• Pedophilia is Legal - Just Saying

    From Guy@Guy@bigsky.com to sac.politics,ca.general,alt.california,ca.politics,ny.politics,nyc.politics on Sun Oct 18 17:46:13 2020
    From Newsgroup: nyc.politics

    One can't rightly have sex with an unwillful prisoner, nor a mentally incompetent
    toddler. And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving, without their knowledge, but it's really the kid's personal choice.

    A child's right to sexuality is as sacrosanct as a child's right to Church. It
    would more, at most be, that one couldn't hang out with them anymore, as far as
    this warden-ward Parental tyranny is allowed to persist.

    Pedophilia is less deviant than gay or beast. Pedophilia is akin to interracial.
    When you prohibit something you give someone a complex.

    People who harm the weakest among us incite the most outrage. If you were going
    to take vengeance, you would start with those who torture puppies and children.
    But it wouldn't undo the evil done. Yet at the same time, much of the persecution
    of pedophiles is reminiscent of the persecution of homosexuals, and even interracial sexuality. There are still people to this day, who say that homosexuals are psychopaths, and have a mental disorder. They make the same claims about pedophiles. That some homosexuals are psychos in fact, that some pedophiles have murdered children, that some adult heterosexual men, want to have
    sex with dead girls, is no acceptable stereotype of 90%-99%+ of the rest of the
    population. Whatever percent that is. For the rest of the people who have no such interest, and it is certainly far above 90%. Most people respect human rights, yet not those who persecute pedophiles, homosexuals, and black men who just 50 years ago, they hung from a tree for having sex with a white woman.

    For the record we fully condemn child abuse. And in the strongest terms possible.
    In case anyone is wondering.

    But there is nothing more criminal about having or distributing pictures and videos of children having sex, than there is about having or distributing nonsexual pictures and videos of children abused, which they distribute on the nightly news and on Youtube both, as evidence of a crime.

    Rather child porn laws are suppressing just such evidence of a crime. I have heard from law enforcement, that in addition to happy consent child sex videos,
    there are toddler rape videos. Toddlers screaming for their mothers, evidence of
    a crime hidden from the public eye. This is the greatest atrocity, an abominable
    offense to suppress activity that ought to see the light of day, as all evidence
    of crime ought not be shrouded in darkness.

    You don't have to be pedo, or homo, or have sex with other races. You're just not
    against people who do; so long as no one is victimized. We're not guilty by doctrine. But those persecuting others by doctrine, are guilty, by fact. Actually
    two wrongs don't make a right, any more than three do. But truth and error exist
    as scientific moral facts.

    On the other hand, according to all just and right legal theory, you don't have to
    be interage prejudice either. It's like someone saying you can't have sex with
    someone from Canada, and threatening to kill you if you do. Then you say people
    who have sex with Canadians have a mental disorder. It's not like every interracial couple is a fetish couple. Prejudice is abhorrent.

    But the right points of criticism against pedophiles, are: 1) You can't have sex
    with an unwillful prisoner, any more than a police officer can tell someone to have sex with them, and do so, and 2) You can't have sex with a mentally incompetent toddler.

    And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
    it's really the kid's personal choice.

    ---------------------
    So I was trying to figure out, if like the person said "yes" to the prison guard,
    would the prison guard still be in jeopardy if the person later said, they just
    said "yes" cause they were afraid. Yet the law, "de jure," does not even admit
    the possibility of consent, which is a fact, but says the act is criminal "per se," which makes the law criminal.

    Saying children can't consent *is* a lie.

    I'm not a pedophile. I just don't like to see my innocent countrymen murdered.

    People saying minors can't consent, are making the same mistake as people saying
    minors have to consent; and people saying minors have to consent, are making the
    same mistake, as people saying minors can't consent. Both persuasions are abhorrent. Both parties need to be corrected. Because someone had sex in the past, doesn't mean they wish to repeat it today. Minors are liable to be slut shamed and pressured into blaming their partners, and slut shaming is wrong. This
    doesn't excuse actual tyrannical influence of a warden-ward relationship. And obviously mentally incompetent toddlers cannot consent.

    And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
    it's really the kid's personal choice, and sacrosanct right, as it is the kid's
    sacrosanct right to go to Church. Many teens meet the other kid's dad before taking their sexual/romantic interests out on a date. But at the moment, apparently the law wouldn't care if pedos had their young friend's parent's blessings. Again, warden-ward tyranny aside. Kids in child porn deserve their
    pay as much as movies stars and kids in underwear commercials.

    No, I'm not making child porn. No, I'm not a pedo. In fact, I've never even seen
    it, and have just heard reports from law enforcement, about toddlers screaming for
    their mothers while being raped.

