Agreed. I just had to speak up on this one. I'm done now.
As Bartels & James used to say:
"Thank you for your support, and have a nice day"
:D

You know, when you get right down to it, it is pretty weird going into stuff like sex orientation on a gearhead site. I had never been to the open forum before, but saw the (now defunct) "gay high school" thread when doing a unrelated search, and got intrigued.

There must be about a billion websites out there for people who like to think about issues that don't have clear answers. The simple fact is that this is not one of them, and probably should not be.

I enjoyed the joust while the patrons tolerated it, but this just isn't the place. I wasn't getting near enough work done last week anyhow.

But geez, how come nobody complains about the zitz thread? Different strokes, I guess.

Probably because everybody gets them, regardless of your sexual, religous, or political orientation.;)

I'm not making any more posts to this thread.

Bump.

Actually, the moderators also have the right to tell the weak-minded whiners that they are whiners, and the thread is not closing. it's up to the moderators, and not the whiners. It could also be possible that nobody "whined" and the moderator used his own discression in looking at the thread personally and closed it himself.

I am still not posting to this thread.

rickg

You cannot forget the two most controversial topics ever in the history of Mercedess shop.

Oil, dino vs. synthetic

How to change it.:D

I just read that, and the post before it...

sorry, but that seems a little out of line. Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I don't see how that can be taken without offense. If you really want to slander people and their ideas, go join offtopic.net ...

I didn't get involved in the aforementioned thread. What happened?? Did somebody call a queer a homo or sumthin'???:p

Who knows. The thread was clearly labeled, so anyone that went there, should have gone with open eyes as to the topic, and where it could go(and probably did go).

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/79868-homo-hetersexuality-hard-wired-not.html

That was me being misrepresented there. I certainly never said anything about the first part of that of that misconstrual but I have mentioned the second topic before. However, I never got a chance to explain what I meant.

Either way, I did not take it to be slander. I took it to be a compliment. Mike couldn't find a logical reason to disagree with me so had to resort to misrepresentation. I guess I had a watertight argument.

The curious fact is that no one knows why the thread was closed. The exact nature of the complaints has never been disclosed.

Dude, you were trying to make a logical argument FOR pedophilia, as compared to homosexuality, saying that "studies had not conclusively proven that pedophilia causes lasting mental harm in adulthood", blah blah blah...even if you were just "playing devil's advocate". So as I see it, I did not "misconstrue" anything.

The complainers never have the courage to post the "exact nature" of the complaints. Or their names.

Mike

I vote that all secret whiners must be brought out into the open for public floggings:p


Then we'll close the thread that offended them;)

It wasn't slander...I was just calling him out on his position. He had said in a previous post that he "saw nothing wrong with beastiality, as long as the animal was not harmed", and we were in the midst of a similar debate about the reasons for pedophilia being illegal, the mental damage that it does, etc...I was making the point that his arguments had gotten to the point of completely abandoning common sense.

As long as you and I have been posting on this site, by now you should know that I DO NOT resort to mindless slander in these debates.

Mike:
You read something into my comment that was not there. You thought that because I said that the studies that showed harm from childhood molestation were flawed, that I thought pedophilia was morally permissible. I never said such a thing nor do I believe such a thing. I NEVER made any argument in favor of pedophilia. I think the grounds for opposing pedophilia are strictly the lack of informed consent. This is completely separate from the issue of whether or not childhood sexual experiences have long term detrimental effects. I have not read any studies on the long term effects of childhood molestation that were not fraught with methodolgical problems. It is a very difficult task to prove that psychological states that occur 20 years later are a result of a specific event. I also have immediate acquaintance with a great deal of harm produced by therapists relying on these flawed studies.

Bestiality is another moral issue altogether. Animals fall into a different moral category since they can never consent. The issue may be disgusting but the arguments about it are totally different because the relationship does not involve two rational agents.