{AC} It's Official

[Survivor]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:12:44 -0800, "Desideria"

but do you reallyy write about kiddie sex ?
if so you really should get the fuck out of here.
cuz i have kids and no tolerance fer that kinda shit.
don't say it's just a story either , i did a couple terms of psych.not to
mention the obvious under tones et al.

According to my understanding, the short answer to your question is 'yes'. I
don't read the stories because they're outside my comfort level as well. (I
did read "Midas", Frank, and enjoyed it). But as stories are fiction, I
don't hold that against Frank any more than I hold Spider's story about Fast
Eddie and his uncle against *him*. Care to tell Spider to leave?
I understand the discomfort, Foxx. But I don't believe the Patrons have the
right to tell each other "you do something I abhor outside of Callahans, so
get the hell out of Callahans".

So alt.callahans is now officially a pedophile-friendly group

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 17:08:30 -0600, "suzilem"

Post by Survivor
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:12:44 -0800, "Desideria"

I understand the discomfort, Foxx. But I don't believe the Patrons have

the

Post by Survivor

right to tell each other "you do something I abhor outside of Callahans,

so

Post by Survivor

get the hell out of Callahans".

So alt.callahans is now officially a pedophile-friendly group

Let's see now.....Desi trimmed the extraneous groups from the header and
this latest sockpuppet of TedandAlice put a whole bunch of groups back in
(which I just carefully trimmed back out). Idjit.....

Interesting slip..

You *meant bobandcarole but you posted TedandAlice.

T&A is an uploader of hard core child pornography videos and pictures
from alt-support.boy-lovers.

How come you are familiar with T&A?

I don't know about the rest of the Patrons, but I don't view *myself* as
being sock-puppet-friendly and I wish that you, as well as the rest of your
ilk, would not be here.

Well we are not going to supply you with kiddie porn elf..that's for
sure.

[clipped groups restored}

--
From: David (I'm not a pedophile)<***@picknowl.com.au>

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

" I want to free children from the tyranny
of externally imposed celibacy. "

" It is about giving children the right to choose with whom
they will have sex."

[Brandon D Cartwright]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:46 -0800, Denny Wheeler

You can apologize later.

Nobody will be apologizing to you, you bloody-minded moron.
Item: The Supreme Court of the United States (where I, and Frank, and
the majority of alt.callahans posters live) has repeatedly ruled on
this matter. What Frank writes--along with others' snuff stories,
cannibalism stories, rape stories, etc etc--is 100% legal.

So he legally encourages adult males to have sex with children...

That's no problem for you?

Does the concept of fiction escape you? Obviously the answer is yes.

Does the concept encouraging the sexual assault of children escape
you?

Obviously the answer is yes.



"The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles."

Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization

http://www.dianarussell.com/chapter.html

Belief in such myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions
against victimizing children


Undermining the Prohibition Against Adult–Child Sex/Victimization

Although legal ages of consent vary in different countries,
adult–child sex is proscribed in most countries today.

Despite the prohibition in the United States, there are massive
numbers of child pornography Web sites that promote adult– child
sexual victimization through photographs, videos, or written stories.

For example, an incest Web site titled “Golden Incest Sites!” lists 50
titles (www.incestgold. com/indes.php, June 6, 2002). The pictures,
stories, videos, and other material it makes accessible to interested
Internet surfers can serve as highly suggestive models for viewers who
may never before have thought of their daughters, sons, nieces,
nephews, and other younger relatives in a sexual way.

The ubiquity of incest pornography also conveys the popularity of
such images, suggesting that large numbers of men must experience such
desires.

The prevalence of child pornography sites, their content, and their
positive portrayals of adult–child sexual abuse all serve to diminish
the deviant nature of incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse.
This in turn enhances the likelihood that some men’s internal
inhibitions against acting out incestuous and extrafamilial child
sexual victimization will be undermined.

It is also important to note two other ways in which the prohibition
against adult–child sex is undermined by child pornography. First, the
inclusion of many child pornography cartoons in mainstream men’s
magazines like Playboy and Penthouse communicates its social
acceptability. Second, the boards on various sites allow visitors to
form their own subcultural communities in which such behaviors or
desires are not considered deviant and where pedophiles and others
interested in child pornography can feel more normal. (Both of these
points will be discussed later in greater detail.)

3. By Minimizing or Trivializing the Harm of Adult–Child Sex/
Victimization (e.g., By Masking Child Victims’ Pain and Trauma)

Masking child victims’ pain and trauma is a major way in which the
prohibition against child sexual abuse is undermined. A pedophile
called Stewart describes how he masked victims’ pain when he
photographed young girls:

They couldn’t show fear or doubt in the pictures. They had to show
happiness or love. . . . To get that look, I’d give them something,
from tricycles to stereos. It depended on what they wanted. You have
to be able to express [evoke] excitement in the pictures. (Campagna &
Poffenberger, 1988, p. 126)

British journalist Davies (1994) describes “a video of a ‘girl with
her wrists and ankles chained to an iron bar in the ceiling and a
grotesque dildo hanging out of her” (cited by Itzin, 1996, p. 185).
“The pornographer who was showing the video pointed to the girl’s
smile as evidence of her consent” (Itzin, 1996, p. 185). The smile
also suggests that she enjoys being tortured in this fashion.

