Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!not.news-service.com!not.alt.net!not.highwinds-media.com!t3!artnm!t4!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!news.k-dsl.de!newsfeeder.dynfx.net!weretis.net!newsfeed1.swip.net!news.astraweb.com!border2.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: Vlad-The-Impaler <me-again@wombledown.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: A Friendly Warning to astraweb users
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:30:57 +0100
Message-ID: <thi1d4t2edbfd0hl607djijauflrc8phee@4ax.com>
References: <6d241681f61c97a400c5386185f578fa@dizum.com> <0mmtc4pkduo43kebh458o85prc6f7jmeal@4ax.com> <Xns9B1B5E12D52FAutb@208.90.168.18> <4n6vc457ks6ak7911ue3sjb9n2bprv5k2v@4ax.com> <gapgns$9k7$1@aioe.org>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 39
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98be03fb.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=mBj[jdXaOTAWe7Bc]TQV_NL?0kYOcDh@JWB]dcXTbf[AaCDZ`c5K\NKNmH=CFFCjnBU]\8hhgB:EIaETEl3fAP5O
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:1837
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:50:50 +0200 (CEST), jeanpauljesus
<jeanpauljesus@heaven.com> wrote:
>Have to agree with Vlad there.
>
>I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that resources
>devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are resources that
>cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>
>The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
>children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not, usually
>not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror about sex
>and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of actual risks to
>children, especially in the case of boys. Yet pedophiles are the ones
>who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive distortion" (!).
>
>And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions and
>claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
>ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
>with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree with?
>
>The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is a
>case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry to
>include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were never
>seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely culturally
>determined.
>
>But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
>spews whatever. I never read his posts.
>
>
Aye, jpj, he's an ineffectual jackanapes, to be sure. inordinately
impressed with his own inadaquacies, so insignificant that his
significance no longer signifies A village somewhere has clearly
mislaid its resident idiot. But amuses me, watching him squawking away
on his bouncy ball. Does he pass this way often, or is he just out on
day release, like?
Vlad
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|