On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:25:35 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
wrote:
>Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:8kn3d4tv8njoqvi4f778d817gdc7hntq3s@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:29:09 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Vlad-The-Impaler <me-again@wombledown.net> wrote in
>>>news:thi1d4t2edbfd0hl607djijauflrc8phee@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:50:50 +0200 (CEST), jeanpauljesus
>>>> <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Have to agree with Vlad there.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that
>>>>>resources devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are
>>>>>resources that cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
>>>>>children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not,
>>>>>usually not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror
>>>>>about sex and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of
>>>>>actual risks to children, especially in the case of boys. Yet
>>>>>pedophiles are the ones who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive
>>>>>distortion" (!).
>>>>>
>>>>>And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions
>>>>>and claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
>>>>>ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
>>>>>with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree
>>>>>with?
>>>>>
>>>>>The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is
>>>>>a case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry
>>>>>to include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were
>>>>>never seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely
>>>>>culturally determined.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
>>>>>spews whatever. I never read his posts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Aye, jpj, he's an ineffectual jackanapes, to be sure. inordinately
>>>> impressed with his own inadaquacies, so insignificant that his
>>>> significance no longer signifies A village somewhere has clearly
>>>> mislaid its resident idiot. But amuses me, watching him squawking away
>>>> on his bouncy ball. Does he pass this way often, or is he just out on
>>>> day release, like?
>>>>
>>>> Vlad
>>>
>>>Still stung that I called you out on snipping this, huh?
>>>
>>>"I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>>>presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>>>without their informed consent."
>>
>> Gawd, but you're boring.
>> Get a new line. Get a new life.
>> Aren't your "thirty minutes online" up yet?
>>
>> Get fucked, you lying, impotent limp dick.
>
>What are you upset about? Have you ever stopped to think why you are
>sexually attracted to young boys?
Sure.
I hate fuckers like you.
I did as a kid,
And I do now.
Have a noice day.
TnA
Law that is Unjust is not Law.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 |
|