Linz and Imrich (2001) note that:

Potential molesters who watch child sex depictions that supposedly had
positive consequences for the victim may come to think that the victim
does not suffer and may believe that a larger percentage of children
would find forced sex pleasurable. (p. 91)

The evidence cited above confirms that masking the pain and trauma of
child pornography victims undermines the internal inhibitions of some
males who desire to sexually abuse children.

4. By Creating and/or Reinforcing Myths About Child Sexuality and/or
Adult–Child Sex/Victimization

Joseph LoPiccolo (1994) emphasizes that “most sex offenders have a
variety of distorted cognitive beliefs that are intimately related to
their deviant behavior” (LoPiccolo, personal communication, September
16, 2005. See LoPiccolo, 1994, for examples of these distorted
cognitive beliefs). These “flase belief-systems” (Itzin, 1996, p. 170)
or myths can be created and reinforced when males view child
pornography. For example, child pornography can convince males who
sexually desire children “that the feelings and desires they have
towards children are not wrong” (Tate, 1990, p. 110).

Following are nine other examples of distorted cognitions or myths
commonly held by pedophiles:

1. There’s nothing wrong with adult–child sex as long as children
consent to it.
2. If children behave seductively toward adults, it means “they’re
asking for it.”
3. Men who love children have sex with them to teach them about sex in
a positive, caring, emotional context.
4. Having sex with kids is good sex education for them, to prevent
them from having sexual problems as adults.
5. Since children are sexual beings with the capacity to enjoy sexual
stimulation, it’s fine for an adult to provide them with this
enjoyment.
6. Children who don’t tell anyone about being molested, can’t be upset
or bothered about it.
7. If children didn’t want to have sex with adults, they would react
by crying, fighting, screaming, and resisting.
8. When children initiate sex with adults or allow themselves to be
repeatedly molested by adults, it shows that they enjoy having sex
with them.
9. Sex between adult males and children is harmless unless force is
involved.

Belief in these myths undermines internal inhibitions against acting
out the desire to sexually abuse children. For example, Jenkins (2001)
notes that many pedophiles justify their sexual behavior with children
by claiming that children “consented to the actions,” or directly
sought sexual contact with their perpetrators (p. 117). These
pedophiles consider such experiences to be “consensual. Even if the
child is three or five, she was still asking for it” (Jenkins, 2001,
p. 117). Jenkins also maintains that “[l]inked to this is the denial
of injury, since the sexual activity is seen as rewarding and even
educational for the child, rather than selfish or exploitative”
(p.117). As Kelly, Wingfield, and Regan (1995) observe, child
pornography “enables them [perpetrators] to construct a different
version of reality” (p. 34) in which it is possible for them to
believe “that both their sexual and non-sexual needs are being met
without hurting the child” (Wyre, 1990, pp. 284–285).

The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles. Belief in such
myths undermines some men’s internal inhibitions against victimizing
children
--
Pedospeak

Pedospeak is the terminology that pedophiles use when referring to
variants of their lifestyle, with the intent of obscuring the negative
effects of their actions, and achieving legitimacy amongst the general
public. While some pedospeak words are simply abbreviations of terms
commonly used by anyone discussing pedophilia, many of the phrases
betray a clear attempt to twist the existing terminology in their
favor. By changing the language typically used to denote the sexual
abuse of children, they hope to portray this abuse in a more benign
light.

Pedophiles use such terms as "Child Lover," "Minor-Attracted Adult,"
"Girl Lover, "Boy Lover," etc., to describe themselves. Many resent
use of the word "pedophile" because they view it as a hated word. They
discuss about how, in history, and in some other countries, it's
accepted for adults to have sex with minors. The goal of pedospeak is
to trick people into thinking that they're harmless, and to become
more acceptable to society.

http://wikisposure.com/Pedospeak

[4s00th]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:07:55 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:46 -0800, Denny Wheeler

You can apologize later.

Nobody will be apologizing to you, you bloody-minded moron.
Item: The Supreme Court of the United States (where I, and Frank, and
the majority of alt.callahans posters live) has repeatedly ruled on
this matter. What Frank writes--along with others' snuff stories,
cannibalism stories, rape stories, etc etc--is 100% legal.

So he legally encourages adult males to have sex with children...
That's no problem for you?

Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read. By his logic, Preston & Child must
encourage people to be mass murderers. Stephen King must encourage
people to practice arcane arts as well as terrorizing others and
committing all kinds of acts of violence. Obviously JD Robb encourages
people to fuck and kill -- since those are the things that occur most
often in her Eve Dallas novels. I bet kids who read Spider-Man try to
swing through cities on webs shooting out of their wrists! And anyone
Bruce who reads Batman tries to squeeze his pre-teen crime-fighting
partner (that's where the term "Bruce" meaning "gay" came from with
the help of ignorant asses like Brandon).

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Does the concept of fiction escape you? Obviously the answer is yes.

