In article <crvi13$b1g$0@pita.alt.net>, James Riske
<james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::Y-Not:: wrote:
> > In article <crqh8u$1tb$0@pita.alt.net>, James Riske
> > <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >><:TomBa (NP-f36):> wrote:
> >>
> >>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>
> >>>Shagrat <dnsaundersSHAGRAT@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> >>>news:zn_Dd.37052$7n1.1470520@news20.bellglobal.com:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>James Riske <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>news:crpcsj$iiu$0@pita.alt.net:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Shagrat wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh, yeah, I'm a liberal. I'm also straight, and white,
> >>>>>
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Actually you are a pedophile, only pedophiles demand that more
> >>>>>research go into whether or not sex between children and adults
> >>>>>is harmful to the child.
> >
> >
> > Untrue. People who want to HELP victims, want to know all there is to
> > know about these situations, and the complete TRUTH of them.
> > For the victims, the real TRUTH can help to set them free, not just the
> > pale imitation of truth that willfully ignorant people need to believe.
> > This is what research is for. Good scientists will accept the results
> > of good scientific investigation, whether they feel happy about it or
> > not. Our patients depend on this, to help them recover. Treatment based
> > on false information, is BAD treatment, and could cause more harm than
> > good. Do you WANT children to be harmed this way?
>
> Idiot, people who want to "help victims" are not looking into whether or
> not sex with children is harmful.
Well then, you are obviously not into helping victims. ALL research is
good, and IS being done, and ALL who are responsible for helping
victims are completely in favor of it. Saying otherwise won't change
this reality. Take a look at it from the other side. Wouldn't you like
positive scientific proof of your claims, instead of having to rely on
your nonsensical rants to try to convince the unconvincible?
Science views negative proof, as just as important as positive proof.
> Stay stupid.
Nope, I'm not going to, so there! :-)
Try thinking about this. For this example, lets assume the age of
consent is 16, and that no other laws are applicable, and that all sex
is consensual.
Since gender isn't important to the law, think of them as you will.
I'll just call them subjects 1 and 2.
#1 and #2 are both 15.
They have sex.
Is it wrong? Matter of personal opinion.
Is it against the law. No.
Same couple:
#I turns 16 a month before #2, so for a month #1 is 16 and #2 is 15.
They continue to have sex.
Is it wrong? A tough one.
Is it against the law. YES. One little day on the calendar has made #1
a criminal and #2 a victim, when the day before they were just a happy
couple.
Same couple a month later:
#2 has a birthday, so #1 and #2 are both now 16 and are the age of
consent.
They continue to have sex.
Is it wrong? Matter of personal opinion.
Is it against the law. NO. Neither one of them is a criminal or victim
in the eyes of the law, for what they are doing now.
Can #1 be prosecuted for having sex with #2 during that one month where
there was a calendar age difference? Absolutely yes!
In the eyes of the law, #1 harmed #2 for one month, but didn't harm #2
before and after that month, for doing the SAME things, and neither #1
or #2 consider anyone to be harmed, during all the time they had been
involved in their loving relationship.
So now I ask you, was #2 ever harmed?
The law says yes, for one month. But what does reality say?
A psychologist would say, if just based on what is presented here, that
they did not harm each other. But that prosecution WOULD harm them
severely. And it's happened, when vindictive parents get involved, and
press charges. Even if the authorities don't want to, they have no
choice but to act on the complaint. And then we who help, have to pick
up the shattered pieces of their lives, that can never be completely
healed.
When the impersonal law gets involved in very personal and individual
matters, reality takes a back seat in the legal system.
When the law attempts to deal with psychology, EVERYBODY looses.
So, as you can see, sex and the law isn't always a clear cut issue, and
who actually gets harmed, if at all, isn't always obvious. We who help
people want to do the best job we can. This means that we need to know
as much as we can of what's really involved. We help them poorly, and
they can choose to kill themselves. Our own needs, beliefs and wishes,
are secondary to the true needs of the victims, who aren't always who
you think they are.
> >
> >>>>Right, James. I'm a pedophile and I'm so stupid I post in the
> >>>>clear using my real email address (minus the SHAGRAT) and
> >>>>sometimes, like now, sign my real name.
> >>>>
> >>>>Tom Shelly, White Trash, promotes unthinking hatred against
> >>>>pedophiles, homosexuals, and blacks. I don't think there is yet
> >>>>a definitive answer as to the level of harm adult/child sex
> >>>>causes (although I will soon do a post on my own conclusions,
> >>>>probably next weekend) and chose not to reply to him on this.
> >>>>His antihomosexual rants I can safely leave in the hands of
> >>>>Secret Squirrel and others; it is not my fight. But when I see
> >>>>him publishing the sort of racist nonsense that led to lynchings
> >>>>in the past, I am so incensed that he is (or claims to be) a
> >>>>member of my own race that I *have* to fight back with the
> >>>>truth.
