Page 26 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1624252627 LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 266

Thread: F*ck The Children

  1. #251
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks
    1,346
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 693 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    To further the thought, this abuse of children is really just an aspect of the separation of spaces (or domains, if you will).

    There are three essential domains: the private, the semi-private, and the public. The private offers the most individual freedoms and the public offers the least. The semi-private offers intermediate levels of freedoms. Sexual freedoms and attendant perversions (in a statistical sense) are maximised in the private domains and severely limited in the public domain. At least, this was the arrangement prior to the sexual revolution of the 60s, which was a collection of stepping stones connecting the earlier land of wonderment - and sanitised public domain - of Wally and Theodore Cleaver (The Beaver) to the burgeoning 21st century resurrection of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Evolution happens at a much slower speed than devolution. The slow-rolling millennial train of progressive memes was always at risk of collision with the half-century train hauling primitive memes and coming from the opposite direction on parallel tracks with logarithmic increments of speed.

    And so, when the social engineers decided to switch the fast train onto the tracks of the slower moving train, sometimes in the late sixties or early seventies ... it was only a matter of time before the 21st century arrived.

    The designed merging of the sloth-paced public domain with the sundry mule-paced semi-private domains ... pushed the mules onto the range and the sloth to the brink of extinction. With so many mules grazing, it wouldn't be long before the cheetah-paced private domains began their prowls.

    To wit, the public domain is no longer a safe space for the slow and the tender. It is now a feeding space for the fast, the hardened, and the consumptive.

    Pax

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Adam Bomm (06-29-2017)

  3. #252
    Senior Member sjkted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    652
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 912 Times in 407 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-06-2...ansgender.html

    The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is playing with fire by allowing an anonymous author to publish articles on its platform that aim to minimize the utter depravity of pedophilia. Similar to what the far left publication Salon tried to do several years back (along with The New York Times), the BBC seems to agree with this author that pedophilia isn’t necessarily a disorder to be treated with disdain, but rather a sexual orientation like homosexuality that simply requires “help.”

    It wouldn’t be the first time that the BBC has entered the ring on the wrong side of the issue, having once employed a popular television personality by the name of Jimmy Savile who was reported to have sexually abused at least 500 young boys and girls, as well as engaged in necrophilia, or sex with dead bodies.

    The long-haired, odd looking goofball of a man always seemed off to many who knew him, and yet the BBC apparently kept him on its payroll until his death in 2011. Others in the media, including a radio presenter from The Guardian, offered nothing but laud and praise for Savile and his “tireless” philanthropy. But many a discerning individual perceived the ruse as being a cover for Savile’s dark and dirty secret, which the BBC never spoke about or in any way condemned.

    Despite his passing, Savile’s legacy apparently still lives on at the BBC, which is once again giving a platform to the sexually depraved to minimize the evil of illicit adult-child relations. Though the anonymous individual acknowledges pedophilia as wrong, the tone of his (or perhaps her) article actually paints child predators as victims rather than predators. The current societal view of pedophiles, the article maintains, is that those who are “outed” will potentially face “violence” and “physical attacks” – and that this needs to change.

    If pedophilia wasn’t condemned like it is, there would be no need to seek help

    It’s important to note that the unnamed author of this article does admit that he was once a pedophile, and that by seeking help he was able to overcome it. But in condemning the general social response to pedophilia, this author actually contradicts the driving factor behind what drove him to seek help in the first place – the fact that society views pedophilia as being so aberrant to what’s normal and decent that those who practice it require removal from society.

    “It should be noted that the author never hints that acting on the impulse to sexually abuse children is acceptable, and acknowledges that his ‘former orientation’ later led him to seek help, discovering that it is entirely curable,” writes Will Ricciardella for The Daily Caller. “He does not, it appears, understand his own tacit admission: that the condemnation of nefarious and evil sex acts perpetrated on children, rather than social acceptance or acknowledgement of it as a sexual orientation, was the impetus for him to seek help.”