Does the concept encouraging the sexual assault of children escape
you?
Obviously the answer is yes.

Ah, ignorance is obviously bliss.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
"The fantasy pedophilic stories on the Internet, the testimonies of
pedophiles, the descriptions of child pornography in mainstream men’s
magazines, and the descriptions of child pornography on the Internet
reinforce the myths common believed by pedophiles."

In exactly the same way that hysteria like that whipped up by Brandon
and his ilk perpetuate and reinforce the myths about pedophilia
believed by the uneducated, prejudiced and willfully ignorant.

Certainly, it is easy to believe some of the bullshit spread in
stories about child-adult sex in such stories -- in particular, the
belief that many CHILDREN seek out sexual encounters with adults
despite the fact that the opposite is quite true. However, more damage
is done by idiots who warn children about the dangers of strangers
without mentioning the fact that 90% of all cases of child sex
exploitation or molestation is perpetrated by a family member or
someone else that the child already knows and trusts. But anyone who
is willing to pattern his or her behavior based on Internet porn is
ignorant and probably ought to be removed from the gene pool.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Exposure to Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization

This is a bigger problem than many people realize. We tend to tease
kids about sex, jerking-off and whatnot, making them less sensitive to
such things when predatory adults try to introduce such items as part
of their seduction plan. It may also give the children inappropriate
knowledge that might stimulate activities that they would not
ordinarily pursue.

Let's face it -- an adult's concept of sex is different than a
child's, especially before puberty. To a kid, exposing themselves
might constitute a bit of naughtiness that makes them tingle all over.
It doesn't mean he/she wants the adult to teach them all about the
adult idea of sex! A quick touch, a quick feel, a quick lick -- these
are all things that kids sometimes do with each other and ought to be
considered normal sexual exploration -- but just because a child tries
to do these things with an adult doesn't mean that they want to do
what an adult considers sex to be! Adults see sex as ending in an
orgasm, but a pre-pubertal child cannot possibly understand that as a
goal. To them, the sex is the fun feeling they get from stimulation
and from doing something "naughty." The problem comes when adults try
to impose or project their own ideas about sex on kids.

Hey, kids think differently! Do you need to look at Piaget's
conservation tests to see that? How long do little children fear that
they might get sucked down the bathtub drain? Hell, it's twelve or
thirteen before they begin to think in abstract terms so that they can
understand extended similes and metaphors! So why should we expect
them to think about sex the way that we do? I can tell you that I knew
what sex was at the age of 8 -- in the technical sense. But I had no
idea what really made the sperm fly -- I even wondered if you lost
sperm when you peed! And sure, playing touchy-feely with my peers was
fun -- it felt good, and we knew we weren't supposed to be doing it,
which made it even more fun! But the purpose, other than a few moments
of feeling good and making our willies get hard, was totally beyond
me! And why did it feel good when I did it with other boys when there
was no way to make a baby with them? It didn't make much sense!

But Brandon also shows a bigger ignorance in his failure to understand
the principles behind Callahan's. He really ought to do a little
research before attacking people he doesn't know.

Callahan's, as many people know, is based on the principles of
Callahan's Cross-Time Saloon per the many books by Spider Robinson. At
Callahan's, you don't judge people. You can accept that others believe
things that are different from what you believe. It makes for nice
healthy discussion, but no judgments. It's a place where pain shared
is pain halved while joy shared is joy doubled. At Callahan's, a
pedophile who freely admits that he is sexually attracted to children
but chooses not to act on such feelings would be accepted -- and given
as much help as the people there could give to help him stay on the
path he has chosen. At Callahan's, people realize that you can believe
in a thing, but that doesn't mean that you do it -- just the way that
I believe that abortions are murder but do not believe that I have the
right to tell others that they should believe it or that I should
condemn anyone who chooses to go down that path -- especially since
I'll never have to make such a decision as a man. Again, it makes for
good, healthy discussion -- without judgment or rancor.

No one at Callahan's is going to believe accusations made against
people without proof. While, at the same time, they will stand up for
every right that a person has -- even if they do not agree with such a
right. People at Callahan's might not read or like the stories that
Frank McCoy writes, but they recognize his right to write them and
support him -- while idiots like Brandon claim that his stories
somehow encourage others to break the law and ought to be illegal just
because the story offends them. Too fucking bad.

And so, Brandon and his ilk attack Callahan's -- and most people at
Callahan's will ignore them and go on with their regular discussions.

I'd belly up to the bar myself, but I'm afraid the alcohol would do me
no good -- and God's Blessing gives me heartburn! ARGH! All coffee
drinks give me heartburn these days. But that doesn't mean you all
have to stop on my account! And I'm sure that Doc Webster, were he
still with us, would prescribe that you all carry on.

And if it happens to be Punday night -- then stand back from the
fireplace!

-- ***@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.

[4s00th]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 18:55:14 -0800 (PST), RedWolf

Post by 4s00th
I believe that abortions are murder but do not believe that I have the
right to tell others that they should believe it or that I should
condemn anyone who chooses to go down that path -- especially since
I'll never have to make such a decision as a man. Again, it makes for
good, healthy discussion -- without judgment or rancor.

