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 |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: A direct question on Milly Dowler for Robbie, Angel, and Locked out
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Innocent Accused |
Amen to all of you!
Now can we move on and let the personal attacks fade into distant memory please? |
|
Blackit |
Locked Out wrote:
I have no intention of being drawn into this beyond this posting and I have resisted the temptation to dismantle Blackit's arguments in the other thread setting, I hope, a better example to myself for the future. But I will say this much. It's clear, to me at least, that Blackit has crossed a line between what he claims is "fascination" {his own word} and obsession {my word} with underage sex, a subject he posts exhaustively, enthusiastically and exclusively on. I have no doubt he not only refute this posting, but will do so in several of his usual fairly short rantings.
The fact that he has made the claim that "many parents of 14 year old girls would allow their daughters to have sex with men in their 30's" shows pretty plainly where his mind is at. He yelps like a kicked puppy, repeating in mocking tones the words "cognitive distortions". And all the while his own words give us a clear impression of his been-through-the-mangling-iron thinking.
The fact is, of course, that the belief he articulates above is bollocks, and his representation is wishful thinking rather than actual fact.
I've never met any parent who has expressed any enthusiasm for the idea of having their 14 year old fucked by a guy in his 30s.
Have any of you?
I'd say probably not, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has.
Should Blackit be in any doubt as to what my own thoughts are on the subject of paedohysteria {and he certainly seems to have no clue what they are, or chooses to ignore them, instead misrepresenting them here as something they are patently not} I'd suggest he takes a look at my posting history. I have no intention of further engaging in discussion with this individual. He'll once again accuse me of trying to take the moral high ground, no doubt, as if I have no right to make judgments about what is wrong or right.
I've learned the difference the hard way.
So it's up to the reader to make up their own mind as to whether I, a {rightfully} convicted sex offender {who shared prison space with other inmates who'd committed all manner of crimes from possession of child porn to rapists and murderers because that's the nature of a sex offenders' wing in a prison} and have come out of the other side repentant, or Blackit, {who claims at the same time to be "speaking out" on behalf of "innocent" people - he isn't - and telling us it's ok for 30-odd year olds to sleep with 14 year olds because "many of their parents would allow it". It isn't and they wouldn't.} is the more reasonable and reasoned poster.
And, addressing for the moment the alleged matter actually at hand, I have made no comment on the NoTW issue because while I'm grateful that the rag has gone to the wall those who owned and operated it have not and will continue to poison the public mind for a depressingly long time still to come. In truth I expect no great ending to this story despite the dramatic overture played out this week.
****************************************************Finis***************************************************************
I was about to post a reply congratulating everybody on how balanced, articulate, and fair, the previous responses to my question have been...then I saw the above hysterical rant by Locked Out.
As far as the rational responses are concerned : as I said, fair and balanced, including Robbie's. Do I exaggerate and sensationalise as much as the red tops? Well if I do at least I'm not in charge of a multi-billion pound industry that poisons the minds of the entire nation. I think half the problem is that what I say is so rarely heard that you're confusing shocking with sensationalist and exaggerated. To defend Veritas here, perhaps you're referring to his accusation that Murdoch and the Sun published child porn with their topless 16 year old page 3 girls. Well it's true that this was legal back then, but it has always been illegal in the USA, and Murdoch is an American citizen, as Veritas pointed out yesterday.
As far as Locked Out's hysterical rant is concerned, I found it a little hard to follow or drag any points out of it that can even be addressed. The age of consent is 16 in the UK, effectively it was 14 (for heterosexuals) as little as a decade ago. The average age of consent in Europe is 14/15. In France it is 15, in Germany it is 14, in Italy it is 14, and in Spain it is 13. In all of these countries it is still fairly common to see girls at that age with men in their late twenties and thirties. I fail to see how it is a 'cognitive distortion' to think that these rather advanced countries, whose newspapers do not hack into murdered kid's phones to satisfy the purient lust of their uneducated nihilistic paedohysteric populations, have probably got it about right.
Is it wishful thinking on my part to see the age of consent at 14? Whether or not it is irrelevant given that fact I'm prepared to argue the issue rationally rather than provoke the wisdom of the mob ("no parent in their right mind...etc") or try to silence any debater with accusations of cognitive distortion.