    So what the reader of this BBC article is aimed to be left with is a not-so-subtle sense of guilt over judging pedophiles too harshly when they’re really just victims of a sexual identity crisis that society doesn’t fully understand. And if only more people could see pedophilia as being just another type of gender, perhaps, then maybe it wouldn’t have the horrible stigma it currently does.

    “The author’s theme that pedophilia should not be demonized in order to encourage pedophiles to seek help, precludes the more sensible and rational response that neither are mutually exclusive, and encouraging pedophiles to seek help is the corollary of its condemnation and degree of its perceived moral repugnancy,” Ricciardella adds.
    --sjkted

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to sjkted For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (06-28-2017)

  5. #253
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,100 Times in 810 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    No, Just no...

    Condemnation is just a tool for the authoritarian. It is useless and does nothing but perpetuate the disorder from generation to generation. Giving voice to such issues is critical to uncovering it, understanding it, and to use an unfortunate term, fixing it.

    Yes, it is shocking, outrageous, and contrary to accepted behavioral norms, but it is the only way. One thing that I have recognized though, even the most narcissistic and depraved human being will never admit to necrophilia. So the fact that the person cited in the article is associated with that particular disorder tells me that the designation was not self-ascribed but imposed externally by hysterics. No good can result from hysteria.

  6. #254
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,100 Times in 810 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    It is outrageous as the title of this thread...You should consider changing it because it is offensive. Really!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Adam Bomm For This Useful Post:

    Harley (06-29-2017)

  8. #255
    Senior Member Adam Bomm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,622
    Thanks
    2,169
    Thanked 1,100 Times in 810 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    Zook,

    As you say, Pedophilia has always been a 'private' crime. 'Outing' it does not constitute acceptance. It is visceral and instinctively wrong and society will always have an aversion to it. Unless and until we transcend our animal natures. Perhaps, this is one of the areas in which Jung refers to when he says instinctive drives will sometimes operate at cross purposes much to the chagrin of those affected. Heinlein would love to and likely did explore these facets. In my estimation man's higher self as transcendent to animalism would not countenance exploitation of the innocent and naive.

  9. #256
    Senior Member sjkted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    652
    Thanks
    236
    Thanked 912 Times in 407 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    A story of man-boy love is now garnering international awards:

    Hollywood has been rocked for months by reports of sexual misconduct, but evidently there is no bad time to release a major motion picture about a gauzy romance between an adult man and a teenage boy.
    The Sony Pictures Classics film “Call Me By Your Name” has been generating Oscar buzz since Monday after picking up three Golden Globe nominations, including one for best motion picture-drama, amid rave reviews.
    The accolades come even though the film’s premise — a relationship between a 17-year-old boy and a 24-year-old man — strikes its detractors as “somewhat creepy” at best and a “pedophile fantasy” at worst.
    Defenders of “Call Me By Your Name” are quick to point out that the love affair is consensual and wouldn’t be illegal, given that the drama takes place in Italy, where the age of consent is 16.
    Does that make it OK? Not to Gabe Hoffman, co-producer of “An Open Secret,” a 2014 documentary about child sexual abuse in Hollywood.



    --sjkted

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to sjkted For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (12-14-2017)

  11. #257
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,078
    Thanks
    1,001
    Thanked 1,262 Times in 749 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    Quote Originally Posted by sjkted View Post
    a relationship between a 17-year-old boy and a 24-year-old man — strikes its detractors as “somewhat creepy” at best and a “pedophile fantasy” at worst.
    Yikes, what's the world coming too when a consenting legal adult has a relationship with a consenting legal adult...and portrayed in a film.

    This is an issue, when some try to tie in above example as pedophilla come predatory behaviour comparing it to adults who engage in underage sex with minors. Sex that's groomed and deliberately preyed upon. This is what we call legitimate predatory pedophilla behaviour.

    In my country along with many others, the legal age for consenting sexual relations is 16.

