Re: Hey 4s00th, you lying pedo piece of shit!
Notsodumb
XXX
> Cross-posting is worse than pedo activity because there are more victims.
And NOONE gets to cum.
Rusty Trombone
> 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:h3o4f5lflpb4mfn6a...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:05:58 -0700 (PDT), RedDog
> > <reddo...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Nov 1, 3:56�am, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:26:22 -0700 (PDT), RedDog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <reddog1...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> >>> >On Oct 26, 4:56 am, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >- Hide quoted text -
> >>> >- Show quoted text -
> >>> >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:20:36 -0700 (PDT), RedDog
> >>>
> >>> >> <reddog1...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Oct 25, 5:05 am, Usenet Legends bobandcarole ????
> >>> >> ><usenetlegends0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> x-no-archive:
> >>> >> >> On Oct 25, 12:31 am, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:49:38 -0700 (PDT), Rusty Trombone
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > <rustytrombon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > >Laurence Taylor wrote:
> >>> >> >> > >> Isn't is odd how Bob uses the phrase
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >> >>> it's irresponsible for an adult to get
> >>> >> >> > >> >>> involved in a sexual relationship with a minor.
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >> along with
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >> >>> that there is way too much risk to even consider it"
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >> as part of his examples of how despicable we are supposed
> >>> >> >> > >> to be. I wonder if he actually reads his own posts?
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >we all read your posts and as Bob says you are your own
> >>> >> >> > >worst enemies. you forgot to add a little bitty part of
> >>> >> >> > >that post.
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >"Neither of us believe that such a relationship is
> >>> >> >> > >inherently harmful"
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >meaning you and steve hylton both believe kiddy sex is
> >>> >> >> > >harmless. steve ratted on ya laurence. he posted all about
> >>> >> >> > >your paedosexuality and i already knew you were a liar.
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > >R.Trombone
> >>>
> >>> >> >> > You are a fucking moron. "Neither of us believe that such a
> >>> >> >> > relationship is inherently harmful" is not the same as "such
> >>> >> >> > relationships are harmless." I
> >>>
> >>> >> >> Attempting damage control, shitbag??? � LOL!!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> >> >> As I said, YOU are your own worst enemy.
> >>>
> >>> >> >> "Lawrence Taylor, despite being a "paedosexual," that's his
> >>> >> >> word for it
> >>> >> >> and I think it may be accurate for those of us whose main
> >>> >> >> preference is for children, is rather happily involved with a
> >>> >> >> long-term adult partner and agrees with me that it's
> >>> >> >> irresponsible for an adult to get involved in a sexual
> >>> >> >> relationship with a minor. Neither of us believe that such a
> >>> >> >> relationship is inherently harmful, but we both believe
> >>> >> >> that there is way too much risk to even consider it"--Steven
> >>> >> >> Hylton
> >>>
> >>> >> >> see it here:http://tinyurl.com/kmkxtw
> >>>
> >>> >> >Subject: Re See Steven Hylton attempt to take back what he
> >>> >> >posted
> >>>
> >>> >> >That was my take on it too. He needs to learn to cut his losses
> >>> >> >and just keep his mouth shut.
> >>>
> >>> >> Again, your failure to understand simple English is not my
> >>> >> problem. Anyone who reads a statement like, "A is not inherently
> >>> >> harmful," should be able to understand that it does not mean the
> >>> >> same as the statement, "A is harmless."
> >>>
> >>> >Then doesn't that mean you believe that man-boy relationships can
> >>> >be acceptable under certain conditions, 4s00th?
> >>>
> >>> No. As always, you miss the point of the entire discussion. Such
> >>> relationships may not always be dangerous, but when they are, they
> >>> can be devastatingly harmful. The issue here is that you cannot know
> >>> beforehand whether a child will or will not be harmed by the
> >>> relationship -- therefore, you must be willing to risk harm --
> >>> sometimes incredible harm -- to a child if you are willing to
> >>> consider engaging in a sexual relationship with him or her. That's
> >>> the real issue, whether one is willing to put someone they claim to
> >>> love in harm's way to engage in such an unlawful activity. My
> >>> position has always been that it is irresponsible to do so, and that
> >>> doing so proves that one really does not care about his or her young
> >>> partner as they claim.
> >>>
> >>> If you knew that it was always harmful, then it would be somewhat
> >>> easier for those of us who have consciences to make appropriate
> >>> decisions; that it might not harm the one you care about complicates
> >>> matters to no end! I mean, you always want to hope that you can,
> >>> even though you know damn well you shouldn't! It makes it harder to
> >>> take such a strict stand the way I choose to -- but that's the only
> >>> responsible decision to make.
