Merry Christmas to everyone
24 December 2006Nobody is alone. Whether you’re a member, poster, or lurker, we’re thinking about you during this holiday 
Nobody is alone. Whether you’re a member, poster, or lurker, we’re thinking about you during this holiday
35 Responses to “Merry Christmas to everyone”
December 24th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
I’m disabling comments until December 26 because I want a break from moderating this blog on christmas day.
If you need to chat with someone, you can try http://www.annabelleigh.net/ (registration temporarily disabled) or http://www.boychat.org/
Have a great christmas
admin
December 26th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Comments are now enabled
December 28th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Well User, you cowardly little weasel. You actually ARE still alive and kicking, eh? And here I thought the evil ol’ men here had taken you hostage. I was getting ready to call in the troops to come rescue you.
But I reckon you’re just not man enough to stand up to me. Somehow I find it within me to talk about issues with you mono e mono, but you run away and hide and send in the most pathetic, lunatics you can find. So tell me now, you gonna keep hiding from me? If so, tell me now and I’ll address you elsewhere, as you have had previous experience with.
December 28th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
“Well User, you cowardly little weasel. You actually ARE still alive and kicking, eh?
Of course.
“Somehow I find it within me to talk about issues with you mono e mono, but you run away and hide and send in the most pathetic, lunatics you can find.“
You’re more likely to get a response from me if you tell me what you want to discuss.
“So tell me now, you gonna keep hiding from me?“
If you tell me what you want to discuss, I’ll debate with you now. If you want a genuine response from me, don’t play manipulative games; that’s why I haven’t responded to you.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
“You’re more likely to get a response from me if you tell me what you want to discuss.”
Well I did tell you. But we can start over if you wish.
You said
“How is that relevant if a paedophile isn’t having sex with a child and doesn’t have any intention of actually having sex with a child?”
I said:
The intent of one member of a social movement has very little to do with the collective goals of the movement. For instance, one member of Hamas stating that he intends to negotiate peacefully means very little in the context of the stated, written mission of Hamas - to destroy Israel by force.
These are the reasons that the distinction is still meaningful.
“If you want a genuine response from me, don’t play manipulative games; that’s why I haven’t responded to you.”
Well, that’s just a flat out lie, User. You didn’t respond to me, because you know I’m right. You hid and sent in a psychopath who can only talk mumbo jumbo and try to terrorize your visitors. I will only speak with you.
December 29th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Hamas is a terrorist organization, paedophile activism is a social movement. For example, you won’t find paedophile activists firing missiles at people who disagree with them. Using a terrorist organization as an example weakens your argument.
You’re also assuming that the majority of paedophiles agree with the majority of paedophile activists. Why do you make that assumption?
December 29th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
… because, she cannot even see the tedious, heavy footed, jack booted stupidity of her own logical fallacies.
It is what a major dysfunction does to a person.
WM
www.critest.com
December 29th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Blue ribbon so you haven’t died yet, what a shame! I thought your father might have plucked up the courage to shoot you or something.
December 29th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Well llort, I actually considered suicide recently. The reason that I didn’t commit suicide is that I know it would make people like you happy and I don’t want to give antis that pleasure.
December 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
L,
Been busy lately?
http://www.geocities.com/mrbob_inc/gingivitis.html
You catch anything?
WM
December 30th, 2006 at 12:44 am
Hey, Llort, that’s one big dilemma:
1. Llort’s games lead to demoralised pedosexuals.
2. A demoralised pedosexual has nothing to lose, and is far more likely to displace their anger into an act of molestation.
3. But they are far more likely to kill themselves.
Now, if anything can get you twiddling your pigtails, deciding who to bully next, it has to be that, no?
December 31st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Happy New Year, User.
Fuck those other guys.
Flee
December 31st, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Hey Flee, good to see you here
Happy new year,
~ BLue
January 1st, 2007 at 8:35 am
Using a terrorist organization as an example weakens your argument.