    The term 'somewhat creepy at best' used in a rational example would be a 17 year old and a 40-90 year old...in general terms. But still legal in many countries.

    The term 'pedophile fantasy at worst' is a ridiculous suggestion and frankly stirring the pot and possibly from some PC police type who has some closet homophobia issues and possible religious affiliations.
    Last edited by Ross; 12-14-2017 at 01:11 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (12-14-2017)

  13. #258
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks
    1,346
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 693 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    Who owns the big movie studios? Who controls the Golden Globes?
    Short ans: Zionist "Jews".
    Long ans: Talmudic bankster Zionist "Jews".
    (Here, I place the term "Jews" in quotes to denote the absence of ancestral roots in Biblical Judea).

    Ever parse the books of the Sanhedrin? You'll find a level of perversion that is not sanctioned by books in other mainstream religions.

    We can debate whether homosexuality is a perversion or not 'til the cows come home. What is not debatable is that homosexuality is abnormal in the statistical sense, the norm being heterosexuality. In short, homosexuality is an extreme activity. Consensual sex between adult males falling somewhere outside 1 standard deviation from the normative heterosexual mass as per the sexual behavior statistics. The most generous estimates of gene-directed populations oriented towards homosexuality is approx. 10%, and that includes bisexuals etc. So if we have 90% of the overall population being gene-directed to heterosexuality, let's take a look at the Bell Curve:
    Name:  Bell-Curve-768x423.png
Views: 10
Size:  79.1 KB

    ... then that's somewhere between 1 and 2 standard deviations on the "downstairs" side of sexual orientation (for lack of a better term). Let's model the downstairs side as the left half or negative side of the Bell Curve. The upstairs side will be the right side. Purely arbitrary. I make that disclaimer because I don't want to get drawn into moral arguments more than what is unavoidable. So we're looking at anywhere between -1 and -2 standard deviations. But that's assuming the 10% gene-oriented homosexual population number.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...statistics-say

    beginExcerpt
    For every 100 people in Britain, just 1 will identify themselves as gay or lesbian according to the latest government statistics. The numbers (which include gender, location and age) may come as a surprise - but why?

    1.5% of the UK?
    In its 'Integrated Household Survey', the Office for National Statistics asks 178,197 people about their sexual identity - and the vast majority of them choose to answer.

    93.5% of people said they were 'heterosexual' or 'straight', just 1.1% said they were 'gay' or 'lesbian' and 0.4% said they were bisexual. The small fraction that was left either refused to answer or said they didn't know. Altogether, amounts to about 545,000 homosexual and 220,000 bisexual adults in the UK.
    end


    So we see that the 10% estimate is about 6 times more aggressive than what is actually surveyed. If we reference the UK survey, the actual number appears to be less than 2%. So we can shift the homosexual orientation demographic to between -2 and -3 standard deviations.

    Fair enough.

    Homosexual orientation is to be contrasted with homosexual practice, the latter being the domain of both genetic orientation and environmental influences. And this is where the debate actually begins. Are environmental influences creating a level of perversion that is not naturally found in human organization? Enter social engineering, Talmudic bankster Zionist "Jews", the Protocols, and the books of the Sanhedrin.

    Who owns mainstream media and its crown jewel, Hollywood? Well ... we can ask Mel Gibson for an unsolicited, uninhibited answer:


    ... and in a two-for-one, we have uber-Zionist Israeli-first lackey Diane Sawyer's emasculation of Mel Gibson here:


    Apparently, the white elephant in the room that no one dares to acknowledge can be coaxed into existence with a few Tequilas ... and can be disappeared again with coffee and tomato squirts.


    Back to the topic at hand, if environmental influences are increasing the incidence of extreme activity in the general population (here, the surveyed number of less than 2% versus the perceived number of 10% is some proof that the environment plays not an insignificant factor) ... and if a few select people hold the key to the box of extreme activities ... then do we as the community-at-large have any access to the box, i.e. do we have responsibility for ourselves?

