BusyGuy ripped open a bag of Fritos, watched the inhabitants of a Sears'
dressing room masturbate ferociously, and sputtered...
Post by BusyGuyAt last...an intelligent debater! Thanks.
*smirk* Kidwell says I'm st00pid. LOLOLOL
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesAccording to several references, pedophilia seems to apply both to the
act of having sex with children & the actual condition of being sexually
attracted to them.
That could be the fault of ignorant journalists who love to put their
pretty faces and empty heads on television.
Uh... no. I rarely watch TV. The aforementioned definition can be found
in just about ANY current dictionary, which is where I obtained it.
Post by BusyGuyPedophilia is not commonly
considered to be the act of having sex with children, it is more
usually applied to the mental state of being attracted (usually
sexually attracted) to children. And specifically to pre-pubescent
children, at that.
I never thought it applied directly to the *act* of having sex with
children, either. But then, I looked it up, and found otherwise.
Post by BusyGuyUsenet trolls and other sundry morons occasionally misuse the word
deliberately, for their own agendas.
Are you somehow unaware that *I* am one of those Trolls? Tsk.. tsk.. you
really SHOULD read the headers, more often.
For the record, I only started trolling these groups for laughs and
giggles... but then I saw the seriousness of the situation, after which,
it then became personal. While I cannot speak for the other Trolls, in
regard to their own individual motivations, I know that at least a couple
of them are parents, who have every right to be concerned. With that in
mind, is it any wonder they are projecting hostility towards the
pedophiles? I think you need to try and understand where they are coming
from. It's highly difficult to compose a cardboard, logical debate,
aimed at someone who is, from our perspective, a lecherous opportunist
seeking the right to violate our offspring. For most, having a child
changes the way you think about everything. You have this tiny little
human being who is completely dependent upon you for their safety,
comfort, and happiness. ANYTHING or ANYONE that appears to pose a threat
to their well-being, will be stirring up a hornet's nest of Nature-imbued
protective parental instincts. Like the lioness, I too will attack,
maim, and destroy those who attempt to prey on my cub, up until the day
comes when he is old enough to defend himself. I think many of the
Trolls here, are of a similar mentality.
Post by BusyGuyThe act of having sex with children is called, by opponents, "child
sexual abuse" and, by others...well, a variety of names, really.
Post by Twinkle ToesI define a *child* as someone who is physically
and/or mentally underdeveloped, and incapable of making logical, mature
decisions.
I think that's a mistake. "Child" has a legal meaning, which differs
from juridiction to jurisdiction. It also has an everyday meaning and I
do not think your definition fits the common meaning.
Let's not get technical... I'm sure you know what I mean.
Post by BusyGuyYour definition would encompass adults with a developmental disability.
Quite true. I believe they should also be closely guarded, due to their
vulnerable state of mind. This would also apply to certain types of
senior citizens, as well... specifically, those in nursing homes, who
experience some level of incoherency, and often find themselves at the
mercy of a devious CNA with ulterior motives.
Post by BusyGuySuch people can present _as_ children but are _not_ children in the
accepted sense, i think.
I think mental competence is a HUGE determining factor, regardless of
age.
Post by BusyGuyI suggest that, if the debate is about pedophilia, the word "child"
should refer to a pre-pubertal person. If the debate is about the law,
the word should refer to a person under the age of consent in the
jurisdiction in question. If the debate is about societal attitudes,
perhaps the word should be omitted on the ground of ambiguity or
uncertainty.
I suggest you accept my current terminology... AS IS. I'm not a food
processor, don't expect me to mince.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesIt is none of my business what others choose to fantasize
about... but when I see nutbags, like Kidwell, making statements to the
effect of "if it's old enough to say yes, it's OK to have sex with it"...
Did he say that? I missed it.
Yep.
Post by BusyGuy"Have sex with" is also an emotion-charged and ambiguous term. i think
it, too, should not be used in any serious debate because no one knows
what the user means exactly.
Oh, good grief! I think everyone knows what "have sex with" entails.
The numerous variations of said act do not discount the fact that it is
still, essentially in the very general sense... SEX. Oral, anal,
vaginal, mutual masturbation and so forth... are ALL valid forms of
sexual activity, between two or more people.
Besides, I was quoting Chrissy... take it up with him.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesWhat level of savagery would this country degrade to
Naughty naughty. Please don't be one of those who thinks _their_
country is the only one in the world.
Excuse you? Are you attempting to dictate what I should or should not
think/type? I am a citizen of USA, and am addressing fellow Americans.
Foreigners can fill in the blanks, where necessary. I'm not interested
in debating the legalities/social norms...etc.. of other countries...
just my own... since I DO live here, after all. However, I feel deep
sympathy for ANY child, in ANY part of the world, who is being abused.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle Toes, if everyone was
allowed to do anything they want, just because it *turns them on*??? We
don't need another Thailand
Huh?
