jeanpauljesus <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com> wrote in
news:gaui8g$1r8$1@aioe.org:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:29:20 +0000, Naughty Boy wrote:
>
>> jeanpauljesus <jeanpauljesus@heaven.com> wrote in
>> news:gapgns$9k7$1@aioe.org:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> More dissembling from another sick pedo. Thanks for proving the article
>> right.
>
> Typical. I must go back to not reading you posts. They never contain
> any actual analysis or argument, because you're too lazy and probably
> just too stupid to think anything through. You never actually respond to
> anything. You're just a low ranking and fairly unimaginative troll.
> You could just as easily be trolling on any other topic using the same
> weak, lazy approach - I doubt you actually have any real passion or
> feeling about anything. You just have nothing better to do than vent
> your frustration here, fighting the big bad pedos, oooh scary.
>
> You're too small minded to see that some of these beliefs espoused by
> the idoit Brandon have implications that extend far beyond society's
> handling of pedophilia, such as the desire to detain and/or prosecute
> people for what they *might* do, a fundamental breach of basic
> principles in a free society.
>
> Bah.
So tell us, have you ever thought deeply about why you are sexually
attracted to boys?
--
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 |
|