    That sets the preamble to what I really have to say on the content matter in the Sony pictures video. Sony, a multinational corporation and a favorite engineering vehicle used by the adherents of the Protocols, has been behind the repackaging of quite a few extreme activities as "normal activities".

    Free teaser: there's a wide gap between the natural speed of human evolution and attempts at accelerating human evolution. If man-boy relations are part of the future of the species, they are definitely not part of the near future ... not if 21st century sanity is to prevail. IMO. See you in the next post, where I will offer ratiocination that will certainly offend the politically-corrected.



    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 12-14-2017 at 09:56 PM.

  14. #259
    Senior Member Zook_e_Pi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On the way to Tiperary (via shortcut through the Tum Tum trees)
    Posts
    1,125
    Thanks
    1,346
    Thanked 1,282 Times in 693 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    Homosexuality exists in nature. Genes can render a range of sexual orientations.

    Homosexuality is abnormal. The normal is heterosexuality.

    If one doesn't understand those two fundamental precepts, then hot air is all they're whistling.

    Does pedophilia exist in Nature? Good question. There is no reason to believe that man is different from other animals wrt sexual desire; and pedophilia falls into the category of sexual desire,whether we acknowledge it or not. That said, it's an abnormal sexual desire. The norm is to desire sexual relations with other adults.

    Next question, what constitutes adulthood? The onset of secondary sexual characteristics? The arbitrary but legally designated age of consent? Are there discrete lines being crossed between childhood and puberty, and between puberty and adulthood ... or are there interceding buffer zones such as pre-puberty and post-puberty, and if so, where does each individual fall on this continuum?

    It's impossible to measure the arrival of adulthood in any individual. We approximate and we standardize. That's about the best we can do. More the further, standardization in one society need not match standardization in another society. We are living in globalizing times; so expect a push for a global standard as per designating the age of consent and with it, the arrival of adulthood.

    Now let me step back into a time long departed and to a culture that is quickly departing. My own Indian culture. My mother's mother was 7 years old when she was betrothed to my 17-year-old grandfather in 1917. She moved into my grandfather's home as soon as she hit puberty at the age of 12. She had her first child, my oldest uncle on my mother's side, at the age of 13 (my grandfather was 23). That was the normal practice in my culture as it existed in the 1920's. My own mother was the sixth of nine children born to my grandmother and raised on my grandfather's estate. There was at least one other pregnancy as well.

    Question begs: was my 22-year-old grandfather a pedophile because he slept with a post-pubescent 12-year-old who was legally his wife?

    If you can answer that question with a straight face in today's moral currency, then I will nominate you for Philosopher Laureate of the Century before the polls close down in December of 2099.

    See you in the next post if your head hasn't turned blue from overthinking.

    Pax
    Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; Yesterday at 06:38 AM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Zook_e_Pi For This Useful Post:

    Ross (Yesterday)

  16. #260
    Administrator Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,078
    Thanks
    1,001
    Thanked 1,262 Times in 749 Posts

    Re: F*ck The Children

    Yes, good questions Zook.

    Hetro is the norm for sure, and homosexuality is abnormal in terms of participating numbers across the populations. Also, 'abnormal' does not mean it's wrong under its correct definition (not average, typical, or usual).

    In terms of accepted behaviour, that's another story differing wildly across cultures and social changes throughout history.

    However, it's important to bring more accurate accounts to the discussion.

    Everywhere in the ancient world, homosexuality was practiced including transgender individuals and was considered common. Plato wrote about it. The Chinese wrote about it and many other old cultures have recorded accounts.

    The Spanish were horrified as to the open sodomy among the Aztecs, Mayas, Quechuas, Moches, Zapotecs, and the Tupinambá.

    Japan has recorded accounts going back 1000 years at least. Thailand and the lady-boy accounts go back many centuries.

    Buddhists including Samurai traditions have recorded accounts going back centuries.

    Ancient Greece offers the oldest accepted accounts.

