Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.prettyboy
Subject: Re: pedo Frank McCoy continues to deliberately tell lies on usenet
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2005 17:59:03 -0600
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <jvka01d48iorj7i7nkfdt2e7en6lfcvjha@4ax.com>
References: <ctmp95$vq3$0@pita.alt.net> <dude-40BFE8.21551701022005@28-70.newscene.com> <b4m001t9hu8a2ohuipstllskmsmn2442u9@4ax.com> <ctrnh6$a1v$1@pita.alt.net> <7no201t0k3dhfdi0a0ed80l6shb781cjjd@4ax.com> <ctrq43$glf$2@pita.alt.net> <S5mMd.2924$lw4.700552@news20.bellglobal.com> <t4s401t83tvaqd9d55lsirqlq9qqm5ft4p@4ax.com> <cu38eu$1uj$1@pita.alt.net> <3lca01ta9893h48fpqo8tu7cn68mipnsfv@4ax.com> <cu3e50$ckq$0@pita.alt.net>
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:392
In alt.support.girl-lovers Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>I sure as hell would like to see where you proved 99.9% of the
>population are pedos Frank.
First off, I said they are *by definition*, not in reality.
There is a difference, you know.
>Message id please? this should be good.
Certainly:
Newsgroups:
alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.fan.prettyboy,alt.oyp.norp,alt.support.girl-lovers
Subject: Re: Yes pedophiles, you are despised throughout most of the
world
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:09:44 -0600
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <lqj001hsibm2h8u3b15ecgnm3h129jvrjk@4ax.com>
Like I said, the problem is with the *definition*, but nobody seems to
understand that. They think *I* am defining them as pedophiles, which
I'm not. The law defining "child" and the common definition of a
pedophile as one who finds a child sexually attractive are the
problems, not me.
But, nobody wants to see that, let alone correct it.
Please feel free to poke holes in the logic.
Riske doesn't even understand logic; that's why he cannot.
But I don't think you'll find any holes.
Like I said, *I* think the law needs changing.
However, if people don't want to change the law, and still don't like
the end result of the definition, then they need to change the
definition instead.
By *law* (and using the definition Riske himself posted for a
pedophile) darned near everybody is a pedophile.
Don't like it?
Change either the law or the definition.
Simple as that.
If you don't do either one, then live with it.
I do.
I think 14-16 year old girls can be QUITE sexy, which by the legal
definition of a "child" and the standard definition of a "pedophile"
makes me a pedophile. I personally think it would be *abnormal* to
not find one of those teenagers ("children" by rule-of-law) as sexy
and sexually attractive. Not to mention, quite *insulting* to them,
as they deliberately *strive* to make themselves look sexy.
That doesn't mean that I nor most people would actually TRY to have
sex with one of those teenyboppers; it just means they ARE sexually
attractive ... a different thing.
If you deny they're sexually attractive, then either you're lying, or
somebody who so hates young beautiful women that I at least wouldn't
consider you exactly sane.
But then, thinking about Riske, perhaps I do him an injustice by his
viewpoint. He's already shown quite a few signs of insanity when it
comes to what he views as "children"; so why should I presume he's
sane in this? Perhaps he DOES view all teenagers as ugly and
unattractive; and thus isn't a pedophile. (Of course, I *did* say it
was only about 99.9% ... Riske might be one of the .1% I deliberately
left out, because there must be SOME people who hate what most of us
think of as, "the young and beautiful" so much that they really *are*
sexually repelled by them.)
If so, is there any part of the Human race Riske DOES find attractive?
I shudder to think what.
Oh yeah ... the 99.9%, I'll admit was just a guess. I might be off by
as much as -5%, or +.099999999%. I doubt very much if more than that.
There just *cannot* be that many youth-haters or women-haters
percentage-wise in the world that despise youth and sexuality that
they would in-honesty find most 15-year-old girls not at least
partially sexually attractive.
In fact, that's one of the problems (I think) with today's laws.
Older women *support* the idea of keeping younger, far more attractive
women in their teens in sexual bondage and against-the-law, because
they're scared of the competition. It's NOT really to "protect"
teenagers that such laws are passed, just like it wasn't really to
"protect children" that "child labor laws" were passed ... though that
was certainly the *excuse* to do so. No, it was to protect the jobs
of men already working and trying to support families. And labeling
women in the peak of they beauty, sexuality, and fertility as
"children" is in reality done to suppress them and force men to find
older, less attractive partners ... The people also preventing those
younger ones from voting and changing those same laws. There are
*always* more older people around, trying to protect their positions,
than there are younger ones trying to get in ... as workers, or as
mates for the successful men who have already made a place in the
world.
Supposedly, I should also be fighting to keep young men out of the
market ... Because they certainly keep ME out of the job market! Like
the young however, the old are also in the minority. I don't think
it's right to age-discriminate against EITHER one.
But that's me. If you're a middle aged worker trying to keep a job,
or a middle aged woman trying to keep or attract a husband, then
keeping those young upstarts from taking over your position only makes
sense, I guess.
Ignored in all this, is that it's *normal* for older men to be
attracted to young women in the prime of their fertility, and such
young women to be attracted to older men who have proven their
abilities to support a family. Has been so for not just decades,
generations or even centuries, but millennia if not millions of years.
Punishing men for looking with an appreciative eye at a woman in the
peak of her fertility and baby-making years, when she has the best
chance of carrying children to term and living long enough to raise a
large family to adults by calling him a nasty name ("pedophile"), or
punish those same women for looking for men who have good jobs, own
homes, and have money in the bank ... well, I can't exactly say it's
insanity, because it *is* sane to try and protect your own existing
position against newcomers.
That doesn't make it *right* however.
Discrimination of any kind isn't right; and that includes
age-discrimination, whether it's against the old or the young.
And this is age-discrimination against the young.
I faced age-discrimination myself when I was young ... and now again,
when I get old. I don't think either one is either right nor
justified.
Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.
The soapbox is now empty.
NEXT!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|