> >>>>
> >>>>James, answer me this: do you really believe his claim that the
> >>>>highest achievement of the African black was the mud hut?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Shagrat:
> >>>
> >>>I see from earlier posts in this thread that you have met the
> >>>"villge
> >>>idiot" Riske.
> >>
> >>What anonymous pedophile and proven liar "Tomba" really means is that
> >>you have met a purveyor of truth, a human who is not afraid of pointing
> >>out depraved sickos for what they are.
> >
> >
> > What he really means is what he says. He says it well. He doesn't need
> > lying misinterpretations, to assist him. It makes you look very foolish
> > when you do that.
>
> Anonymous pedophile "Tomba" is a proven liar many times over, I often
> wonder if "Tomba" and Craig Chilton are having a race to see who can
> tell the most lies on usenet.
> "Tomba"s lies are well documented on google, page after humiliating page.
>
So what. So are YOUR lies. At least he is more fun. :-)
> >
> >>>Pay him little attention, because he's an impotent
> >>>clown. The best attitude to take toward him is along the lines of
> >>>"There but for the grace of God..."
> >>
> >>What anonymous pedophile and proven liar "Tomba" really means is to
> >>pretend to ignore the purveyors of truth and then go on telling lies to
> >>try and justify pedophilia all the while pretending that nobody knows.
> >
> >
> > When a liar calls someone else a liar, as you are doing, does that mean
> > that you are saying that he's truthful?
> > Well, it must be so, because he is.
>
> If pedo "Tomba" is truthful then I wouldn't even be posting to usenet
> right now since it claimed I would be gone after 12-28-04, it claimed
> pedo "sodapop" (another proven liar and feckless coward boy-molester)
> was going to beat me so badly that I would not be able to post any more.
>
> Funny how nothing ever happens.
How could he be responsible for Sodapop's actions? Maybe he is still in
Iraq, practicing on temporarily alive people, what he's going to do to
you when he gets back. Could be you might be better off he gets to you
sooner than later. Would you WANT him to have more practice? :-)
> >
> >
> >>>I would be interested in reading your conclusions to your research.
> >>>Would you ensure that it shows up in both asbl and asgl?
> >>
> >>Anonymous pedophile and proven liar "Tomba" is only interested in
> >>anyones conclusions if they agree with "Tomba"s depraved, mentally ill
> >>views.
> >
> >
> > Oh boy did you get this one wrong! Disagreements are MUCH more
> > interesting than agreements. Just take a look around these groups.
> > Can't you see that? Oops, I forgot that you only see what you want to
> > see, and you only want to see negative things. What a sad way to live.
>
> Pedophiles don't acknowledge the proven fact that they are depraved
> monsters seeking justification for molesting children.
> Anyone who dares oppose their views is automatically flamed or
> considered a "troll" or whatever idiotic nonsense you freaks can dream up.
Well, if you call ME a freak and a pedophile just for helping children
to stay safe, and help them recover from abuse, they you ARE a Troll,
and you know it.
> They can't handle the facts about themselves, plain and simple.
Actually, on this we agree. But then, you also have the same problem,
and worse, if not in the same direction.
> Ask anonymous pedophile "Secret Squirrel" why it wont debate me 1 on 1,
> I have challenged that depraved pedophile for over a year to debate me
> using its own rules and to this day it still will run like hell from my
> challenge.
From what I've seen, I don't think you understand what a true debate
is, nor do I think you are capable of having one.
> >
> >
> >>>To further your reseach, I was going to post a link to Pat Kelly's
> >>>Logical Reality web site that contains numerous topical essays.
> >>>However, I discovered that the site is not currently available (a
> >>>temporary problem, I hope) so the link would be to no avail.
> >>
> >>Which of course is an article written by a pedophile, obviously.
> >>Here is a quote from pedophile Pat from another article:
> >
> >
> > Been there, read that. Not a pedophile. Good thinker, though, so you'd
> > probably not understand much of what he has there.
>
> Since you are a depraved pedophile your pedo opinion is completely
> worthless.
Here you go being a Troll again. If you don't want to be called that,
don't act like one. You call me unjustified names, so you're a Troll.
By the way, you shouldn't be calling other opinions worthless. It we
weren't expressing them, you would have nothing to do with your life.
So they ARE worth something. :-)
> Any normal human can see that Pat is a pedophile, the evidence is
> overwhelmingly against Pat the pedo.
There is no such thing as a "normal human". Each person views himself
as normal. As each person is unique, the label "normal" has no real
meaning the way you apply it.
The only evidence that someone is a pedophile, is graphic images of
their sexual acts with children, or collected DNA samples, or sworn
testimony, or combinations of those things. This is the ONLY "evidence"
for such an accusation. Saying a person is a pedophile without this
evidence, is slander, and no moral and ethical person will pay any
attention to it.