I happen not to believe that abortions are murder, but if I did
believe so, then I would at least applaud the crimes committed against
abortion clinics and abortion doctors. If you really do think that
abortion is murder, then how can you possibly tolerate those who
"commit" it?

Because it is a matter of belief, not a matter of fact. If I could say
that it was definitely murder, then perhaps I would feel the way that
you do, but since I can only say that I believe it to be murder, then
I have to recognize that no one is required to believe the same things
that I do. And I think the fact that, as a man, I will never have to
make such a decision combined with the idea that this issues is not
settled enough to make an accurate statement either way makes me
loathe to make this an issue. And, as a former mental health social
worker and former Child Protective Services worker -- I've seen cases
where an abortion would have been the kinder choice. Keep in mind that
people with mental illnesses often make very poor choices about sex --
including who they do it with and what kind of protection they ought
to use (meaning they usually fuck other mentally ill patients without
any kind of protection passing along all kinds of STD's and making
babies with a genetic predisposition for mental illness and all kinds
of birth defects due to the psychotropic medications they take -- um,
are supposed to take!).

Post by 4s00th
I'd belly up to the bar myself, but I'm afraid the alcohol would do me
no good -- and God's Blessing gives me heartburn! ARGH! All coffee
drinks give me heartburn these days.

Have you tried Prilosec yet? It works for me. :-)

Yes, I believe I take the generic, but coffee drinks seem to push my
system over the line! It's a shame, I love a good God's Blessing as
well as a Coffee & Kahlua! or Coffee & Amareto!

-- ***@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.

[o***@yahoo.com]

Post by 4s00th

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
So he legally encourages adult males to have sex with children...
That's no problem for you?

Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read.

Are you saying people aren't ever motivated to act based on that which
enters their brains?

People learn to talk by imitating others. People adopt hairstyles and
start carrying around a little shiteater pocket dog because some
celebrity does. College kids spend a lot of energy turning themselves
into fucked up alcoholic adults, emulating the fucked up alcoholic
adults in their lives and egged on by the social fabric that
legitimizes consumption and abuse of alcohol.

Advertisers spend vast fortunes because they believe some large
portion of the public can be persuaded - guess why the candy at the
checkout stand at the grocery store is at eye level for kids. The
courts have ruled that you're not allowed to incite a riot because
they believe it's possible to do so.

You're making a losing argument if you claim people never act based on
something someone else says, does or writes. Folks like Voltaire and
Hitler have demonstrated the influencing power of words.

The emphasis needs to be on personal responsibility to act or not act.

Btw, pedophiles are sick fucks.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th
Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read.

Are you saying people aren't ever motivated to act based on that which
enters their brains?

---------------------------
If they did we'd have mass-murders right after leaving the theater.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
People learn to talk by imitating others.

---------------------------
But loving or hating doesn't come from imitation.
It comes soley from parental abuse.


People adopt hairstyles and

Post by o***@yahoo.com
start carrying around a little shiteater pocket dog because some
celebrity does.

---------------------------
Those are trivlal and have nothing of emotional intensity about them.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
College kids spend a lot of energy turning themselves
into fucked up alcoholic adults, emulating the fucked up alcoholic
adults in their lives and egged on by the social fabric that
legitimizes consumption and abuse of alcohol.

------------------------------------
They still don't hate to do that.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Advertisers spend vast fortunes because they believe some large
portion of the public can be persuaded - guess why the candy at the
checkout stand at the grocery store is at eye level for kids. The
courts have ruled that you're not allowed to incite a riot because
they believe it's possible to do so.

-------------------------------
Advertisers rely on increasing their sales by only a percent or two
from advertisement. And again, that's NOT hating.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
You're making a losing argument if you claim people never act based on
something someone else says, does or writes. Folks like Voltaire and
Hitler have demonstrated the influencing power of words.

-------------------------------------
Hitler played on already intense hatreds.
Steve

[o***@yahoo.com]

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th
Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read.

Are you saying people aren't ever motivated to act based on that which
enters their brains?

---------------------------
If they did we'd have mass-murders right after leaving the theater.

The query was regarding whether any people are ever motivated to act
on that which enters their brains. Yes they are. Your hyperbole
doesn't alter this.

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
People learn to talk by imitating others.

---------------------------
But loving or hating doesn't come from imitation.
It comes soley from parental abuse.

This, like most of what you say is so much horseshit, on multiple
levels.

Post by R. Steve Walz
 People adopt hairstyles and> start carrying around a little shiteater pocket dog because some

Post by o***@yahoo.com
celebrity does.

---------------------------
Those are trivlal and have nothing of emotional intensity about them.

Despite your attempt to smuggle in undefined, meaningless terms, it's
a demonstration of emulating behavior of others.

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Advertisers spend vast fortunes because they believe some large
portion of the public can be persuaded -

-------------------------------
Advertisers rely on increasing their sales by only a percent or two
from advertisement. And again, that's NOT hating.

Whether your specifics are correct - little that you say ever is -
it in fact demonstrates an influence.