> >>>
> >>
> >>In what sorts of situations is sex with children not harmful, 4s00th?
> >
> > Let's see, some of the characteristic that I have seen described in
> > research included long-term stable relationships in which the adult
> > had an active part in the child's life; no coercion or force, and the
> > particular study that I read way back in 1985 was based on volunteers
> > involved in a face-to-face boy-lover support group. The boys who were
> > these men's partners actually showed improvement in school grades,
> > peer relationships and self-esteem. My criticism of that study has
> > always been that there was no attempt made to set up control groups; I
> > would have liked to have compared the results for boys who had a
> > strong, loving male adult in their lives with whom they were not
> > having sex.
>
> This is described in Theo Sandfort's "BOYS ON THEIR CONTACTS WITH MEN: A
> STUDY OF SEXUALLY EXPRESSED FRIENDSHIPS (1987)":
> available at http://www.ipce.info/host/sandfort_87/
a pedophile writes a book, so what?
>
> The descriptions provided by the boys in their relationships was an honest
> appraisal of their experiences. Interesting though, the criticism levied
> against the study focused upon the fact that the researchers (Sandfort, et.
> al.) didn't involve police to arrest all of the participants. It would be
> very difficult to set up a desired control group in this environment. The
> fact that the boys interviewed reported postive reactions was lost in the
> backlash (but still available in it's original, thanks to Internet
> archives).
> >
> > What you so-called anti's seem to forget is that children are very
> > hedonistic -- they love things that bring pleasure to them.
like a big dick up their shit chute huh?
> > Babies
> > masturbate as soon as they can reach their own sex organs. They play
> > "doctor" with each other whenever they get the chance. And some of
> > them want and seek out such attentions from adults. In other cases,
> > some of them are willing to have sex with an adult to get the adult to
> > continue to love them and show them affection and give them attention.
>
> Other studies have shown that primate juveniles REQUIRE physical contact,
> else they develop neurocies and violent aggressive behaviors when denied.
> The physical contact may be erotic, but needn't be abusive (abuse doesn't
> do anything positive). But contrary to popular opinions, such contacts may
> be non abusive (except in the legal definition af *any and all* is
> abuse...)
that's a new one. because a dumb animal does it, it's proper for
humans.
>
> Then, there is the argument that pedophile attraction exists because it
> increases the survivalbility of kids that would otherwise perish in hard
> times; it's advantageous to have a bond established with an adult to
> provide food and shelter when things get tough.
> >
> > None of that excuses an adult who engages in such a relationship --
> > they're doing something that they know that they should not and that
> > they have to know might harm the child. And I especially hate people
> > who think it's okay to make a child "pay" for their love with their
> > bodies. Children deserve love, attention and affection inherently --
> > they shouldn't have to beg or pay for it.
>
> Those that expect a child to pay for deserved love and attention are
> blinded by their own lust. To these people, a child is only an available
> object for self satisfication. These people don't love children...
> >
> > Look, if we do the math and look at all the numbers of children that
> > people BELIEVE have been involved sexually with adults and how many
> > children people CLAIM that pedophiles molest -- why aren't all of
> > those children clogging up the mental health system?
google catholic priest.
It has to be that
> > some of them are not bothered or harmed by such a relationship;
> > otherwise, where would we find "normal" people like you and the bo0b
> > claim to be?
>
> More interesting, there aren't enough children available to 'balance the
> books' for the claims of the anti's claims. It would require a ten fold
> increase in children's population for their claims to have *any*
> creedence... but I guess math (or simple arithmetic) wasn't a favorite
> subject for them in school?
why don't you come out of your closet and just admit you want to
cornhole
little boys. using the behavior of animals as an example of pedofuck
credibility
borders on desperation.
R.Trombone
Rusty Trombone
> x-no-archive:
>
> Don't expect an answer. He won't respond to my post either. Why?
> Because
> I backed him into a corner as you have and he doesn't have a response.
>
> There are absolutely NO instances in which molesting a child is
> harmless.
> Period ... bottom line ... end of discussion. Thank goodness we have
> laws
> that are getting stricter regarding these sick pedo fucks who stink up
> asbl.
>
> Remember ... the only good pedophile is a DEAD pedophile. No
> exceptions.
I agree 100 percent.
R.Trombone