    Along the way, in some cultures, it was not only common but expected.

    During the Renaissance, it was widespread in some european countries and openly practiced while being outlawed.

    So, throughout history we've seen all manner of behaviour and depending on where and at what historical timeframe, we've had casual integration, through to acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin, repressing it through law enforcement and judicial mechanisms, and to proscribing it under penalty of death.

    As recently as the early 80's, chemical castration was the go-to intervention across the Commonwealth, hailing from the Psychiatric hierarchy out of England. Thank the stars that was eventually outlawed.

    I also found this from wiki:

    In the ancient Assyrian society, if a man were to have sex with another man of equal status or a cult prostitute, it was thought that trouble will leave him and he will have good fortune. Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships. Freely pictured art of anal intercourse, practiced as part of a religious ritual, dated from the 3rd millennium BC and onwards. Homosexuality was an integral part of temple life in parts of Mesopotamia, and no blame appears to have attached to its practice outside of worship.
    As far as Ancient Egypt goes, it's debated among historians and egyptologists with little recorded accounts, but I'm of the view, seen as it been found in every other aspect of Human interaction, it did indeed occur.

    In modern times it was outlawed for Men by Queen Victoria across the British Empire but no provisions were made for Woman due to her own presumption, or in fact her own participation and preference for Woman, as it's been rumoured she was a 'closet' lesbian. Her imposed law was for Men only as in her 'public' view, Woman would never engage in such abhorrent behaviour...

    And interesting to note that very little is known regarding female homosexuality in antiquity...that's probably because it was a Male dominated world and Woman were not important enough to either take notice or unworthy of recording such events...but we all know it was practiced by both sexes.

    Question begs: was my 22-year-old grandfather a pedophile because he slept with a post-pubescent 12-year-old who was legally his wife?
    I'll have a crack and will do my best to be objective...

    Like you said, it was, and still is in some cases accepted and indeed normal...within that culture...but, it stinks to high heaven when it comes to power over a minor and devoid of any choice. The young 12 yr old has none and is emotionally compromised if she resisted any predetermined arrangement. By doing so she would would bring severe shame and dishonour to her family and suffer the subsequent punishment...I would assume?

    How can any 12 year old hold any power over adults, in this case two damn families deciding her fate? Answer, they hold none. That in my opinion is categorically wrong...but, I was not programmed into that way of Human interaction due to the practiced culture, directly attributed to where I was born and raised...I'm pleased to say...

    In saying that, I'm sure there are cases where the child simply accepts this arrangement like any other 'rule' bestowed on them. This type of arrangement is accepted by that society and by definition it can't be called paedophilia. Paedophilia definition is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. In the 'arrangement' society, it's based on several other factors including the 'virgin pure' element and has little to do with the actual paedophilia definition.

    Of course in other areas of the world it's regarded as Paedophilia, but not by it's legally described definition but rather by the moral implications that such a young age suggests.

    Older Men and adolescence sexual behaviour has been widespread throughout Human history. Including cases of older Woman and adolescence sexual behaviour, to be fair. And that goes back well before any religious doctrine was poisoning societies.

    Today, we see paedophilia and the interpretation thereof, for what it is...That being an adult or older adolescent taking advantage of a minor for his or her own self gratification. The minor has little power or choice to mitigate this type of behaviour. Grooming is the common pathway that most paedophiles use. And often alcohol and drugs are used to coerce and dull their target into submission including the use of deliberate tactics such as threats of violence and emotional abuse.

    So, in that context, your 22 yr old Grandfather under the legal definition of paedophilia, is not a paedophile. What he is, is a product of cultural expected behaviour. A product of his societal environment.
    Last edited by Ross; Yesterday at 04:19 PM.
    Ross
    ***Fred Coleman, Founding Partner, Beloved Friend***
    who passed away 11/10/2016
    Rest in Peace
    ***

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Ross For This Useful Post:

    Zook_e_Pi (Yesterday)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •