HMS Victor Victorian <VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote in
news:ge8b34la5n9cqp8p3vrt8b49ckrl4grsgv@4ax.com:
> I am amazed that the most recently prolific antagonist has actually
> made the following statement.
>
> [Begin direct quote]
> "Yet your solution for the protection of children is to plaster their
> nude
> photos all over Usenet without their informed consent. You are not a
> boylover
> at all, are you." (note incorrect punctuation--ed)
> [End direct quote]
>
> The conclusion is that, by heavens, children are capable of giving
> "informed consent" or the statement would not have been couched in
> such verbiage.
>
> Of course, the subsequent argument might revolve not around the term
> "consent" but around the intent of term "informed." I have little
> doubt as to how our dear protagonist will draw those parameters.
>
> Concurrently, given this statement, if posting pictures of nude
> children without their "informed consent" is wrong ... indeed if not a
> crime ... then such popular picture sites such as Webshots, Picasa,
> Fotki, etc. are filled with perpetrators [the majority of them being
> doting parents and relatives] guilty of the same ... literally
> thousands of them.
>
> Where then should IWF begin? Quite a conundrum, to say the least.
So you go to those websites to perv as well? Your infantile lust must have no
limits.
--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|