of age, to be sexually attractive represents nothing more than
the normal function of the sex drive, and in the case of a teenager under
the legally-determined age of consent, is no different from any other case
where you want someone you can't have (e.g. they don't want you, they're
taken). The former case involves actual psychopathology (usually involving
a perception of normal childish behavior as deliberately seductive); the
latter is simply a case of needing to restrain ourselves from acting on all
our urges, however normal those urges may be (in other words, "living in a
society").
Jano
> That might be a clue to the argument over gay vs
> pedophile.
That's a fallacious argument, since you insist in the loaded question of gay
(instead of any person) vs pedophile.
> Of course, no one seems willing to go there.
Because you're asking (repeatedly) the wrong question.
Eric Bohlman
news:471b6f28$0$14131$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> You can determine a statistical association from a single data point?
>> A "relation" between two traits means that knowing that someone
>> possesses one of them enables you to make a better guess about
>> whether he possesses the other one. You can't determine that by
>> looking at only one person, or even by looking only at those who
>> possess both.
>
> It was in response to "there is NO relationship between homosexuality
> and pedophilia".
You still don't understand what "relationship" means. If someone who
prefers Coke over Pepsi robs a bank, that doesn't mean that there's a
relationship between Coke-drinking and bank robbery. To establish such a
relationship, you'd have to show that Coke-drinkers are *more* likely to
rob banks than Pepsi-drinkers. "Relationship" doesn't mean "not mutually
exclusive."
Yellow
Why are you so intense in this pursuit of getting a few random people
who contribute to a Harry Potter discussion group to label up pediphilia
for you?
Yes, I am as puzzled as a puzzle.
If you want to talk about definitions of and about the legalities of
having sex then why don't you just toddle off to an appropriate group as
it is totally and utterly OT for this group.
Fish Eye no Miko
> But most people aren't really exploring the topic.
I've attempted to have the discussion with you. I can think of at
least two posts I've done along these lines. You can't ignore replies
to your point and then argue no one's addressing it.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
Exactly! You talk about "in the gay community, there's a trend of men
being attracted to young adult men" ignoring the fact that most
PEOPLE, regardless of gender of sexual orientation, are attracted to
young adults. It's your insistence that this is some sort of gay-
exclusive phenomenon that people object to.
Catherine Johnson.
mueckelein
> mueckelein wrote:
> > On 21 Okt., 07:54, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
> >>>smart are you?
>
> >>Fuck. You.
>
> > is doofy. Doofy is a word for a very stupid person in German...:-)
>
> One reason I chose it, Germany aside. You would think you've just
> surprised me with some sort of insult.
I´m not surprised at all, people choose weird names here. Fact is that
I don´t think there is a necessity to call people "limited in mind and
intelligence" or " not very smart". Fish eye has been one of the most
constructive members of this group and she appeared quite intelligent
to me so far. I just wondered why she used such words because I never
came across utterings like these from her before. So let´s please quit
insulting people, that is neither constructive nor a good basis for a
discussion.
santosh
The confusion seems to exist only in the minds of the homophobic.
Gays are gays, paedophiles are paedophiles. I cant understand why you
are dissatisfied with that simple definition.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Deevo wrote:
> > "doofy" <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>
> > Is said boy pre or post pubescent?
> > As has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread the
> > answer to that question is determined by the physical
> > maturity of the boy in question. Now if the question
> > were to be about age of consent and the consent or
> > otherwise of the boy in question that would be much
> > easier to answer.
> > Of course despite your obviously homophobic
> > implications gay does not equal paedophile and I
> > find it rather disturbing that you make the connection so
> > readily.
>
> I find it typical that you throw my own intentions into black
> and white terms for your own comfort level.
What does that even mean, in this context?
> So, you're saying that a 27 year old who has sex with an
> 11 year old who is post pubescent, and consenting, is not
> a pedophile?
No, he's not. Which isn't to say he's not a child molester, and
shouldn't get his ass hauled off to jail. Child molester /=
pedophile.
> I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Just trying to define
> how people feel about it so we can make some sense
> over why there is a debate of gay vs pedophile.
The problem is, you're looking at the debate wrong. It's not about
age, it's about you only talking about pedophilia in the context of
gay men, and ignoring the whole rest of the population.
> Seems much easier to attack me for daring to bring up
> the topic though,
Well it IS off topic for the newsgroup.
And we're not attacking you for bringing up the topic, we're taking
issue with how you're framing it.
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> mueckelein wrote:
> > There is no relation between homosexuality
> > and paedophelia.
>
> Tell that to the guy they arrested on Thailand.
How about this case:
http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_289003314.html
Guy raped a two-year-old girl. And he taped it.
I guess that means there's a "relationship" between heterosexuality
and pedophilia, huh? Why don't we talk about that?
> The biggest reason I'm focusing on the homosexuality
> aspect is someone threw up the topic of gay vs
> pedophilia. A topic I did not raise.
That's the thing--you kinda did. You may not realize it, but the
whole, "DD being gay makes me feel creepy", and "why does he want to
stay at a school?", and "He says he cares too much about Harry"
implies exactly that.
> Suddenly I'm being labelled as a champion of
> gay = pedophile, which I do not believe.
Then why do you only frame the topic that way? This is a prime
example: Someone says there's no relation, and you bring up ONE
example, as if it proves anything.
> Just seems everyone is uncomfortable with exploring the
> topic.
Which is why there are nearly 100 replies in this thread...
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
No, see, you're missing the point. You talk about having to question
the motives of gays who want to be around young men, and Christian was
pointing out that it's just as much of an issue with straight men
being around girls. He was pointing out that it's isn't just a gay
issue, which is what you seem to suggest.
