Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thehillshaveI t1_jczncvc wrote

Reply to comment by abovaveragefox in RI Rep. Quattrocchi asks Rep. Kislak if she is 'pedophile' amid debate by therealDrA

average conspiracy poster

39

abovaveragefox t1_jczohsa wrote

That's valid. Good talk.

−12

thehillshaveI t1_jczppyi wrote

it is, if there's one thing conspiracy theorists are about it's baselessly calling people pedophiles. you guys love that shit.

27

abovaveragefox t1_jczqtiv wrote

It's not baseless. Her claim was being offended when he mentioned consideration for pedos, he said are you offended because you are one? It's valid. What's offensive about his question?

−4

Dopey-NipNips t1_jd28tzp wrote

That's a stupid question

It's offensive because gay people aren't pedophiles, Republicans are

9

abovaveragefox t1_jd2nx32 wrote

So what about the satanists? Was that a stupid question? Think about the context and how broad the proposal is. Nobody said all gay people are pedos.

−1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jd3du5h wrote

>So what about the satanists?

In a question of a law that affects religion? Their religion is no less valid or legal than any other religion.

5

abovaveragefox t1_jd54nix wrote

Ok so he is making that point. In a bill requiring all people be considered in a neat little report how is he wrong for probing the fringe of what's covered.

0

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jd57q3z wrote

Because he's clearly trying clearly trying to link LGTBQ people to pedophiles. This isn't new or unique.

Using Satanists as the religious example is just a case of him being an idiot since they're the perfect benchmark for laws regarding religion. So, on that count, he's really only kinda stupid. It's lazy and stupid, but there's no real malice in it. Basically, it'd make him a harmless idiot if that was all he said.

Asking your coworker, who you know is a lesbian, if they're a pedophile? That's just hateful. It's the same bullshit that has already gotten people killed.

3

abovaveragefox t1_jd58l7u wrote

No that's your clearly bias perception of the situation. I see a lazy politician who doesn't want to add an extra report for every bill proposed. I don't agree with his politics but I think he has a valid bone to pick with her seemingly vague proposal.

1

Dopey-NipNips t1_jd3sh3b wrote

Yeah it's specifically said that drag queens are a danger to children because they're pedophiles.

Also trans people

Republicans accuse all queer people of being pedophiles all the time

And yes, that's a stupid question. This is America we have freedom of religion

4

abovaveragefox t1_jd5569j wrote

Here by me? You're arguing against shit I never said. I'm not a republican dude you're seeing ghosts.

1

Dopey-NipNips t1_jd59ima wrote

I didn't say you're a republican. I said republicans say these things.

You asked two questions. "what's offensive about this?" I answered it specifically and directly.

Your second question "what about Satanists" I also answered specifically and directly

2

abovaveragefox t1_jd5ac80 wrote

Some small subset of republicans say fucked up shit, just like every other party or affiliation. What's the point of that here. He made a valid inquiry about the limits of her broad proposal. Do you believe that every bill proposed in Rhode island should have a report stating it's impact on every single religion, ethnic background, gender etc etc? I think its slow enough on capitol hill.

1

[deleted] t1_jd5bett wrote

[removed]

0

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jd3d1kv wrote

>Her claim was being offended when he mentioned consideration for pedos

I've seen some bad faith bullshit in my day but this is pretty absurd. Nobody has ever referred to that as a sexual orientation and there's never been any legislative attempt to do anything other than punish and criticize it.

Put bluntly, they are not and never would be considered a protected or marginalized class.

The choice to obfuscate the issue of sexual orientation with a disorder like pedophilia is a deliberate one and, frankly, one that has already led to people getting killed.

This isn't some whoopsy-daisy slip of the tongue. It was a deliberate attempt to antagonize and dehumanize.

6

abovaveragefox t1_jd54yzu wrote

That's just not true. At all. https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/sb145

Let's see how this gets spun.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jd55s77 wrote

Can I speak to the fox who actually reads links before posting them instead? This is too easy

2

abovaveragefox t1_jd56lff wrote

14 15 16 year old having sex with upto 10 years older and they don't want them on a sex offender registration. I read it and I'd say it's a step in the wrong direction. Definitely a step towards normalzing that shit in my opinion.

1

Proof-Variation7005 t1_jd5b635 wrote

> I read it

Assuming you aren't lying, I'm going to have to ask that you find a competent rational adult to help you read it again because you clearly did not understand it. Maybe you guys can look up the word you don't understand in the dictionayr, or have a quick discussion after it.

Cause if that is your interpretation of it, you're clearly not capable of grasping this topic without help.

Normally, I'd offer to help but I don't think you can afford my time.

2

abovaveragefox t1_jd5c3zc wrote

Being on a sex offender registration is part of the punishment for having sex with a minor. It's no longer mandatory. Defending that is worse than any insult youre trying to poke at my comprehension. Grasp a 24 year old who had sex with a 14 year old getting less punishment.

1

sandsonik t1_jd8n57s wrote

You are absolutely trolling right now. Try asking the next person you see if they're a pedophile. Of the ones who haven't already punched you in the nose, ask them if your question offended them.

Pedophiles are universally reviled in our society, and pedophilia is against the law. It's ridiculous to even ask if the impact of a new law has to be judged in terms of how it affects people who are breaking the law.

2

abovaveragefox t1_jd8wq5r wrote

He didn't ask her out of the blue, and her reply of being offended is why he probed as to what she was offended about. I'm not saying the guy is not at fault, I do understand why he would question the fringe of what these proposals require. You're trolling for comparing it to a completely different situation of asking someone next to you if they are a pedo. Context actually is important. She could have just explained her position instead of grasping her pearls and getting offended. To state it clearly, I don't condone either of their actions but I can see motivating factors for either side.

1