On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 04:17:37 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
wrote:
>Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:n76jd4hp1n7872m9cjmcsf8njofq0ceokh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 05:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
>>>news:khsgd4t7a3odojh7dcg5hhfkfbk5g3rh7p@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:40:50 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 02:01:19 GMT, Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 19 Sep 2008 11:23:01 -0500, Jerry <mail@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>You know, if that's his attitude, then you'd expect that he has no
>>>>>problem with kiddie-fuckers -- after all, it's sad that they can't get
>>>>>over any mistreatment as a lad. He can't even be consistent in his
>>>>>ignorance!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>another improvised shrink, greaty!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>NB seems to think I'm scared of adult relationships.
>>>>>>Seems he thinks fucking women defines a complete adult relationship.
>>>>>>Pretty narrow point of view, ain't it?
>>>>>>How'd ya like to be married to that kind of bloke?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With all the time he spends in the boy groups, I think he either
>>>>>>ain't gettin' any or he's got some deep-seated psychological issues,
>>>>>>like his uncle diddling him when he was five.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And he never really got over it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Whaddya think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe both, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So tell me NB ... this all just self-righteous outrage, or did
>>>>>>someone slip you one in the bath?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TnA
>>>>>
>>>>>Now, now, you know his answer -- he'll accuse you of projecting your
>>>>>own experiences on him! It sure is funny how a little knowledge of a
>>>>>simple defense mechanism makes one feel like a shrink!
>>>>>
>>>>>But I have to wonder why you keep playing with him -- we've already
>>>>>proven he's nothing more than a brain-dead bigot who only bothers
>>>>>because he needs to look down on someone to compensate for his own
>>>>>inferiority. He doesn't give a damn about kids -- he just wants to
>>>>>hurt others, and he can't understand why people follow any kind of
>>>>>rules when it's so obvious that no one can enforce those rules on the
>>>>>Internet. He just can't get it into his head that some people choose
>>>>>to do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do (read:
>>>>>moral development of a 5-year-old).
>>>>>
>>>>>So why do you continue to tease someone who's so clearly deficient in
>>>>>intelligence, self-esteem and moral development?
>>>>>
>>>>>-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
>>>>>(without showing your email addy)
>>>>>unless you ask me not to.
>>>>
>>>> Reason?
>>>> Entertainment.
>>>> The same reason kids poke at a mad pitbull through the fence slats.
>>>> Listen to him fly into a frothing fit.
>>>>
>>>> Beats the hell out of the tellie, I can tell you!
>>>
>>>Frothing fit? Is that how you see it? I must watch my prose more
>>>carefully. All I mean to do is point out the hypocrisy of those who are
>>>supposed "boylovers", and then post boys pics all over Usenet for
>>>pedophiles sexual satisfaction without any regard to those boy's
>>>feelings.
>>
>> Shit, NB.
>> This argument is so utterly lame, I don't see how you can stick to it.
>> I mean, think about it.
>> Think about all the occurrances of posting images of boys, and
>> children in general, that occur on the internet without their
>> "informed consent." You can start with Picasa and Flickr if ya want
>> ...
>
>Ah, the old "other people do it so we can do it too" excuse. Then again,
>we don't expect pedos to have much character or conviction.
Now that is funny -- coming from someone who believes he doesn't have
to obey any rules on the Internet just because there's no way to
enforce rules on the Internet! And since you've already proven by
your own statements that you have neither character nor conviction, I
guess it's only fair that you assume that others do not as well.
>> Again, you assume boys, if they knew, would protest. That's an
>> assumption, 'case you missed it.
>
>You are happy to take the risk though, aren't you? Not much "boylove" in
>evidence there.
>
>> "All over the Usenet?" A little bit
>> 'o an exaggeration, don't you think? And there you go with that
>> sexual satisfaction thing again. Them's pretty strong wurds, pilgrim.
>> I bet you've got lots of evidence to back that claim up ... uh ...
>> once you define what YOU mean by the term.
>
>Why else would you freaks post them? Amusement? Where's the "boylove" in
>that?
Have you never conceived of ascetic appreciation? Boys are beautiful.
One doesn't have to be lusting just to enjoy beauty.
>> By the way, what the fuck is "informed consent" anyway. Is there such
>> a thing as "UNinformed consent" then? Krist, yer laffable.
>
>If you fail to understand two English words strung together, then that's
>your problem. Basically it means that even if a child could consent to
>anything, do they know the full consequences of what they are agreeing to?
>I guess you would like to see a return of children working in coal mines
>as well, eh?
No, but it does seem strange that a child who can legally be held
responsible for any crime he or she may commit cannot even give
permission to allow their picture to be placed on a web site. They can
be locked up for stealing because they're supposed to be able to
understand the consequences of those acts, but they can't even say
that they'd like to be loved? Or sexed, for that matter? Why is it
that they always get the bad stuff much younger than they get the good
stuff? And who is it who decides what arbitrary age is chosen? Hell,
in most cultures, by the time a child reached what is now considered
the age of reason/responsibility, they were practically considered
adults in years past? And generally married not long after?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not about to claim that young kids can or
should be expected to be able to consent to sex, but I don't
understand why we choose arbitrary ages and why we hold them
responsible for the bad stuff long before we allow them the privilege
of the good stuff. And don't get me started on "adult movie tickets!"
>> That's why I like hearing from you--for years now, ain't it been?
>
>I was here a long time before you and I'll be here a long time afterwards.
>I have seen lots of you pedos come and go over the years. Funny thing is,
>once you freaks stop posting nothing is ever heard from you again. Funny
>that.
And I've been around a lot longer than you -- and I've seen you bigots
come and go. Funny -- once you bigots stop posting nothing is ever
heard from you again either. Or is it really strange how, when people
stop posting, you don't hear from them again? Geez, you can really be
a mental midget sometimes.
-- 4s00th@hushmail.com
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
|
| 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 |
|