Catherine Johnson.
Bill Blakely
wrote:
>On 21 Okt., 07:54, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 9:45 pm, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry, I just have to put this out there. You're not very
>> > smart are you?
>>
>> Fuck. You.
>
>I惴 a bit astonished to hear such words out of your mouth. No
>necessity to go down on doofy愀 level. Why don愒 you ask why his name
>is doofy. Doofy is a word for a very stupid person in German...:-)
We have the word doofus in English.
Doofy appears to be trying to peddle an anti-gay message while
feigning objectivity, thinking that will give the message more impact.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
Alun L. Palmer
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Physical maturity, emotional maturity and the law are three separate
things.
I would generally agree with Eric that only those who are sexually
attracted to the physically immature (AND act on it) can be considered
paedophiles or child molesters. (Actually, he didn't say they had to act on
it, but he did say that they are turned off by physical maturity, just to
keep the record straight.)
OTOH, taking advantage of the emotionally immature is reprehensible,
whatever their chronological age or physical maturity, but I wouldn't say
that it always constitutes child molestation.
Ideally, the laws would treat the former always as a crime, and the latter
only as a crime if the alleged perpetrator was significantly older or in a
position of authority. In some places this is the law, in others it isn't,
and everywhere the law is based only on chronological age, with sometimes
exceptions for the mentally challenged.
It is very telling that the age limits vary all over the map, which is all
the proof we need that they are arbitrary. OTOH, most people exercise some
caution. Probably the only injustices that truly occur involve cases where
both parties are teenagers, and this could be solved by laws invoking age
difference, which exist in too few places.
Crime statistics actually show that most child sex abuse is heterosexual,
not homosexual, although the latter is represented too. However, I'm not
sure that everyone is aware of this.
Some may have heard of NAMBLA, which apparently exists to promote gay
paedophilia in the US, and in the UK there was PIE, which although not
specifically gay appeared to have more gay members than straight, and also
promoted peadophilia. More people may have read about these groups than
have read about the statistics.
I think that most of us who are heterosexual, and for obvious reasons
parents are more likely to be heterosexual than the general population, are
more worried by gay paedophiles than straight ones. It may not be PC to say
so, but the thought of a sex attack by (or on) the wrong gender is even
more scary than the thought of a sex attack on a child. Sorry, but there it
is. Even if we know that most paedophiles are straight, we are more
bothered by the gay ones. I may be flamed for admitting it, but it's true
whether I admit it or not.
Deevo
Huh? Just trying to clarify things here.
> So, you're saying that a 27 year old who has sex with an 11 year old who
> is post pubescent, and consenting, is not a pedophile?
No he isn't by the definition of the word.
> I'm not saying you're right or wrong. Just trying to define how people
> feel about it so we can make some sense over why there is a debate of gay
> vs pedophile.
In the case of this thread the debate is there because you asked the
question by making what IMO is an unsupported and bigoted correlation.
> Seems much easier to attack me for daring to bring up the topic though,
> which sort of proves my point that people would just rather stay in their
> comfort zone and lash out at someone who doesn't parrot whatever your
> stance is.
Not at all, just calling you on the inconsistencys and prejudice that exists
in your 'argument'.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
Thom Madura
> Thom Madura wrote:
>>
>>> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 20, 7:41 am, doofy <n...@notme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> RobMac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Though, I can't say I ever remember that "Harry would
>>>>>> periodically catch DD looking at him" (that was outside
>>>>>> the necessary plot development)....where'd that one
>>>>>> come from??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At least once in the Great Hall, maybe during sorting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow. DD looked at Harry during a Sorting! Scandalous!
>>>>
>>>> Catherine Johnson. What decade are we in, and people still believe
>>>> this gay=pedophile shit?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, this was the post I remembered, but you were not the first to
>>> bring up the pedophile issue.
>>
>>
>> Gee - not even all Gay Priests are Pedophiles!
>
> What is the age of the boy where you don't consider it pedophilia?
That was not the point of my post.
Thom Madura
Sorry - you are trying to equate gay with pedophilia and other crimes.
No one wants to go there because they are two entirely different things.
This is not an emotional issue.
The majority of Pedophiles describe themselves as straight - not gay.
There are good Gay people and bad straight people.
Obviously - a pedophile is a sexual predator - specifically dealing with
underage victims. Underage means those who have not reached the age of
majority or who have not declared emancipation( Although age may be a
strict guideline in some states of the US. While age of majority is
normally 18 in most States - I wish it were as easy as that.
Thom Madura
And HE is an expert!!!
I have a bridge available for sale.
>
> The biggest reason I'm focusing on the homosexuality aspect is someone
> threw up the topic of gay vs pedophilia. A topic I did not raise.
Then DUMP the topic. You seem to want to keep the topic up in the wrong
place (THis is a Harry Potter Group - a work of fiction - Dumbledore
was NEVER gay - because he was NEVER REAL)
It seems you do not work or live in an area where YOU have contact with
gay people. You would find that they are no better or worse than any
other people.
>
> So, I was just pursuing a line of debate to see what people consider
> pedophelia to be, and how or if that crosses the gay line.
>
> Suddenly I'm being labelled as a champion of gay = pedophile, which I do
> not believe.
Then WHY Continue to ask the question?
You don't believe it.
We don't believe it.
There is nothing to support it.
It is a Non-issue.
Just seems everyone is uncomfortable with exploring the
> topic.
No one is exploring the topic because it has NO validity.
It seems that your problem is that no one seems to take your bait.
If you are looking for some nitwit to come out and say something nasty
and all inclusive about gays and Pedophilia - go to a Christian
religious group - after all - that is the Christian thing to do. THe
people here are above that.