Tedn'Alice@BLDL.com wrote in
news:qf16d4d5l702cn2kaei5jvgpkngi5n529q@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
> wrote:
>
>>Vlad-The-Impaler <me-again@wombledown.net> wrote in
>>news:thi1d4t2edbfd0hl607djijauflrc8phee@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>So why did you snip this?
>>
>>"I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>>presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>>without their informed consent."
>>
>>No answer on that yet, huh? No doubt you will keep ignoring.
>
> Not only is your line impotent,
> It's old.
So why not copy and paste an old riposte?
> Get a new one jackspew.
Maybe if you answer this one first. Or are you going to come out with that
hoary old chestnut of "they are old pics/legal pics"? As if that makes any
difference to respect levels.
--
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 |
|