On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:26:36 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
<VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:29:28 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>wrote:
>
>>HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
>>news:21p3341saohs9r299epopjg7u6qtog5vph@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Are Boylovers deluded into believing their are persecuted? If so, and
>>> if it can ever be demonstrated that persecution is justifiable, is
>>> such persecution justified?
>>>
>>> The premise of the Persecution Delusion camp is that Boylovers seek
>>> acceptance for loving boys from other historically-persecuted groups,
>>> all of whom certain individuals of the American colour would claim are
>>> no longer persecuted, that Boylovers depend on the acceptance of these
>>> groups as a cover to "allow them to have sex with children."
>>>
>>> That is a patent lie. Boylovers require no such support from anyone,
>>> and the social climate is such that no support would be given.
>>> Mainstream gay organizations have disavowed any support of Boylove
>>> organisations--not so much because they are categorically opposed to
>>> young relationships, but to protect themselves lend legitimacy to
>>> their own agenda by embracing a popular issue in the general society.
>>> Again, given the present social climate in Anglo-Protestant societies,
>>> this is completely understandable. I do not condemn them.
>>>
>>> Persecution is defined as the condition of being harassed or annoyed,
>>> to insure, grieve or afflict with intent to cause harm based on a
>>> belief or beliefs, so with reflection it is very clear that Boylovers
>>> are persecuted. Some would say, yes, they are but for justifiable
>>> reasons. Usually these reasons hinge on citation of heinous acts by a
>>> very small number of individuals who are labeled Boylovers by the
>>> persecutors.
>>>
>>> But aside from that observation, which has been statistically show to
>>> be accurate, in terms of wreaking abuse, I would gladly compare the
>>> population of Boylovers to any American population of male
>>> heterosexuals. You will find the incidences of violence and abuse
>>> towards both women and children far higher in the heterosexual male
>>> population across the boards than among a similar population of
>>> Boylovers.
>>>
>>> I regret that I cannot produce this equitable population of Boylovers,
>>> for they shall not step forward in order to be identified, and I do
>>> not blame them. Why could this possibly be? Again, society so
>>> stigmatises Boylove that all Boylovers understand their well-being,
>>> physical, financial, domestic and mental, would be severely
>>> compromised if their preferences were made know. Contrary to
>>> evidence, popular society clings (yes, even perhaps bitterly) to their
>>> belief that merely being sexually attracted to boys constitutes a real
>>> danger to children. Yet they are shunned, badgered, harassed, their
>>> property destroyed and even physically assaulted when their desires
>>> are simply suspected. They are "a danger to the children."
>>>
>>> There is no persuasive evidence for this position. The overwhelming
>>> majority of Boylovers fantasize, but never pursue the object of their
>>> desires, for a variety of reasons. Of those who have had emotional
>>> and sexual relationships with boys, the overwhelming number of them
>>> would never do anything to truly hurt their little friends. I think
>>> you will find comparable numbers among the heterosexual population,
>>> but probably not as laudable.
>>>
>>> Additionally, anyone who might appear to voice understanding or
>>> sympathy for the Boylover is equally hazardous. They run a real risk
>>> of being labeled by "society" as "paedophile enablers." Even the
>>> debate about Boylove and paedophilia has been suppressed by
>>> Judeo-Christian value-based NGOs, such as the Internet Watch
>>> Foundation.
>>>
>>> So, there will not be a statistically viable, comprehensive study
>>> simply because, in this time of hysteria, Boylovers will remain
>>> anonymous.
>>>
>>> I completely encourage them to do so, as I do, for however you wish to
>>> window-dress it, it is persecution of the most odious kind.
>>
>>All you have proven is that "boylovers" are a bunch of chickenshit wimps
>>who are too scared to stand up for their beliefs. I refer you to Rosa
>>Parks, Miss Ruth Brown et al.
>
>And you have proven that you are neither capable of engaging in
>thoughtful intercourse or supporting your initial assertion regarding
>persecution. Individuals of your ilk typically disengage from the
>demands of debate by reverting to hyperbole and insults. In a sense,
>however, your behaviour strengthens my assertion regarding the
>comparative merits of Boylovers over people such as yourself.
>
>I shall say no more to you directly until you eschew the inflamatory
>rhetoric.
>
>HMS Victor Victorian NP-g18
>God Save the Queen!
>God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
>Rule Britannia!
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. While Naziboi was
pretending to be rational, I patiently engaged him in discussion for a
sustained period -- but he couldn't keep it up. Eventually, my
patience resulted in him showing his true colors -- a rabid, bigoted
hater so rooted in prejudice that he cannot see beyond his own nose
unless he can turn a profit on it or so he claims. No one should ever
mistake him for anything else again. His long absence from these
forums has not improved his temperament nor his rhetoric.
What truly disturbs me is that these idiots are so rooted in prejudice
that they cannot even conceive of a boy-lover who understands that one
should not become sexually involved with boys. They have this idea
that once one knows he is attracted to boys, that he just runs amok
plundering them. That particular thought process tells us much about
their reasoning.
-- 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.
|
|