Ruddy Hell...its Rolf Again !

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35561645

[mikey4444]

db...very funny but I am not sure how this is much to do with Rolf ?

[Khandro]

divebuddy: That's the most hilarious thing I've seen for a long time!:0)

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //fender.

\\\ how could any man desire a child..\\\

How could any man desire another man?
How could any woman desire another woman?
How could any man desire a child?

I cannot answer any of the above, but my guess is that there is a common link.....somewhere, be it genetic or biochemical.

Difference at the moment is that the first two are legal and the last one illegal ( at the moment.) //

To infer that there is a 'common link' between paedophilia and homosexuality is as breathtakingly offensive as it is ignorant.

You should be utterly ashamed of your bigoted ignorance, and apologise to every gay member of the AB immediately.

[Sqad]

divebuddy...bloody fabulous....LOL....LOL

[Sqad]

\\\To infer that there is a 'common link' between paedophilia and homosexuality is as breathtakingly offensive as it is ignorant.

You should be utterly ashamed of your bigoted ignorance, and apologise to every gay member of the AB immediately.\\\\

No! no apology.

I just stated my opinion, based on the fact that i had no experience of the above.

If i had, I might have been gay or, i might have been a paedophile.......who knows, who knows how a gay or a paedophile thinks.

That is MY point.

Thank you for commenting.

[Khandro]

andy-hughes; sqad has said no such thing! I think it is you who owes the apology.

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //I just stated my opinion, based on the fact that i had no experience of the above. //

The important part of that sentence is 'no experience'.

I have no experience of being a doctor - does that entitle me to wonder if they all abuse their patients when they are unconscious? After all, 'I have no experience'!

Absence of experience does not equate to bottomless ignorance - I am sure you know that.

[Svejk]

It would be a lot simpler, and quicker, if sqad just admits to being wrong, begs forgiveness and commits hari-kari. ;)

[THEMOTLEY1]

Agree with Khandro, nothing was said to that effect, looks like a classic example of being offended on behalf of others.

[Sqad]

andy......this is my final post ( I hope!) and i reiterate you have missed my point.

\\How could any man desire another man?
How could any woman desire another woman?
How could any man desire a child? \\

The common link that i quote is between...man and another man........woman and another woman.......man and a child. NOT between gays and paedophiles.

Thank you.

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - //andy-hughes; sqad has said no such thing! I think it is you who owes the apology.

I did not say that he said it, I said he Inferred it, quote ‘My guess is …’

And I said that he inferred it, I did not say that he said it.

Feel free to join in, but please so based on what is posted, not your incorrect interpretation of what is posted.

[Svejk]

Hang on while I get some popcorn.

[-Talbot-]

And we're off ....................

[THEMOTLEY1]

///not your incorrect interpretation of what is posted///

Says it all imo!

[Prudie]

I think offence has been looked for when none was there for the point of outrage. I read it that whatever biological factor it is that defines what we find sexually attractive - be it opposite sex, same sex, children, dead people, animals, cars, doing it standing in a bucket of water, whatever - that originates from some specific brain area that we have yet to understand. It doesn't equate everybody in the slightest.

[andy-hughes]

Squad - I am sorry that you have decided to absent yourself from the debate, it means you will be unable to respond to this point -

Your post states -

//How could any man desire another man?
How could any woman desire another woman?
How could any man desire a child?

I cannot answer any of the above, but my guess is that there is a common link.....somewhere, be it genetic or biochemical.//

If there is another interpretation of the phrase 'common link' which infers that paedophilia and homosexuality are 'linked' - then I am unable to see it.

You then go on to say - //Difference at the moment is that the first two are legal and the last one illegal ( at the moment.) //

which infers that the only difference is the legality of homosexuality and illegality of paedophilia.

I think anyone would argue that there are rather more differences than that.

Your post is - at best - crassly worded, and at worst - ignorant and bigoted - it's a shame I won't get to hear from you which it is.