Wrong. Pedophile activists are terrorists.
Why do you make that assumption?
It’s not an assumption, it’s a deduction based on words right out of pedos mouths.
January 1st, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“Wrong. Pedophile activists are terrorists.“
Umm, I think you need to explain what you mean. Paedophile activism is not terrorism.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“Paedophile activism is not terrorism.”
Au contraire User. Perhaps you’ve been misguided by your pedopals.
Think, McFly, think!
January 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Classic Stitches, TY.
WM
January 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Heh! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Most pedophiles I know are kind good people who suffer a bunch. Thats ok, because it is only a matter of time before logic and love prevail. Thank goodness for the patience of people like User! Wouldn’t we be bored and life be dull if all the fools and stupidity ‘fell’ off the earth! Heh!
January 1st, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Yeah, you’re right. It’s not scary, so it’s not terrorism.
Your activism is laughable. This entire thing is a joke. You are the clowns and the stooges of the internet.
The crazy shit you say, and all the shit you put up with and raise your fist and say “Blargh”. You can’t do anything, nobody likes you guys.
You can’t win, so just go away.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:38 am
stitches,
I’m still waiting for you to reply to this -
“I think you need to explain what you mean.“
“Au contraire” is not an answer.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
Let’s back up User. First of all, the fact that Hamas uses violence vs the social terrorist tactics of pedo activists is irrelevant to my example. It was an example and a good one at that. You’re trying to steer this away from the original gay/pedo question.
“You’re also assuming that the majority of paedophiles agree with the majority of paedophile activists. Why do you make that assumption?”
I’m not making that assumption you silly boy. I spoke of the goals of pedo activism. Individuals within the group do not change the mission. Don’t play stupid.
If you would like an example of pedo terrorism, you have a classic one right here on this page. Read dannyboy’s response to llort.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
“Let’s back up User. First of all, the fact that Hamas uses violence vs the social terrorist tactics of pedo activists is irrelevant to my example.“
Paedophile activists do not attempt to inflict fear or panic, or incite violence against their enemies; that is a tactic of the people who attack us.
“I’m not making that assumption you silly boy. I spoke of the goals of pedo activism. Individuals within the group do not change the mission. Don’t play stupid.“
I’m not playing stupid. The issue is that you are intellectually inadequate and unable to comprehend the fact that there is a difference of opinion between paedophile activists and the majority of paedophiles. Many paedophiles accept the false stereotypes because they are too weak to speak out against their attackers.
“If you would like an example of pedo terrorism, you have a classic one right here on this page. Read dannyboy’s response to llort.“
Please refer to the question in my previous post, which you are determined to avoid.
January 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Paedophile activists do not attempt to inflict fear or panic, or incite violence against their enemies
That is a lie
Read dannyboy for an example.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
stitches,
Can you not understand Daniel’s response? He is explaining why llort’s methods can be dangerous to children. That is not an attempt to inflict fear or panic, or incite violence. Your distortions remind me of “Hell Pig”
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 am
Can you not understand Daniel’s response?
I understand it far better than you appear to, User.
People don’t harm children because society doesn’t like them. That’s a common pedo-excuse. The old “blame - someone - else - you - made - me - do - it - I’m - not - responsible - defense”. It doesn’t work.
Saying “1) this person has harmed a pedo
2) a harmed pedo will hurt children.
WA LA, you best leave pedos alone or we’ll hurt your children.”
Is a perfect example of pedo-terrorism. You obviously can’t understand that because you are a pedo and think pedo thoughts. You have been sucked into an entire way of thinking that is distorted and dysfunctional.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
“WA LA, you best leave pedos alone or we’ll hurt your children.”
He didn’t say that, you inferred it.
I don’t think it’s a threat. Daniel is stating an opinion and he’s explaining why he thinks that llort’s methods are dangerous to children.