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
You're making a losing argument if you claim people never act based on
something someone else says, does or writes. Folks like Voltaire and
Hitler have demonstrated the influencing power of words.

Hitler played on already intense hatreds.

Did the European Holocaust of the 20th Century occur before Hitler? No
it did not.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th
Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read.

Are you saying people aren't ever motivated to act based on that which
enters their brains?

---------------------------
If they did we'd have mass-murders right after leaving the theater.

The query was regarding whether any people are ever motivated to act
on that which enters their brains. Yes they are. Your hyperbole
doesn't alter this.

----------------------
The point was that people act on what they perceive, but that is done
through the filter of their cognition and awareness. Some might be
appalled, some excited but not by any desire to do similarly, and the
only ones who might ever emulate that example are the ones who have
reasons for their desire for revenge and are idly craving a method,
in which case it is merely a matter of time before they assume one.

In other words, the violent content did nothing to cause any violence,
even if it affected the manner of violence. Without the violent person
wanting vengeance for a crime done to THEM on their mind, there would
be no violent urge. The urge to do violence for real does NOT come
from mere example in fiction, or we would, by now, found that we had
to ban all fiction and storytelling to our species, because it caused
mass violence! And clearly it does NOT!! And THAT'S what my statement
meant, and I repeat: "If they did we'd have mass-murders right after
leaving the theater."

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
People learn to talk by imitating others.

---------------------------
But loving or hating doesn't come from imitation.
It comes soley from parental abuse.

This, like most of what you say is so much horseshit, on multiple
levels.

------------------------------
You managed to use up a bunch of words and say nothing.

That is the horseshit you spew when you can't find good reason for
anything you say.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz
People adopt hairstyles and> start carrying around a little shiteater pocket dog because some

Post by o***@yahoo.com
celebrity does.

---------------------------
Those are trivlal and have nothing of emotional intensity about them.

Despite your attempt to smuggle in undefined, meaningless terms,
it's a demonstration of emulating behavior of others.

-----------------------------
What is??
Nobody does that, or else I could describe a murder to you and you
would imitate it. As I said, people only emulate meaningless things
as fads.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Advertisers spend vast fortunes because they believe some large
portion of the public can be persuaded -

-------------------------------
Advertisers rely on increasing their sales by only a percent or two
from advertisement. And again, that's NOT hating.

Whether your specifics are correct - little that you say ever is -
it in fact demonstrates an influence.

-----------------------------------
But again, people don't commit violent acts from advertisements.
And people don't use violence in commercials BECAUSE it turns people
off.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
You're making a losing argument if you claim people never act based on
something someone else says, does or writes. Folks like Voltaire and
Hitler have demonstrated the influencing power of words.

Hitler played on already intense hatreds.

Did the European Holocaust of the 20th Century occur before Hitler? No
it did not.

--------------------------------
Hitler was just a leader, he didn't cause his appointment to power,
the people did, after they'd had their teeth kicked in in WW-I and
100,000's of their babies and children had died of starvation in the
blockade of Germany. They were pissed off beyond hope of correction.
If there were no Hitler they would have had to invent one, and they
would have done so!
Steve

[o***@yahoo.com]

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
The query was regarding whether any people are ever motivated to act
on that which enters their brains.  Yes they are.  Your hyperbole
doesn't alter this.

----------------------
The point was that people act on what they perceive, but that is done
through the filter of their cognition and awareness.

No, the unsupportable point you initially tried to side with which
you've unsurprisingly lost the thread of is that people aren't
stimulated to act by the words/deeds of others. Blathering about "the
filter of their cognition" doesn't negate the fact that some are
motivated to action by that which is put out there by others.

"Cognition and awareness" are among the key reasons why adults
interacting sexually with children is wrong.

Once again and as always you flop and flail about to try and deny
reality that doesn't fit the convoluted constructs that pass for your
mind.

Post by R. Steve Walz
and I repeat: "If they did we'd have mass-murders right after
leaving the theater."

And you're again off the mark. Not everyone is susceptible to acting
on what they've seen by emulating it but among other factors, threat
of consequences will prevent many from acting immediately and in plain
sight. Even the most deranged serial killer realizes that what they do
is unacceptable to others.

Post by R. Steve Walz
Hitler was just a leader, he didn't cause his appointment to power,

Unsurprisingly, you don't know shit about history. You clearly don't
have the vaguest idea of events leading to Hitler's rise to power.

Fortunately your diminished capacity means you'll remain just a
strange, fucked-up little man who spews ramblings on usenet until you
either die or are arrested for crossing the line.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
The query was regarding whether any people are ever motivated to act
on that which enters their brains. Yes they are. Your hyperbole
doesn't alter this.

----------------------
The point was that people act on what they perceive, but that is done
through the filter of their cognition and awareness.

No, the unsupportable point you initially tried to side with which
you've unsurprisingly lost the thread of is that people aren't
stimulated to act by the words/deeds of others. Blathering about "the
filter of their cognition" doesn't negate the fact that some are
motivated to action by that which is put out there by others.

