On Thu, 22 May 2008 23:17:29 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
wrote:
>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.
Dissimilation.
So typical.
VV
God Save the Queen!
God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
Rule Britannia!
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|