    --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
  • From Guy@Guy@bigsky.com to sac.politics,ca.general,alt.california,ca.politics,ny.politics,nyc.politics on Sun Mar 28 14:52:39 2021
    From Newsgroup: nyc.politics

    Pedophilia is Legal - Just Saying

    One can't rightly have sex with an unwillful prisoner, nor a mentally incompetent
    toddler. And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving, without their knowledge, but it's really the kid's personal choice.

    A child's right to sexuality is as sacrosanct as a child's right to Church. It
    would more, at most be, that one couldn't hang out with them anymore, as far as
    this warden-ward Parental tyranny is allowed to persist.

    Pedophilia is less deviant than gay or beast. Pedophilia is akin to interracial.
    When you prohibit something you give someone a complex.

    People who harm the weakest among us incite the most outrage. If you were going
    to take vengeance, you would start with those who torture puppies and children.
    But it wouldn't undo the evil done. Yet at the same time, much of the persecution
    of pedophiles is reminiscent of the persecution of homosexuals, and even interracial sexuality. There are still people to this day, who say that homosexuals are psychopaths, and have a mental disorder. They make the same claims about pedophiles. That some homosexuals are psychos in fact, that some pedophiles have murdered children, that some adult heterosexual men, want to have
    sex with dead girls, is no acceptable stereotype of 90%-99%+ of the rest of the
    population. Whatever percent that is. For the rest of the people who have no such interest, and it is certainly far above 90%. Most people respect human rights, yet not those who persecute pedophiles, homosexuals, and black men who just 50 years ago, they hung from a tree for having sex with a white woman.

    For the record we fully condemn child abuse. And in the strongest terms possible.
    In case anyone is wondering.

    But there is nothing more criminal about having or distributing pictures and videos of children having sex, than there is about having or distributing nonsexual pictures and videos of children abused, which they distribute on the nightly news and on Youtube both, as evidence of a crime.

    Rather child porn laws are suppressing just such evidence of a crime. I have heard from law enforcement, that in addition to happy consent child sex videos,
    there are toddler rape videos. Toddlers screaming for their mothers, evidence of
    a crime hidden from the public eye. This is the greatest atrocity, an abominable
    offense to suppress activity that ought to see the light of day, as all evidence
    of crime ought not be shrouded in darkness.

    You don't have to be pedo, or homo, or have sex with other races. You're just not
    against people who do; so long as no one is victimized. We're not guilty by doctrine. But those persecuting others by doctrine, are guilty, by fact. Actually
    two wrongs don't make a right, any more than three do. But truth and error exist
    as scientific moral facts.

    On the other hand, according to all just and right legal theory, you don't have to
    be interage prejudice either. It's like someone saying you can't have sex with
    someone from Canada, and threatening to kill you if you do. Then you say people
    who have sex with Canadians have a mental disorder. It's not like every interracial couple is a fetish couple. Prejudice is abhorrent.

    But the right points of criticism against pedophiles, are: 1) You can't have sex
    with an unwillful prisoner, any more than a police officer can tell someone to have sex with them, and do so, and 2) You can't have sex with a mentally incompetent toddler.

    And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
    it's really the kid's personal choice.

    ---------------------
    So I was trying to figure out, if like the person said "yes" to the prison guard,
    would the prison guard still be in jeopardy if the person later said, they just
    said "yes" cause they were afraid. Yet the law, "de jure," does not even admit
    the possibility of consent, which is a fact, but says the act is criminal "per se," which makes the law criminal.

    Saying children can't consent *is* a lie.

    I'm not a pedophile. I just don't like to see my innocent countrymen murdered.

    People saying minors can't consent, are making the same mistake as people saying
    minors have to consent; and people saying minors have to consent, are making the
    same mistake, as people saying minors can't consent. Both persuasions are abhorrent. Both parties need to be corrected. Because someone had sex in the past, doesn't mean they wish to repeat it today. Minors are liable to be slut shamed and pressured into blaming their partners, and slut shaming is wrong. This
    doesn't excuse actual tyrannical influence of a warden-ward relationship. And obviously mentally incompetent toddlers cannot consent.

    And then it's that one took somebody's kids skydiving without their knowledge, but
    it's really the kid's personal choice, and sacrosanct right, as it is the kid's
    sacrosanct right to go to Church. Many teens meet the other kid's dad before taking their sexual/romantic interests out on a date. But at the moment, apparently the law wouldn't care if pedos had their young friend's parent's blessings. Again, warden-ward tyranny aside. Kids in child porn deserve their
    pay as much as movies stars and kids in underwear commercials.

    No, I'm not making child porn. No, I'm not a pedo. In fact, I've never even seen
    it, and have just heard reports from law enforcement, about toddlers screaming for
    their mothers while being raped.
    --- Synchronet 3.18a-Linux NewsLink 1.113