-----------------------------
Nonsense, nobody sees that. Lots of people watch violence, and don't
commit violence, but they all know people whom they fear might commit
violence due to what they see. Such as yourself.

This is because such people, like you, who have not ever been that
abused by others have a VERY hard time identifying with the motives
and violent fantasies of people who have been made highly vengeful
and intolerant by early or repeated abuse by their life experiences.

Because of your failure to understand these violent motives, you will
invariably assume that violent people act in a manner so as to imitate
violence they see, merely because that is ONLY contact people like you
have to extreme violence, and so you assume that is how it comes into
other people's minds as well. YOU just imagine that you are IMMUNE!!

You're not! If you had experienced severe repeated abuse, you would
seriously wish to kill people too, AND YOU WOULD DO IT if you thought
you could get away with it. It would have little or nothing to do
with what you watched, unless it simply taught you a new method.
Your motive had nothing to do with something you saw.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
"Cognition and awareness" are among the key reasons why adults
interacting sexually with children is wrong.

-----------------------------
You'll need, of course, to explain that hand-waving. And I don't
think you can do so persuasively without me correcting obvious
defects in your work. There are no such limitations, you just
blathered a couple words with no offer of proof at all and
imagined that they should somehow magically suffice!!

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Once again and as always you flop and flail about to try and deny
reality that doesn't fit the convoluted constructs that pass for your
mind.

--------------------------------
You just said precisely nothing logically persuasive. You just don't
like what I say, and what I think, apparently because you can't,
think, that is.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz
and I repeat: "If they did we'd have mass-murders right after
leaving the theater."

And you're again off the mark. Not everyone is susceptible to acting
on what they've seen by emulating it but among other factors, threat
of consequences will prevent many from acting immediately and in plain
sight. Even the most deranged serial killer realizes that what they do
is unacceptable to others.

---------------------------------
Ah, there it is, you imagine that you're IMMUNE, and that it is just
that some other "lesser men" are NOT! You ignore HOW they got to be
who they are and WHY!! Your kind even imagines the nonsense that
preaches that "will power" can keep you from straying, and that SOME
people just "don't have enough"!! The "free will" theory of "sin"!
There is no "free will". Your head is chemical, and it follows those
laws and none other. You have NO way to change what you wind up
thinking, you can only be affected to change by cogitation on the
past or input from the present. The future is a foregone conclusion,
there is only one future for you, just as you know about the past
being unary when it was in the future.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz
Hitler was just a leader, he didn't cause his appointment to power,

Unsurprisingly, you don't know shit about history. You clearly don't
have the vaguest idea of events leading to Hitler's rise to power.

----------------------------
Once again, you prate insult without actually offering anything
logically persuasive or compelling. Is it that you don't know HOW
to think and offer logical REASONS for what you believe, or that
you don't imagine it to be necessary????

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Fortunately your diminished capacity means you'll remain just a
strange, fucked-up little man who spews ramblings on usenet until you
either die or are arrested for crossing the line.

----------------------------
Once again, you prate insult without actually offering anything
logically persuasive or compelling. Is it that you don't know HOW
to think and offer logical REASONS for what you believe, or that
you don't imagine it to be necessary????

You play the same broken game over and over. Are you retarded??
Steve

[o***@yahoo.com]

Post by R. Steve Walz
Nonsense, nobody

<snip>


OMFG, he's gone into full babble mode.

.snicker

If you ever do get busted related to your advocacy of kiddie diddling
it would be a hoot to see how your various justifications play with a
judge and jury. Though I suspect after hearing about 10 seconds of
your screed your attorney will tell you to STFU and let them do the
talking in court.

Post by R. Steve Walz
You play the same broken game over and over.

He says after pasting the same mumblespeak paragraph over and over.

I don't care if I pursuade you. You're a screwed-up little troll, but
it's obvious you realize this since having a mirror pointed at you
illicits such a tantrum.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by o***@yahoo.com
If you ever do get busted related to your advocacy of kiddie diddling

---------------
Nobody gets busted for advocacy, dipshit.

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz
You play the same broken game over and over.

He says after pasting the same mumblespeak paragraph over and over.

------------------
You're merely objectionable, not intelligent.
Steve

[Brandon D Cartwright]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by R. Steve Walz

Post by o***@yahoo.com
The query was regarding whether any people are ever motivated to act
on that which enters their brains.  Yes they are.  Your hyperbole
doesn't alter this.

----------------------
The point was that people act on what they perceive, but that is done
through the filter of their cognition and awareness.

No, the unsupportable point you initially tried to side with which
you've unsurprisingly lost the thread of is that people aren't
stimulated to act by the words/deeds of others. Blathering about "the
filter of their cognition" doesn't negate the fact that some are
motivated to action by that which is put out there by others.
"Cognition and awareness" are among the key reasons why adults
interacting sexually with children is wrong.
Once again and as always you flop and flail about to try and deny
reality that doesn't fit the convoluted constructs that pass for your
mind.

Post by R. Steve Walz
and I repeat: "If they did we'd have mass-murders right after
leaving the theater."

