King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Blackit wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]angel wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Blackit wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Angel wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Blackit wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]UncluedView wrote:[/b]
[quote]Wot's a paedophile ?

Is it a good or bad thing ?[/quote]

An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children.

The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile.

Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive.[/quote]

I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself?[/quote]

I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons.

But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press.

If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is?

I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing?  He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time?[/quote]

I have no idea if the bloke in question had consensual sex or not  but you obviously do which is the bone of my contention with many of your comments. Consensual or not the law had been broken so its a crime in my book.[/quote]

I said PROBABLY.

Please, please, learn to read before you mindlessly insult me.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Newsnight tonight
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Hedda	Very true Angel but when governments try and control human passions there will always be transgressors. And as we know, government can also turn laws on their head when they want to go and kill lots of people. Having a common enemy..commies, fascists, gypsies Jews or 'sex offenders' is a theme.
Stud (Blackit)	the scribbler wrote: doubt if angel will reply to your insult, but i'm pretty sure that everyone has heard of turing. Thoughts on Turing. I've made 3 or 4 long arguments in the last few days here involving Turing and the double standards of judging the criminal actions of a different era by those of today. I don't think many even bother to read most of the comments here anymore. Just open a thread, look straight for any post and then proceed to make an insult/comment that contains no argument whatsoever. You can't judge a man's ancient deeds by the standards of today. And anyway, just because somebody is a criminal (or alleged to have been one) they are still a human being and basic standards of civilisation should ensure that there are limits to the extent you can lie, slander, and turn them into subhuman monsters in order to sell newspapers. How would Rebekkah Brooks feel (assuming, as we are with Savile, that she is guilty of the present unproven accusations against her) if the Daily Mail started publishing absurd claims that she had ordered journalists to murder kids in order to sell more newspapers? I expect that you'd like us to feel sorry for her? What if she was burnt as a witch? Or does just the pity for (alleged) male criminals warrant shaming language? Posters should have 1/ the capacity to make a concrete argument or a genuine point of criticism against an argument. 2/ the capacity to understand and demonstrate understanding of the viewpoints that posters have made numerous times already. 3/ the ability and courage to recognise that we live in a supposedly gender equal society.
Blackit	angel wrote: Blackit wrote: Angel wrote: Blackit wrote: UncluedView wrote: Wot's a paedophile ? Is it a good or bad thing ? An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile. Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive. I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself? I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons. But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press. If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is? I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing? He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time? I have no idea if the bloke in question had consensual sex or not but you obviously do which is the bone of my contention with many of your comments. Consensual or not the law had been broken so its a crime in my book. I said PROBABLY. Please, please, learn to read before you mindlessly insult me.
the scribbler	doubt if angel will reply to your insult, but i'm pretty sure that everyone has heard of turing.
angel	Blackit wrote: Angel wrote: Blackit wrote: UncluedView wrote: Wot's a paedophile ? Is it a good or bad thing ? An adult with the perverted sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The poor chap due to be named tonight has probably been alleged to have banged a willing pert breasted 14 year old back 1957 or something, but it won't stop the abusers of language calling him a paedophile. Another decade or so and a man will be a paedophile if he finds anything younger than Esther Rancid attractive. I suppose we ought to start feeling sorry for all these "poor" individuals. Certainly not paedophiles but still a crime in itself? I don't expect you to feel sorry Angel, for obvious reasons. But yes, I do feel sorry for individuals who engaged in consensual sex with slightly underage individuals decades ago in an era when a betting man would have staked his mortgage on the law soon being scrapped (or rather lowered) along with the law against homosexuality, and who are now being crucified by our own disgusting and hypocritical morality and child abusing tabloid press. If the original crime is so wicked and speaks for itself why do we have to misrepresent it and use our present day abuse of language to turn it into something far worse than it is? I doubt if you've ever heard of him, even though we've mentioned him here several times recently, but do you have an opinion (preferably based upon reason) on Alan Turing? He's recieved a state pardon and been turned into a secular gay martyr even though he broke the law 50 years aog by having sex with a 19 year old boy - something that carried a possible death sentence at the time? I have no idea if the bloke in question had consensual sex or not but you obviously do which is the bone of my contention with many of your comments. Consensual or not the law had been broken so its a crime in my book.