There is a good exposition on the cobweb mechanics of the mind of Tom C in this thread.
Apollo started the thread, therefore, its title is purposefully provocative and idiotic: “The Penn State Tragedy – How One Gay Man Destroyed A Great University.”
The thread goes sort of like this: “Blah, blah, pedophile, blah, is gay, blah, gay is evil, blah, children, blah.”
Then some sanity is inputted by “Sockeye:”
This headline and following comments are a sad commentary to where AMG has gone.
To which Tom C replies with the usual Tom C bravado:
Sockeye, like the people at Penn State, would rather stick his head in the sand than talk about the real issues.
When you ask “who would let something like this happen?” you usually don’t have to look very far to find someone who WOULD let it happen.
Apparently, in Tom C’s world, if you don’t want to admit (incorrectly) that a male pedophile who was married to a woman for decades and who never showed any evidence of relationships, or interest in relationships, with adult males is actually a homosexual, then you are putting your head in the sand.
Whatever. The pedophile at Penn State was in a regular old, traditional, heterosexual marriage. This is about as far from “homosexual” as you can get. He victimized children. That isn’t the same as being gay.
Sockeye responded, distilling everything I just said into conservative-speak:
Blaming pedophilia on homosexuality is like blaming guns for murder.
Interesting analogy. Makes sense, although making homosexuality the “gun” and pedophilia the “murder” implies a sort of loaded implication that homosexuals are just a hair trigger away from abusing kids… but I don’t think the analogy was meant that way. I think Sockeye merely meant that, like murder, victimizing children is an act a person chooses to do and not simply part of a state of being gay, straight, or whatever.
But Tom responds in the most horrific way possible.
lol.
It’s like blaming penises for rape!
Penises don’t rape people – rapists do!
First, nice “lol.” Sockeye is trying make a great point, so the best way to deal with it is to pretend you don’t see the cognitive dissidence in your own opinions- hence, “lol.”
Second, Tom’s statement is factually true. But he doesn’t mean it quite that way – it is dripping with sarcasm. Because in Tom’s world, being homosexual makes you a rapist-in-waiting. Otherwise, he couldn’t pin the blame on the Penn State affair on homosexuality. It wouldn’t compute. And Tom C will make it compute, goddamn it.
Somehow, he thinks this sort of talk is heroic, brave, and deep. Sigh….
Does anyone else think Tom C is a closeted homosexual who has been brainwashed by religion to think he’s not gay?
Bill, those words describe Apollo to perfection. Actually, Apollo and Tom C., given the right circumstances, could be lovers…..
The trademark/status quo ‘lol’ is an indicator of an impending or just-posted passive aggressive response, or one that has nothing substantive preceding or following it. It’s used ad nauseum on the PPH forums, by some of the very same characters who frequent the AMG threads.
Makes me think of someone I know that laughs at *everything* when they speak. I wonder if it’s a nervous condition, or it masks some major inadequacy.
Tom C sure is on a role this week. His other thread about what same sex marriage will cost all of us is ridiculous.
He’s really starting to crack, mentally, about gay rights issues.
He’s so out there, that the scumbag “Pastor” Bob Emerich hasn’t even commented.
“Starting” to crack? Starting?
That guy has been cracked since the day his mother dropped him on his head at age 4, and the first thing he saw when he came to was a poster of Freddie Mercury.
And yes, that thread about what gay marriage will “cost” us in spousal benefits is inane.
One, maybe having more stable married people in your employer’s risk pool would lower each person’s costs? It depends on who is getting married. Are they young? Healthy?
Does Tom complain when old farts like himself insist on buying health insurance, thus making it more expensive for the rest of us? For god’s sake, the man’s anger is going to make an artery burst at some point. I don’t want to pay for that.
Two, I thought the Christian thing to do was to “cure” all these poor gays and help them find a nice significant other of the opposite sex to live a boring, dishonest life with. Doesn’t that create the exact same “costs” when they get married (then divorced)?
Ugh. What a fucknut.
I’ve got to post this here, because I can’t post new news pieces, but Dirigo Blue just posted this:
http://www.dirigoblue.com/2012/07/more-selective-editing-at-as-maine-goes-leads-to-ignorant-comments/
Selective editing?! At AMG?? Say it ain’t so!!
Apollo, the gay hero of Roman mythology, apparently thinks Tom C. is totally correct. Catch this whopper: “But just wait and see what happens if gay marriage is passed in Maine. You will see a dramatic increase in assaults on children by gay adults.”
Really? I mean, really? Does he really believe that?
I saw that too, Joe. Amazing. All these pediphiles are sitting around wanting to abuse children, but they just can’t do it because… Gay marriage isn’t legal? What the hell is that based on? Usually I can imagine the false connection these people see in their warped minds, but with this one I can’t even make up a possibility.
Another intellectually vacuous, fact-challenged argument by the now politically-bankrupt Democrat moonbat party.
You present really only two arguments: (1) Sandusky wasn’t homosexual because he had a wife and kids, and (2) The sex he had with the boys wasn’t homosexual sex.
As to the first, that meme was pretty much discounted 50 years ago. I don’t think anyone really believes that a gay man couldn’t have a wife and family. Oddly, it’s the dishonest liberals who have now resurrected this discredited idea in an attempt to excuse the recent rash of men having homosexual sex with boys.
Second – Not homosexual sex? Webster DEFINES homosexual as “sex with someone of the same gender”.
End of discussion.
Having wiped out your argument in 2 easy steps, you may now seethe, sneer, flail and get your chorus of mindless sycophants to disparage me – if you like.
Somehow I think you feel this will increase your political influence.
You must also think it odd that exactly the opposite is happening.
I doubt very much amglolz feels this blog post will increase his political influence. Rather, I think his sole purpose is to make fun of you and to get you to take the bait. In this quest he is absolutely successful. Thank for playing, Tom.
Political influence? What are you smoking?
And regarding the “sex with boys is homosexual under the dictionary definition” argument, you are wrong in multiple ways. Yes, the dictionary says what it says. But you apply that to only one part of Sandusky’s life. Presumably he at some point had sex with his wife. Therefore, he would also meet the definition of heterosexual under the dictionary. Couldn’t I say well, he had heterosexual sex, the end? That is the mirror image of your entire argument.
He can’t be both a heterosexual AND a homosexual, can he?
Your argument proves too much, as they say.
Rather than rest my hat on a dubious dictionary-based bumper sticker argument that works for both sides equally, and therefore is meaningless, I go further and say well, what is the generally scientifically accepted meaning of “pedophile?” Is it at all differ than homosexual or heterosexual? Turns out it is. And lots of people are homosexual and not pedophile. And lots of people are pedophile but also lead normal lives as heterosexuals. You can either believe they are all living a lie, but it is not credible to me that they would not have sex with gay adult men if they were inclined. They could try to hide it, sure, but there is no evidence Sandusky ever even had a hint of adult male attraction in his life. So either he pursued children, illegally and at great risk, while holding back his urges towards adult men (which wouldn’t place him in any legal jeopardy whatsoever…) or, duh, maybe he was attracted to CHILDREN and not adult men.
Anonymous bloggers are always on the lookout for ways to increase their political capital, since being anonymous assures public recognition. What’s wrong with that statement, and what’s wrong with Tom C?
Tom C is delusional.