When you wish to label people this way, who could easily do the same to
you, provide the real evidence to support it, or you will be continue
to be treated as a fool.
> >>" I am still very concerned about the negative effects growing up in a
> >>world that condemns pedophilia has upon those able to appreciate the
> >>sexual nature of children. "
> >>
> >>Pedophile Pat continues:
> >>
> >>"As a child I experienced sex with an adult"
> >>
> >>Like most depraved pedophiles it was molested as a child.
> >
> >
> > No. Wrong again. You've been watching too many TV shows. It isn't true.
> > Percentage-wise, the same amount of of child sexual offenders were
> > molested as children, as were the non offenders. There is no firm
> > statistical correlation in this issue that indicates that molestation
> > is a major cause of it being done to others, when the victim becomes an
> > adult. It would be great if this actually caused it. Then it would be
> > much easier to treat and prevent it. Treatment based on this false
> > premiss, of passing on the abuse to others, is sure to fail. I don't
> > think we want that.
> > This points up the damage that misconceptions can cause, and why MORE
> > research is desperately needed.
>
> The kind of research pedo "Shagrat" was looking for was in regards to
> sex between adults and children and the harm it does to the child, and
> of course only a pedo would make such a demand since it is looking for
> justification for molesting children.
>
There can be no justification. But so what? The research is still
necessary, as I already told you.
> >>>As an alernative, I'll post an essay that I previously saved
> >>>entitled
> >>>"Preteen Sexuality" as a new thread. If you have not encountered
> >>>Pat
> >>>Kelly's works in your research, this could be a real treat; if
> >>>you're
> >>>familiar with it, you can skip the download.
> >>
> >>
> >>Yes, the works of pedophile Pat Kelly, of course a depraved pedophile
> >>such as "Tomba" would consider it a "treat" since it agrees with
> >>"Tomba"s views about molesting children.
> >
> >
> > How do you know they would agree with each other? A smart person would
> > read it before ah, mouthing off about it. :-)
>
> I read it pedo, Pat claims that sex between adults and children is
> harmless as long as it's "consensual", problem is, there is *no such
> thing as consensual sex between adults and children* it is rape, pure
> and simple.
>
There is nothing pure and simple in regards to sex and the law. As I
showed you with the example above.
Here's another example:
#1 is 18, and #2 is 17.
In the state in which they live, the legal age of consent is 16.
They have sex.
Is it wrong? Matter of personal opinion.
Is it against the law. No.
They move to another state where the age of consent is 18.
They continue to have sex.
#1 is now a criminal, and #2 is a victim. Neither was these things
before they moved, but they are now.
But here's a real kicker. If they get married at this age, and in many
places they can, their sex becomes legal. But #1 can still be
prosecuted for the sex with #2, that happened before they were married,
but only for what happened in the new state.
So where was the "consent" thing in all this?
Does any of this make any real sense?
Here's why it doesn't:
There is NO definitive way to determine whether someone is truly able
to give informed consent to have sex, without many days of individual
psychological examinations. This isn't really going to happen before
each time someone has sex. So, to protect the most vulnerable from
possibly being exploited, children below a certain age are barred from
giving consent. This is a general law, that doesn't really address
whether or not someone is psychologically ABLE to understand and give
personal consent. The law can't make individual determinations and
exceptions to this rule. The law doesn't work this way. It can't
recognize the reality that some children are actually mature enough to
give real consent, and that some legal adults are way too immature to
understand what they are getting into, and therefore are incapable of
giving real consent. The consent laws are legal fictions, meant to do
the best good for the most people, and I support them, but no system is
perfect, as I've shown you. If you are going to write about it, you
should at least know this much about the subject.
> >
> <snip>
> long winded pedo babble.
>
> You are worse than pedo Frank, you don't know when to shut up pedo.
Ah, how can someone be a worse "pedo" than he is?
James, sometimes you actually make a little sense, and then you blow it
big time. You sometimes raise some good points, and then you smash them
with shear idiocy. With what you do here, you are your own worse enemy.
Do you really know what you are doing? You say that you want to protect
children, but you attack them when they post. You say that you want
child victims to be treated effectively, but you oppose the research
that would enable us to improve how we help them. You say that you want
to protect children, but you post against people who are actually DOING
that, such as me.
So, why are you really here? Is it solely because you are a bully, and
you like to pick on people you dislike, just because it makes you feel
the illusion that you are good and powerful? I hope it isn't so, and
that you are just confused. Come on, show me that you really care about
children. REAL children, and help us educate people with REAL
information, so we can help to prevent abuse, and heal the victims the
best way we can. So far, you have done nothing useful but provide some
amusement at your foolishness. It's a real waste of your time and
possible abilities, when with a little effort you can be a useful force
to help children.
Please give this some thought. You know where to find me, if you want
us to discuss this further, as gentlemen.
Take care,
Y Not
"Hate denies reason.
Love doesn't need one."
|
|