1 Who says there is any such place where "everyone is allowed to do
anything [he] wants?"
Did you somehow miss the word "IF"????? Although no country is entirely
Anarchic, some are bordering that particular political spectrum more
closely than others. *cough* Holland *cough*
Hmmm... Well, this reply was meant for Frank McCoy, who, like myself, is
a resident of USA.
Post by BusyGuy3 What is it about Thailand that offends those people you call "we" I
surely hope you are not saying that, in Thailand, everyone is allowed
to do anything he wants just because it turns him on and that this is
not alright with you.
I mentioned three different countries... why did you so eagerly scarf up
on the Thailand reference???
Could it be... because you live there?
Could it be... that you are in fact, if memory serves me correctly, the
VERY inspiration for my use of Thailand as an example??? BECAUSE...
You are, correct me if I am wrong, the same man who divulged the rather
tawdry details of his relationship with a young, economically
disadvantaged Thai boy, whom he provides with basic necessities, in
exchange for sexual favors???
The same man who, so arrogantly stated "he has it good with me, and he
knows it"???
The same man who was contemplating the possibility of fucking around on
said boy???
The SAME man who coldly explained how he manages to *overlook* the
hundreds of young male prostitutes sleeping on street corners??? That
is, of course, until you feel a twitch in your trousers. Yeah, I'll bet
you have time for them then, huh?
If you're who I think you are... children are a mere vessel for your
sperm, as far as you're concerned.
Post by BusyGuyBecause (a) It is certainly not true that everyone has such a right in
Thailand; (b) if it were true, what business would it be of people
outside Thailand?
Yes, I know that, because I live in another country, I'm supposed to
somehow turn off my *HUMANITY* switch. Maybe that's an easy feat for a
robot such as yourself, but I'm a human being with a heart. Suffering is
suffering, regardless of where it occurs... and I MAKE the dissolution of
such atrocities *MY* business. Just as my post was a response to Frank,
and you chose to make it YOUR business.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle Toes...I fail to
see the *great injustice* in age of consent laws.
Then you are in the right place. Here is a good place to debate such a
thing. Without all the bullshit that the trolls spread, the debate is a
worthy one and deserving of time from you and other intelligent
opponents and supporters. Both sides have valid points to make.
It's just a pity that the points are not being made in a greater forum,
where they would attract input from the offline community too, and
would catch the attention of the only people who can really make a
difference, the politicians.
Post by Twinkle ToesThere are FAR more
pressing issues to address than, whether or not a pedophile is being
allowed to get his rocks off with some *young stuff*.
Better, in any debate, to avoid pejoratives. It labels the user as
emotional rather than logical and often leads to diverting the debate
away from the issue into ad hominems.
Emotional issues provoke emotional responses. Not all of us are capable
of approaching such topics with the wooden, icy logic that you apparently
find comfort in. Are you saying people's feelings are unimportant???
Ha! I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL, if that is your stance.
Post by BusyGuyYou also demonstrate an error of logic here. Though there might be "far
more pressing issues", that is not a good reason to avoid debating
_this_ issue. If it were, the whole world would be constrained to
debate just one issue. (And the Big Argument would be "which issue?")
Where did I state that only ONE issue is worthy of debate??? I said
"issues"... pssst... that's plural. I'm afraid it is YOUR logic, which
is faulty. One word: Priorities. ALL governments address issues, based
on importance, relevance & necessity. Forgive me, but I find the
argument of whether or not a pedophile should be allowed to legally act
upon their desires, a ridiculous & unwarranted distraction from the
things that REALLY matter... like eliminating poverty, environmental
concerns...and so forth.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesThe worst argument
yet, presented by pedo-poster-boy Kidwell, is that it's *for the
children*.
Yes, there are many things about Christopher's posts that I don't agree
with.
Wasting time arguing with trolls is one of them.
I have come to acquire the reverse attitude... the Trolls are wasting
their time on him, including me. His head is like a sieve.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle Toes...I
think it goes without saying that, even IF such laws were abolished,
Chrissy will NEVER see a line of eager school girls, forming outside his
front door.
This is an example of the sort of ad hominem i think everyone should
avoid. Worse, in fact. It's a specious, unnecessarily-provocative and
silly comment. Sorry. I don't think he ever said that and it is fatuous
to imply that he did.
It's called HUMOR, Mr. Roboto. Was that not programmed into your hard
drive, during your VERY lengthy stint on the assembly line?
Post by BusyGuyEven a dedicated and committed pedophile does not fantasize about such
a situation. Instead, most of them dream of having one consenting
partner with whom a genuine affection can be shared ? with or without
physical activity ? in the absence of strong disapproval from others
who have, in the opinion of the pedophile, no proper ground to become
involved.