I'm quite convinced, for example, that a primary motivation behind Angel's wish to see teenage boys lives publicly destroyed over sexy talk with a girl turning 13 is because it is in her, and all middle-aged women's interests, to have these unfortunate idiots held up as scape goats - "this is what any male and any partner of mine will have to go through if he ever get's into a sexual situation with a nubile young girl". And I'm entitled to point this out because she supplies no argument whatsoever to back up her paedohysterics, other than shaming langauge and the appeal to the authority of the mob, or the News of the World. If she comes up with any rational points, I'll certainly take her seriously and to actually debate with her without regard to motivations.
But thankyou Lockedout, your hystical attacks have enlightened me regarding the psychology of certain genuine sex offenders, and why many will have obvious selfish motivations in supporting feminists who continually blur the distinction between real rape and 'regretted sex', or child rape and consensual but underage teenage sex. |
|
Locked Out |
I have no intention of being drawn into this beyond this posting and I have resisted the temptation to dismantle Blackit's arguments in the other thread setting, I hope, a better example to myself for the future. But I will say this much. It's clear, to me at least, that Blackit has crossed a line between what he claims is "fascination" {his own word} and obsession {my word} with underage sex, a subject he posts exhaustively, enthusiastically and exclusively on. I have no doubt he not only refute this posting, but will do so in several of his usual fairly short rantings.
The fact that he has made the claim that "many parents of 14 year old girls would allow their daughters to have sex with men in their 30's" shows pretty plainly where his mind is at. He yelps like a kicked puppy, repeating in mocking tones the words "cognitive distortions". And all the while his own words give us a clear impression of his been-through-the-mangling-iron thinking.
The fact is, of course, that the belief he articulates above is bollocks, and his representation is wishful thinking rather than actual fact.
I've never met any parent who has expressed any enthusiasm for the idea of having their 14 year old fucked by a guy in his 30s.
Have any of you?
I'd say probably not, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has.
Should Blackit be in any doubt as to what my own thoughts are on the subject of paedohysteria {and he certainly seems to have no clue what they are, or chooses to ignore them, instead misrepresenting them here as something they are patently not} I'd suggest he takes a look at my posting history. I have no intention of further engaging in discussion with this individual. He'll once again accuse me of trying to take the moral high ground, no doubt, as if I have no right to make judgments about what is wrong or right.
I've learned the difference the hard way.
So it's up to the reader to make up their own mind as to whether I, a {rightfully} convicted sex offender {who shared prison space with other inmates who'd committed all manner of crimes from possession of child porn to rapists and murderers because that's the nature of a sex offenders' wing in a prison} and have come out of the other side repentant, or Blackit, {who claims at the same time to be "speaking out" on behalf of "innocent" people - he isn't - and telling us it's ok for 30-odd year olds to sleep with 14 year olds because "many of their parents would allow it". It isn't and they wouldn't.} is the more reasonable and reasoned poster.
And, addressing for the moment the alleged matter actually at hand, I have made no comment on the NoTW issue because while I'm grateful that the rag has gone to the wall those who owned and operated it have not and will continue to poison the public mind for a depressingly long time still to come. In truth I expect no great ending to this story despite the dramatic overture played out this week.
****************************************************Finis*************************************************************** |
|
angel |
Robbie has summed up how I feel. I have avoided the topic as I don't feel i'm well versed to comment compared to other's here, who have far more experience with the media. You had a go at me when I disagreed about the Heart's football player caught misbehaving with school kids. That does not mean I support the Murdoch empire or Sarah's Law. I think Mr Blacklit ought to respect other opinion's on discussion board's without jumping to conclusion's and let it be. Moving on.... |
|
BarntheBarn |
robbiex wrote:
yes I do think that the hacking into Milly Dowlers phone is related to the paedohysteria that has existed in the last 10 years or so. The public at large are titilated by stories of sex and sleeze, whilst at the same time announcing their disgust with it. This paedo-hysteria has seen parents banned from photographing their own children in school plays and the age at which glamour models can work been raised from 16 to 18.
I can't villify Murdoch for showing girls of 16 topless in his paper 20 years ago, because It was legal then, and I believe it should still be legal at 16. After all girls of 16 can get married and even go to war, surely they're old enough to show their boobs in a newspaper. Their is a big difference between a girl of 16 (over the age of consent) voluntarily posing topless and a girl of 14 been abused against her will.
I'm totally against the introduction of a so called Sarah's law, detailing the whereabouts of sex offenders. This would leave them open to vigilante style attacks and witch hunts, affecting not just them, but those that live close by. Where would it end. Why single out this crime and not others. It is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that they don't associate with strangers and to keep an eye on them.
Robbie, an excellent post. Truly exceptional. If there is any confusion...I sit with this  |
|
|
|
|