“You have been sucked into an entire way of thinking that is distorted and dysfunctional.“
Please can you find me a credible study which suggests that paedophiles have distorted and dysfunctional thoughts. I don’t want a study reagrding sex offenders, I want a study regarding paedophiles.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I don’t want a study reagrding sex offenders, I want a study regarding paedophiles.
Read Bill Glaser
And, yes, dannyboy did indeed mean it as a threat, along with all the other pedoheads on girlchat and boychat both who have said it. In fact even Nihil here on nothingingness said it. I’ll check my files, I may even find where you said it.
And thank you for losing those noggins.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
In fact, stitches, I do not believe that demoralised pedophiles are at a high risk of harming childen, at least directly. But ‘having nothing to lose’ is very likely to increase the level of sex occuring between them and minors, and therefore the secondary social harm caused by therapy and harsh, moralistic debriefing for example.
Those who will physically attack children when frustrated are extremely unlikely to be pedophiles, since that would imply attacking someone who you could very well be attracted to (although labelling and bipolar MI can be very powerful things)
But since I was addressing the scenario from the position of Llort the enforcer , I deliberately failed to make the distinction (naturally).
Read my actual opinions on this, over here
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Stitches,
Get back to ‘your’ selective and biased research on AZ.
Your use of the word ’terrorism’ is outrageous and misplaced, here.
Fortunately, you are read by few, whereas ‘we’ are not.
More to the point, those of us ‘who have gone round the pedo bend’ are in full congruence and communication with those with influence.
‘We’ do not claim any degree of recidivism is ‘good’.
We do know where the lowest reoffending and recidivism rates are - these are internationally transferable. Many of these figure were before treatment was being shown to be even more effective.
The highest rates are within a small core of offenders - just like any other crime. Of course, the majority of the ‘victims’, even of this core, will suffer few or no negative effects of the liaison - some will.
But do not fool yourself that someone ’suffering’ from CSA is any more damaged than those from other crimes. This is the debilitating, logical weakness of many survivors.
Children are sexual. Many men find children sexually attractive - if a child is <18 then 99% of men do so.
These statements are undeniable.
You know what I propose for the distribution at lower ages.
If we wish to reduce the negative effects of any sexual liaison, we must bring people together to discuses the issues, without fear or prejudice - not isolate them electronically, emotionally or geographically.
Take a look at the links on my homepage. Do I… ‘scare them away from evil help’.
Obviously not, that is the counterproductive actions of a fool … that makes frightened men - frightened men are dangerous.
Do I … ‘give them strokes for their perversions!’ See some of the links on the left.
You are an isolator - you create hate, anger and misinformation. You can only argue by using black and white, one and zero, selective quotes, all which are invariably inapplicable. ‘All SOs are the same’, ‘all men who fancy kids are paedophiles’, all ‘paedophiles want to fuck babies’ - this is your level of debate.
But you are failing, ‘we’ are well above that and our external readers know it.
Society wants to stop the crimes, you need them to keep going - it is your payback for past events.
That is why you will always lose. We (society) are bigger than you.
BTW, who is doing your analyses? However flawed they are, they are something you are not capable of compiling.
WM
www.critest.com
January 3rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“I’ll check my files, I may even find where you said it.“
I haven’t said that, but have fun browsing your files.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Interview - Bill Glaser
Read an edited transcript of Quentin McDermott’s interview with Dr Bill Glaser.
Date: 23/05/2005
Q. Bill first of all the most obvious question if I may, what exactly is paedophilia?
B. Well paedophilia is a persistent deviant sexual interest in children ah manifested by ah thoughts, fantasies, behaviours of sexual contact with kids that’s ah lasted for an extended period of time.
Of course, Bill has left something out here, from DSM-IV
Q. Is it an illness then?
B. Well that’s one of those questions that um are very very difficult to answer. At one level one could say that there are some societies that have accepted it as normal behaviour ah at another level one could say that certainly it’s in our society and in our time regarded as being ah quite abnormal and worthy of mental health attention but of course on top of that you’ve got all the moral issues associated with ah sexual contact with kids.