Who are you to assume what ALL pedophiles fantasize about? Are you their
official spokesman? You can only speak for yourself... and, once again,
IF you are who I think you to be, you're not even capable of being honest
about your own desires. One partner indeed... hmmph.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle Toes...the age of consent in my state is
16; I see nothing wrong with this.
I understand. If you grow up having cornflakes for breakfast every
morning, chances are you will find it "weird" that the guy down the
road prefers eggs on toast.
Nice analogy. Comparing human beings to breakfast consumables. My, you
really ARE a carnivorous one, aren't you? LOLOLOL
You MAY have been speaking in reference to the actual laws themselves...
but I could NOT resist that one.
Post by BusyGuyPeople (let's say, just for the argument) who live in an American state
where the age of consent is 18, would think your state's age of consent
is too liberal. People in your state would think that, over there in
the neighboring state where the age of consent is 14, things are way
too liberal.
Many people in general in America will think that Canada is too liberal.
Many in Canada will think that Australia is too liberal.
Many in Australia will think that New Zealand is too liberal.
Many in New Zealand will think that Western Europe is too liberal.
Many in Western Europe will think that Japan is too liberal.
Many in Japan will think that the former Soviet Union is too liberal.
Many people in general in America will think that China is too
conservative.
Many in China will think that Pakistan is too conservative.
Many in Pakistan will think that Afghanistan is too conservative.
Many in Afghanistan will think that Iran is too conservative.
Many in Iran will think that North Korea is too conservative.
Yet almost everyone is moderably content. It's all a matter of what
you're used to.
No shit.
Post by BusyGuyThe big problem, in my view, is that America thinks it has the right
but, worse, almost alone, also has the power, to tell the rest of the
world how to behave. Funny how America somehow seems to be the only
place to have gotten everything "just right."
I'll pretend you didn't say that.
Post by BusyGuyYou can be sure that it's not just the folks in North Korea and Russia
who think America should just keep its fucking big trap shut and its
strong-arm bully-boy tactics at home. You must surely have noticed how
most of the world holds a deep disaffection for Washington. Pity most
Americans themselves are such nice people.
Fucking big trap? Ooops! Would that be a sample of the unemotional
"logic" you were speaking of???? All hostility directed at America is
usually based on nothing but sheer jealousy. Why do SO many immigrants
make USA their home??? Because it's damn good over here, that's why. : P
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesIt seems reasonable, since one has
only a few short years to enjoy the innocence of childhood
"Innocence" is a word widely-misused, in my opinion. The word needed is
"ignorance." The antonym of "innocence" is "guilt" and I see no reason
why the passage from childhood to adulthood should bring on a flood of
guilt. Unless you happen to be a christian and believe all that
bullshit about gardens and apples.
The antonym of "ignorance" is "knowledge" and i think that's way more
appropriate when talking about children and their awareness of sexual
matters. But "the ignorance of childhood" is out of favor because
"ignorant" has acquired a whiff of disapproving personal attack that it
does not deserve.
I'll use whatever words I choose. I'm not one of those poor Thai boys
you mount nightly. Ha! And they say Americans are the bossy ones. I'd
say you need a good slap on the prick... I don't take orders from you,
honey.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle Toes... A mere
16 years of childish, carefree abandon is hardly a death sentence.
Again, I do not think such an argument is presented by pedophiles. They
don't, I think, want to "rescue" all children from what they see as a
"death sentence." Your use of emotive language weakens your
presentation.
And your use of "fucking big trap" was NOT emotive???
See, you've really done it now. When I first began to compose this
reply, I was in a oddly rational mood. But, you have nit-picked, and
fussed, and rambled... and just made an all-out issue of the most
irrelevant things. Thus, my inner Troll is now sufficiently riled.
For your FUCKING MISGUIDED INFORMATION....EVERYONE expresses themselves
with SOME form of emotion... it's called BEING HUMAN. Consult your
owner's manual, Killroy.
Post by BusyGuyI think what they want is for other people to stop telling specific
kids that they cannot do what _they_ (the kids) want to do simply
because it's a sexual matter and therefore proscribed for, in the
opinion of the pedophile, no good reason.
Of course a pedo is going to think it's a no-good reason... they want to
GET OFF. Anything that stands in the way of their sexual gratification
is going to be labeled as "unreasonable". That's a given. Logic, baby,
logic..
Think
*slap*
Think
*slap*
*slap*
*SLAM*
*KICK*
*TASE*
I have a headache THIS big, because of you.
Post by BusyGuyTry this mental exercise:?
Grab your ankles. *deploys paddle*
Post by BusyGuyAdult: "You must not engage in sexual activity."
