On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:38:24 GMT, HMS Victor Victorian
<VictorVictorian@NBG.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:31:19 -0400, 4s00th <4s00th@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>Very good to see you again, 4s00th.
>
>Cheers,
>VV
>God Save the Queen!
>God Preserve the Prince of Wales!
>Rule Britannia!
I'm never very far away -- and never too busy for someone seeking
help. Even when I'm silent and unseen, that prolly just means I'm
lurking -- unless it means I'm out of town getting my regular medical
treatment or on vacation. And even then, I check the email for people
who might be seeking help.
-- 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.
|
|