Contradictions, Blatant Dishonesty, True Intentions, PJ
11 January 2007In his CSO article here, Mr Eide states -
“We are not targeting companies for merely having pedophiles, advocates of pedophilia and sex offenders on their servers. We are targeting companies that allow and support pedophiles using their services to advance the cause of child rape”
This is, of course, a lie. My blog at Wordpress contained one article, which didn’t refer to adult-child sex. Despite this, PJ forced Wordpress to remove it. I posted almost 50 articles on my blog at Blogger (refusing-to-be-silent.blogspot.com), however I didn’t defend or promote adult-child sex, for the simple reason that I don’t support it. This didn’t prevent Mr Eide from posting this on his opinions page -
“Each of their [blogger] over 29 pedophile or pedophile advocacy blogs encourage adult/child sexual relations”
His idiocy, or rather his dishonesty, becomes more apparent at the bottom of this page -
Do YOU know of an internet company that has pedophiles on their servers and won’t do anything about it? Please drop a line and let us know about it so we can do an investigation and possibly add to our CSO registry.
This contradicts his claim that PJ are only interested in removing people who promote adult-child sex, offering us insight into the real intentions of Perverted Justice - removing even law-abiding paedophiles who advocate legal behavior - from the internet.
People claim that they attack us because they believe that we may harm children. In reality, the words of Mr Eide posted above and his words to Ella prove that they are not interested in child protection and they do not care about what some paedophiles do to children…. They hate us simply because they find our thoughts offensive, but they won’t admit it.
3 Responses to “Contradictions, Blatant Dishonesty, True Intentions, PJ”
January 11th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“XavierVE1 (5:45:08 PM): My goal is not to protect minors. It’s to go after pedophiles. And believe me, I know the “throw the voice to sound young” trick better than anyone. We’ve perfected it. Run along now.”
As Ella points out - What is the point in going after people of a particular, natural sexual preference if it isn’t to protect others from harm?
In Xavi’s (pronounce ’shabby’) pig-headed denial of Ella’s reality we get a lucid picture of a PJ member’s true identity.
“Now begone to blockville with you..”
Now that’s really interesting coming from a gonzo! (blockhead, bosch etc…)
January 11th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“What is the point in going after people of a particular, natural sexual preference if it isn’t to protect others from harm?“
It makes some people feel better. There are many homosexuals at PJ, who feel less “perverse” if they attack paedosexuals. Many antis have other problems - we recently discovered that one of the Acme members is hearing impaired, so he can feel better by attacking a group which he believes is more “disabled.”
It’s pathetic, but some people are pathetic.
January 14th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Many of these people champion the very odd and illogical belief that to advocate for legalisation is to encourage lawbreaking, or to incite irresponsible changes to the law.
Regardless of the doubtful impact of pedophile advocacy on sex crime, surely if X amount of people think that Y is OK (whether it be sexual relationships with minors, or the boiling of Negroes), then that X amount should be allowed to campaign for it. If 9/10 people supported the boiling of negroes, then that would be a just policy and belief, according to a democratic society. But if 0.01/10 agree, why should their right to express their support for such policies be denied?
Even if advocacy does incite, it will naturally tend to incite a magnitude of effect that corresponds to the number of people agreeing with it. Assuming this, I believe that minorities should have just as much of a right to influence other peoples’ behaviour through advocacy as anyone else. This holds, whether that behaviour is legal or illegal, and is not to say that a certain amount of illegal behaviour should be tolerated as ‘representative’.
Mass terrorism is an obvious exception to the above, as it is not only destructive behaviour against societal consensus, but to levels that over - represent the number of people supporting the ideology. Therefore, whether to legislate for or against advocacy for terrorism becomes a largely utilitarian issue, based upon the effect of the said advocacy, or it’s outlawing.
But on the whole, political advocacy is to state that something should be moved in or out of the legal category. To state that because some advocacy (supposedly) incites, it should therefore be stopped, is to open freedom of speech up to a series of highly subjective attacks.
Daniel, Game ON!