Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: Pedophile Frank McCoy -- proven liar
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:35:18 -0600
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <ia23019mb7enoictdfi8ihn8iag4cj26om@4ax.com>
References: <ctmp95$vq3$0@pita.alt.net> <dude-EB8989.07410401022005@28-71.newscene.com> <ok8vv0hnp8ko9ksjltdcl6ie8mm842k29a@4ax.com> <ctpe5f$j7a$0@pita.alt.net> <lqj001hsibm2h8u3b15ecgnm3h129jvrjk@4ax.com> <ctpl7k$2gr$0@pita.alt.net> <kc1Md.1981$lw4.536524@news20.bellglobal.com> <l1v1019ikr4ht4l6d3e4voi1p952dqgjj0@4ax.com> <ctrndn$a1v$0@pita.alt.net> <0rp2015dnb4re8j3v56gqmh3mpepps85cp@4ax.com> <20050202204348.239$Dz@newsreader.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.prettyboy:374
In alt.support.girl-lovers positivesexfiend@hotmail.com (Positive Sex
Fiend) wrote:
>"Pedophilia" is not a legal term, it is a psychological one. The law does
>not define pedophiles
No. but the law DOES define what a child is, and at what age it's
"legal" for that child to decide for him/herself to have sex.
Riske himself put up *his* definition of what a pedophile was.
I was using his definition for "pedophile" and that of the law for
"child" since his definition of pedophile was dependent on whether a
person was a child or an adult.
So, by the *law's* definition of "child" and by Riske's own definition
of "pedophile" he is a pedophile ... and so is just about everybody
else. What's wrong with that isn't with people being pedophiles, it's
with the definitions ... and the definition that counts and differs
from what Riske himself would like to believe "pedophile" stands for,
is the *law's* definition of what is a child.
By his own definition of pedophile, the LAW defines Riske as a
pedophile by making the "Age Of Consent" so far past puberty that it
becomes ridiculous ... and thus we get the patently ridiculous (But
true!) statement that, "James Riske is a pedophile by his own
definition."
Yes, patently ridiculous and idiotic, but true.
But it's the ridiculous and idiotic LAW that makes it true.
>and, regardless of what "James Riske" would like to
>believe, it is NOT illegal to be a pedophile.
True ... But as you say, that isn't what Riske would like to believe.
>The law defines "child
>molester", "sex offender", etc., but not "pedophile". The law (at least so
>far) has stayed out of people's desires. It only defines people by their
>actions (at least so far).
But people *like* Riske are trying to make such thoughts illegal as
well. That's what I'm busy here doing: Showing that for the insanity
it is.
Riske has some idiotic idea that I'm here trying to make it legal for
dirty old men like me to have sex with innocent young girls. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
I'm here to defend the right of NOT-so-innocent young WOMEN to have
sex with whomever THEY choose, without having to get married to do so
legally. To my notion, somebody who goes out SEEKING sex, WANTING
sex, and determined to HAVE sex, is NOT an innocent "child" who needs
protecting because, "She doesn't know how to give consent."
Bullshit!
Of course, there ARE those who still castigate me, even if they DO
know who I am and what I stand for. (I keep telling people; but
usually all they hear is what they expect or WANT to hear.) Those
people (who do understand and *still* despise me) call me, "an
enabler", in that I'm pushing for law changes that will "enable" dirty
old men to have sex with innocent young girls.
BARF!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
|