Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote in news:Xns9B1E86ABBD560utb@
208.90.168.18:
> Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
> news:pb16d4to8aluovfhfr7fkgntts61b1ksag@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>
> It's a bit sad when you still haven't got over your mistreatment as a
lad
> when you are well into your 50's. Is that what makes you scared of
adult
> relationships?
another improvised shrink, greaty!
|
| 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 |
|