Child: Why?"
Adult: "Because at your age it is wrong."
Child: "Why?"
Adult: "Because you want to do it with a much older person. That is
doubly-wrong."
Child: "Why?"
You fill in the rest.
Hey, let's fill that hole in your ass, instead. *deploys strap-on*
It's time for YOU to be the bitch.
Post by BusyGuyI think many parents want to say "Sex per se is dirty and bad. I cannot
stop other adults but I sure can stop you." A liberal will respond "but
why is is dirty and bad?" Frankly, I have NEVER seen a valid response
to that earth-shattering question. Most people believe it is a truism
so they assume no one will question it. They go ahead from that stance
and say that kids should be delayed from entering that "dirty" world as
long as possible. But ask them why is sex dirty and they scramble to
change the subject. Because I don't think there is any valid answer.
As I have stated, numerous times, and am getting pretty fucking sick of
repeating myself... I DO NOT think sex is dirty, evil, bad... etc.
I believe that ANYTHING can be potentially destructive, if used in a
negative manner.
Case in point: I have a pound of sugar in my cupboard. I *could* use it
to bake cookies... OR... I *could* pour it into my annoying neighbor's
gas tank.
Understand that gross misuse of anything, be it a plastic spoon, a jar of
Vaseline, or in this case.. sex, will transform it into something "bad".
For the record, I categorize the act of adult w/child intercourse as a
gross misuse of sexuality.
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesAre
they going to get curious about sex before that time?
People get curious about sex when they get curious about sex. Before
age 16, are you asking? Hell yes!
Here's another little exercise for conservatives to try: Wait till you
make a new acquaintance with a kid who does not know you are a
conservative. (I don't mean you personally. I don't know if you're a
conservative or not. I think so, but it's polite to wait till you say
so.)
I'm not a conservative, you moron. I'm a Moderately Liberal Socialist
with Democratic overtones. However, I must say that the resident pedos
are pushing me further toward the right-wing mentality than I ever
thought possible.
Post by BusyGuyDevelop a conversational relationship with the kid. Sooner or later,
the kid will disclose something you disapprove of. BITE YOUR FUCKING
TONGUE !!! say _nothing_ that would give even the smallest hint to the
kid that you are in any way surprised or disapproving of what you have
just been told.
Continue the conversational relationship. Maybe for hours, maybe for
days, maybe for weeks. Eventually, you will be told that the kid is
waaaaay more experienced in matters of a sexual nature than you would
ever imagine in your wildest dreams or that you would ever accept from
a pedophile giving you an opinion. Take the Reality Test. i dare you.
*slap* You're one of the VERY last people I would take parental advice
from.
Post by BusyGuyThere is a huge communication gulf between kids and adults because they
know that the adult will dump on them as soon as they open up. So they
stay quiet and the only adults who know about what kids really are
doing are the pedophiles, liberals and, to a lesser extent, the
school-teachers who cannot avoid overhearing things they sometimes wish
they did not. In a way, it's a private joke. The conservative parents
on one side, everyone else on the other. Trouble is, it stops being a
joke when an information leak occurs.
Post by Twinkle Toes...If
Kidwell and company were TRULY interested in the welfare of children,
they wouldn't be posting half the crap they do.
I think some people are just inept at text-based conversation. For
sure, i will always prefer a face-to-face. Many people hold
badly-formed opinions or cannot find the words to properly express
them. Perhaps they just have a head full of wool. A second group pf
people will hold opinions that are just plain stupid and, more rarely,
a third group will hold an opinion that is dangerous. I think
Christopher fits into the first group.
I think he fits into groups 1 and 3. Although, I've always viewed him as
a large, steaming pile of number 2. LOLOLOL : P
Post by BusyGuyPost by Twinkle ToesSupposing a child under
the age of 16 decides to have sex with someone, who is also underaged...
well, THAT is not illegal
Sorry, it is illegal in most jurisdictions. And it has lead to some
horror stories right here in this group. The cruelty and downright
fucking moronic attitude of some lawmakers and law enforcers is too
strange for fiction. Only in America...
Uh... WRONG. I've yet to see an underaged couple get busted for messing
around... at least not in my state. Only in cases where a child was
forcibly raped by another, has there been any legal intervention.
--
And the Stupid CUNT Lifetime achievement award goes to:
Camille Grammer.. AKA The Gold-digging closet lesbian
who suggested the *brilliant* idea of laser hair removal &
back-waxing to her gorgeous, much-undeserved husband.
Everyone knows it's a SIN to rob a teddy bear of his fur.
Here's hoping you experience permenant facial paralasis,
when you crawl back into Fake-Bitches-R-Us for your next
Botox injection, you insipid, ignominious, rotting shell of a woman.