And you're again off the mark. Not everyone is susceptible to acting
on what they've seen by emulating it but among other factors, threat
of consequences will prevent many from acting immediately and in plain
sight. Even the most deranged serial killer realizes that what they do
is unacceptable to others.

Post by R. Steve Walz
Hitler was just a leader, he didn't cause his appointment to power,

Unsurprisingly, you don't know shit about history. You clearly don't
have the vaguest idea of events leading to Hitler's rise to power.
Fortunately your diminished capacity means you'll remain just a
strange, fucked-up little man who spews ramblings on usenet until you
either die or are arrested for crossing the line.

It's strange that he says folk aren't motivated to act by what they
see and read..

Paradoxically he insists I will be hunted down and killed for what I
say to him on Usenet..

<shrug>

how's the plans for public rapes going Steve?



--
______________________________________________________________
From: "R. Steve Walz" <***@armory.com>

You don't GET it, I'm NOT far-right, I'm FAR LEFT, and I support
NOT just some right-wing FREEDOM to sex, but FORCED sex!!

I see most people as brainwashed prigs who should be forcibly deprogrammed about sex by forcible neighborhood sex!

I support a legal system in which the People's State administers required PUBLIC sexual physical education for all its citizens!
Steve
______________________________________________________________

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by Brandon D Cartwright

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Fortunately your diminished capacity means you'll remain just a
strange, fucked-up little man who spews ramblings on usenet until you
either die or are arrested for crossing the line.

It's strange that he says folk aren't motivated to act by what they
see and read..

---------------------------
And so your "fictional theory of character" means that you imagine
that "good people" just never read any exciting dangerous fiction??
Get real.

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
Paradoxically he insists I will be hunted down and killed for what I
say to him on Usenet..

----------------------------
I'm merely guessing that you'll push someone too far and they'll
kill you. Not for what you say to me, asswipe.

But if things were to change much quicker even than *I* imagined,
well, you never know!
Steve

[4s00th]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th

Post by Brandon D Cartwright
So he legally encourages adult males to have sex with children...
That's no problem for you?

Once again, Brandon shows his patented ignorance. He somehow believes
that writing fiction somehow encourages people to imitate the
activities that they read.

Are you saying people aren't ever motivated to act based on that which
enters their brains?
People learn to talk by imitating others. People adopt hairstyles and
start carrying around a little shiteater pocket dog because some
celebrity does. College kids spend a lot of energy turning themselves
into fucked up alcoholic adults, emulating the fucked up alcoholic
adults in their lives and egged on by the social fabric that
legitimizes consumption and abuse of alcohol.
Advertisers spend vast fortunes because they believe some large
portion of the public can be persuaded - guess why the candy at the
checkout stand at the grocery store is at eye level for kids. The
courts have ruled that you're not allowed to incite a riot because
they believe it's possible to do so.
You're making a losing argument if you claim people never act based on
something someone else says, does or writes. Folks like Voltaire and
Hitler have demonstrated the influencing power of words.
The emphasis needs to be on personal responsibility to act or not act.

Personally, I quite agree with the last statement -- every action is a
matter of personal choice and people must be held accountable for
anything that they choose to do.

However, the issue in question here is whether people who write
fictional stories incite people to behave like the characters in the
stories that they read. Are you suggesting that people who read novels
about crimes suddenly become criminals? Or are you suggesting that, as
Brandon seems to think, the authors of such books should be held
liable for the actions of their readers?

Certainly, people do learn things by imitating others, and by reading
or else the whole how-to book industry would make no money, and the
school system would be a total failure. But to suggest that people are
INCITED to break the law by the stories that they read is sheer
nonsense. Anyone who would read a story and then assume it's okay to
act the way the characters in said story act when they know damn well
that to do so is breaking the law must be morally or intellectually
challenged to begin with.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Btw, pedophiles are sick fucks.

No, pedophiles are simply people who discover that they have feelings
that are not socially acceptable -- what they choose to do about those
feelings is what determines whether they are "sick fucks" or not.
Those who choose to molest children certainly are "sick fucks," but
those who choose to accept and deal with their feelings appropriately
are no sicker than anyone else.

-- ***@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.

[o***@yahoo.com]

Post by 4s00th

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Btw, pedophiles are sick fucks.

No, pedophiles are simply people who discover that they have feelings
that are not socially acceptable -- what they choose to do about those
feelings is what determines whether they are "sick fucks" or not.

No, they're sick fucks. The fact that they have such feelings makes
them so, just like an alcoholic is always an alcoholic. The fact that
they're ordered to stay away from children and aren't allowed to live
in proximity to schools reflects that this is recognized to be the
case. Of course the proper course would be to simply execute them
cheaply and use them for fertilizer, then we don't have any more John
Couie's. Fuck all this therapy, monitor ankle bracelet, chemical
measures horseshit that costs taxpayers.

They'd save everyone a lot of trouble if they'd simply kill themselves
in as unmessy a way as possible with a note pinned to their shirt
explaining why so as little police time as possible is wasted.

[4s00th]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Btw, pedophiles are sick fucks.

