Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote in
news:Xns9B1E560A639BFutb@208.90.168.18:
> 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?
>
No answer, huh? *chuckle*
--
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 |
|