On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:59:27 GMT, nesScitur@husShmail.com (Ronin)
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>The only real objection I see Grownups having to "child pornography"
>is that it gives *them* funnytummyfeelings: they carry on about the
>"damage it causes to children" only because stating this truth would
>amount to admitting to being "paedophiles" themselves.
>
>This being the case, Grownups of course find *all* forms of "child
>pornography" -- description no less than depiction, computer graphic
>no less than photograph from live action -- objectionable; and the
>ongoing debate in this Forum in regards to "damage to children" is
>utterly pointless, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the real
>issue.
>
>
>Ronin
I've never denied that issue -- but it is rather pointless to attack
on that basis. Denial is so much more than a river! Instead, we attack
the house of cards they build upon -- the lie they all agree to stand
upon. If your argument is to protect children -- a noble goal indeed,
then how does something that involves no children offend you?
Let's face it: I know why I was looking so closely at that Calvin
Klein ad; the question is why these great protectors of children were.
Once their foundation is gone, they will have nothing to stand upon.
It's funny -- I demand that pedophiles look at themselves and their
thinking honestly, discarding the lies and rationalizations they tell
themselves that allow them to do things that they know they should
not. Would that our opponents were so honest.
-- 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.
|
|