Homosexuality and pedophilia are not related. Do not perpetuate that stereotype.
A agree with that 100%. The vast majority of pedophiles are NOT by definition homosexual. I found it odd that the post author lead in with one point (presumably over the current debate on the BSA allowing openly homosexual leaders and scouts) but then all the supporting conjecture was more geared towards the other.
No such thing was said by the OP.
"Baden-Powell may have been a repressed homsexual himself and maybe even a pedophile."
To say that a reptile is cold blooded and maybe even a vertebrate would be wrong because the two are linked together when talking about reptiles. There would be no need for the words "and maybe even" to be included. He included those words because the two are not necessarily linked together. We all know you can be one without the other. You are under the opinion one of your sacred cows is being attacked or you are of the opinion that homosexuals absolutely can not ever be pedophiles; either way you are wrong. Calm down, pull the panties out of your crack, take a deep breath and reread what he actually wrote. I think the two of you got all hysterical and emotional once you saw the word homosexual and couldn't read what was actually written because you were throwing a little hissy fit while reading the rest of the post.
Hold on a second.
First please stop with the derogatory statements towards women "Pull your Panties out of your crack". Being concerned does not make one effeminate, nor does being female make one any less of a person.
This is not about IF Homosexuals can be pedophiles. It is about a post that starts with I think this guy was gay, and follows on to discuss things that make the guy look like a pedophile. If the post said I think this guy was a pedophile or I think this guy was a gay pedophile I don't think myself and many others would have had the reaction we did.
Currently there is a movement of people that are working for equal marriage rights in the USA. The counter movement is trying to brand Homosexuals as in capable of raising children and so should not be given equal rights. People are reacting to a poorly worded post that is all.
We all have a lot of respect for Bret, but if someone miss-speaks or speaks poorly it is part of good fellowship to call them out on it for further clarification and understanding.
Again your inability to comprehend what was actually said is coming through. Read the actual words and don't get over emotional. If you want to make wild assumption so that you can get upset and bitch about something go to Jezebel.
So you were originally upset because the entire post was not spelled out in the title? Do not read the Old Yeller! Although the dog is yellow he doesn't grow old. The dog gets rabies and has to be shot by the boy.
You probably shouldn't watch any of these either:
You must lead a miserable life.
Why the insulting tone? The post did have a subject that didn't match the content and did imply (depending on how you interpret it) that the 2 were related. Not sure why one person's desire to clarify that requires name calling or insults. I do see the 'emotional' response you referred to as well, but it appears to be coming solely from you, not anyone else on this topic.
Please, do show me where Brett implied homosexuality and pedophilia were related. No interpreting allowed because that involves emotion and feeling which I apparently have too much of so lets stick to facts only. Show me where in Brett's text above he said this.
Well, was I surprised that my search results came up that Baden-Powell may have been a repressed homosexual himself and maybe even a pedophile.
This implies progression or escalation. Grammatically, there is an expectation of relationship between the points made.
If I say, "The water was cold, maybe even frozen" I am implying a progression that "more" cold would be frozen, or cold and frozen are at least related as degrees of the same thing.
Saying "The water was cold, maybe even hot" would make no sense as the statements contradict each other.
If I said "The water is cold, maybe even wet", I have created a sentence that is awkward as the 2 items I am comparing are unrelated, thus the "maybe even" is out of place.
"Maybe even" implies an increase, or layering of intensity on the first part of the phrase with the second. You may infer differently than I did, but I can't come up with an example that lets that work without the 2 parts being compared being at some level related.
Additionally, the title points to homosexuality, but the examples given are based around insinuations of pedophilia. Possibly unintentional, but it gives the impression that the 2 are related as they are the same post. Titles don't always have to match the content, but typically if they are not directly related that is some other literary device such as irony or symbolism being used. In this case the focus just changed.
Regardless, pointing out that the 2 are not related neither detracts from the discussion ,nor changes the elements of the discussion, so I don't get the objection to it being said.
Maybe you can lie to your self but don't expect others to fall for the same lies.
"Well, was I surprised that my search results came up that Baden-Powell may have been a repressed homosexual himself and maybe even a pedophile."
None of your examples use the word "and" which Brett uses. This is a fact that we can't ignore unless we seek to not see what is really there and replace it with what our emotions tells us we should see and believe.
I love it how liberals are the smartest people they will ever meet but yet they are not able to comprehend words like "is" and "and."
-and: means in addition to, you can look it up if you need to.
Yes, the word "and" does join the 2 phrases and does not, when used alone, imply a relationship. Add in "maybe even" and it creates a direct implication of relationship between the words. Had the "maybe even" been left out the meaning of the phrase changes to 2 potentially disassociated statements. Insert "and" into all of my examples and they still stand.
I find it interesting that you have now decided what my political views are. My wife and I are actually laughing a bit at the moment, as I this may be the first time I have been referred to as a liberal. I am also not sure which part of my reply you are considering a "lie". I explained where I saw the implication and why. You are free to disagree but that does not equate to a lie just because you interpret the phrase differently.
You are apparently arguing politics. I was initially discussing misrepresentations of historical figures. This branch of the thread has now become focused on the implications in the post based on the phrasing used, and is frankly getting a bit silly in my opinion.
At the end of the day he was a great military leader and founded an organization that has instilled truly manly skills in countless generations of boys.
So you are a pedophile who is offended that you might be lumped in with the homosexuals. If I were you I would just admit I couldn't comprehend the word "and" then call it a day and move on.
The circus clown drove a bulldozer and even ate pizza on Sundays. The two do not have to be related in any manner what so ever. Those who claim a there is a link have terrible reading comprehension skills, don't understand the English language or are being overly sensitive and emotional about the sacred cow that is homosexuality.
Even if was gay or even a pedophile,
We have the issue of the use of "and" and "or".
To say "The water was cold, AND/ OR maybe even frozen" does implying a progression and relation.
Or is tricky as it can be used to include two items or to indicate exclusion. Use the red or blue jacket. Vs choose between water or coffee. In the context of the post I do think that there was an implied connection between gay and pedophile.
The phasing of “gay or even a pedophile” can be seen as an extension rather than exclusion just as “may have been a repressed homosexual himself and maybe even a pedophile.”
This could be seen as progression from gay to pedophile.
What I don’t understand in this discussion is the level of vitriol and insulting tone coming from Paul_of_TX. Why is this called for or needed?