No, pedophiles are simply people who discover that they have feelings
that are not socially acceptable -- what they choose to do about those
feelings is what determines whether they are "sick fucks" or not.

No, they're sick fucks. The fact that they have such feelings makes
them so, just like an alcoholic is always an alcoholic. The fact that
they're ordered to stay away from children and aren't allowed to live
in proximity to schools reflects that this is recognized to be the
case. Of course the proper course would be to simply execute them
cheaply and use them for fertilizer, then we don't have any more John
Couie's. Fuck all this therapy, monitor ankle bracelet, chemical
measures horseshit that costs taxpayers.

That's funny -- I've NEVER been ordered to stay away from children; no
one has ever told me I can't live near a school -- I've never had any
of the problems you seem to say are true for PEDOPHILES -- perhaps
because you very ignorantly choose to believe that the word pedophile
means "child molester" when, in fact, it refers to someone who is
sexually attracted to children and does not imply whether they choose
to act on such feelings or not.

Just as an alcoholic has a choice about whether to take a drink, or a
heterosexual man has a choice about whether he should rape a woman or
rob a bank or slap some ignorant fool silly or any of the million
other things that people want to do but should not do either because
it's illegal or immoral. Having a feeling or thinking about something
is not illegal -- only behaviors that people choose to do can be
crimes.

Therefore, as someone who is sexually attracted to children but
refuses to have sex with any minor regardless of how I might feel, I
am a pedophile, but I am not a criminal. And let me tell you, I did
not ask to feel this way -- to have desires that I know I can never
act upon, but that doesn't mean I can give up my responsibility for
doing what I know to be right -- and not doing what I know can harm
someone else, someone precious to me.

An alcoholic does not ever have to take a drink -- no matter how much
one might feel he wants it. On the other hand, he might not be able to
stop himself once he starts drinking and the compulsion is
strengthened by loosening inhibitions the way that alcohol does. There
are those that have suggested that pedophilia and the other
paraphilias are actually compulsive disorders -- be that as it may, it
still comes down to a matter of choice. No matter how much you might
want to do something, you won't do it unless you choose to do so
(please understand, there are people with certain disorders or brain
traumas that really cannot control their impulses -- but this does not
apply to the majority of people).

Just as it's very interesting that, rather than actually respond to
the issue in this thread, you choose to sidetrack it to express your
own personal bigotry and ignorance. I do not blame you for being
repulsed by people who molest children -- they repulse me as well. But
you should not conclude that a whole group of people who fall under
the definition of "pedophile" by way of their feelings will
automatically act on those feelings to molest a child -- that is the
bigotry to which I refer. Neither should you assume that everyone who
molests a child is a pedophile -- there are certainly enough people
out there who get their jollies by scaring and controlling victims --
and a they might choose to attack a child out of convenience rather
than an actual attraction to children. And there are also people who
would not consider a pedophile relationship under normal
circumstances, but who fall into one in extreme situations -- such as
the case in which a spouse or partner is missing or physically unable
and a child then becomes a surrogate spouse or partner, usually taking
on other roles of the spouse such as child-care and cooking and
whatnot prior to any sexual relationship; these people are commonly
referred to as "situational pedophiles" and generally do not ever
commit the offense of molesting a child again once they are caught.

So you see, the issues are not quite as black and white as you want to
make them. "Pedophile" refers to someone who is sexually attracted to
children but does not mean that the person will molest a child; in the
meantime, some of those who do molest children are not actually
pedophiles.

Regardless, my purpose is to present to other pedophiles the
information that they do have a choice in how they behave and to
remind them of the amount of harm they can do if they choose poorly in
hopes of helping them to choose carefully -- much as I have to remind
myself to make sure that I continue to make appropriate choices every
day.

In that way, I'm no different from anyone else. Can you think of
anyone who hasn't had to make a decision about whether they will or
will not do something that they know is wrong? When their tempers
flare? When their find out they can't have something that they want?
When they feel frustrated? I mean, who hasn't wanted to tell the boss
to go to hell? Who hasn't wanted to smack the crap out of some idiot
who bothers them when they're busy or who just annoys them with their
ignorance? Who hasn't thought about just taking something that they
want? Most of us know how to exercise some degree of control.

-- ***@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.

[R. Steve Walz]

Post by o***@yahoo.com

Post by 4s00th

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Btw, pedophiles are sick fucks.

No, pedophiles are simply people who discover that they have feelings
that are not socially acceptable -- what they choose to do about those
feelings is what determines whether they are "sick fucks" or not.

No, they're sick fucks. The fact that they have such feelings makes
them so, just like an alcoholic is always an alcoholic. The fact that
they're ordered to stay away from children and aren't allowed to live
in proximity to schools reflects that this is recognized to be the
case.

--------------------------
You're a very confused person, you apparently are so shit-mouthed
on the topic that you can't even think.

Post by o***@yahoo.com
Of course the proper course would be to simply execute them

[]

Post by o***@yahoo.com
They'd save everyone a lot of trouble if they'd simply kill themselves

---------------------------
You're a sick little fuck. Something does this to people like you!
When were you butt-raped?
Steve