So it is not then Bill, or you cannot make your mind up?
Q. If you walked down the street, could you recognise someone as being a paedophile?
B. No.
Q. So … is there such a thing as a typical paedophile?
B. No there is not. No such thing as a typical paedophile as recent very sad events in Australia have shown, paedophiles can be ah judges, doctors um prominent politicians, sports coaches, teachers, people from all walks of life.
Q. Why then does a child sex offender offend?
B. Well again that is one of the noble prize type questions. Um clearly there’s a combination of social factors, psychological factors, factors to do with the person’s upbringing. Perhaps some factors to do with their brain biology. A lot of people are working on this and I understand that in the programme you’ll be talking to my respective colleague ah Tony Ward who’s developed some very interesting and useful theories about ah that, but nothing unfortunately is settled at this time.
Q. The public of course sees child sex offenders simply as evil men.
B. That’s right.
Q. Is that too simplistic?
B. I think it is far too simplistic and unfortunately, whatever the cause of paedophilia, to see people who molest children as being evil, doesn’t take us much further in terms of actually stopping it from happening and it certainly doesn’t stop people who have committed ah sexual crimes with children from repeating them.
*****
Q. How damaging is it for communities to turn on child sex offenders and to hound them?
B. Well it’s certainly going to discourage them from seeking help and treatment in particular.
Q. OK um we’ve come across a child sex offender who seems to, who appears to have been hounded out the previous home he had. He then went interstate and he received some psychiatric treatment there but he then left that particular community and he went to a very remote township which was itself in some ways a vulnerable community. Is that a kind of classic situation and, and is that one situation that society, the community at large bears some responsibility for?
B. That’s one of the classic situations um clearly one, one has to be wary um about accepting that sort of account face value but the bottom line is that the more isolated from society an offender becomes, the more likely paradoxically he is to offend because he hasn’t got that network monitoring him, supporting him, pointing him in the right direction.
Q. How does the community need to change its own way of thinking about child sex offenders? What, how does society need to change its views?
B. I think society needs to adopt a rationale approach to looking at child molesters. It’s got to be somewhere between unmitigated fear and horror and denial that they’re in our midst and I guess the encouraging thing from treatment is that these people are there, they need to be recognised but once they are recognised, there is something we can do about them.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1375155.htm
Suck them lemons, Stitches.
WM
www.critest.com
January 4th, 2007 at 5:24 am
No problem, User. I’ll just use a quick search function.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Stitches - considering the jaw - dropping gap between what I said and what you inferred from it, you most certainly will find a quote of BLue’s that matches the meaning of mine, most likely in your very own ’special’ way.
But seriously, so what if you do find a ‘match’? What exactly will this mean? That the quote is any less valid? Why do you obsess so much over supposed moral victories, as opposed to the real argument?
Do you actually have a reason - based argument that goes beyond the usual baiting, or are you still at the stage where you have to test your logical abilities on these affirmative vs negative, black vs white issues?
You must know that you’re doing your cause a disservice by even trying to converse with people who are either substantially more intelligent than you, or defending a position that calls upon a substantially larger amount of intelligence?
If I opened this window five years ago, when I was fifteen, you would have been the clown who pushed me even further towards the position that I am now. I’m not putting on a swagger, but rather being plainly honest.
Kind Regards, Daniel, Game ON!
January 9th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Stitches77–
No problem, User. I’ll just use a quick search function.
1/04/2007 4:24 AM
Errmmm… Somehow I don’t think ‘quick’ means what you think it does….
–I*Love*Green*Olives
April 10th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“You obviously can’t understand that because you are a pedo and think pedo thoughts. You have been sucked into an entire way of thinking that is distorted and dysfunctional.”
You’re an idiot.