Litmus test for the herd
Snit
about the herd!). Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the herd...
one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. First, a simple fact:
Stallman is a repulsive man who supports the sexual abuse
of children.
This is based on his own words - there simply is *no* reasonable doubt:
<http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the chances
are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be
investigated by the authorities.
Anyone who denies this is a part of the herd. Period. This is a simple
black and white issue where there is no middle ground - anyone who lies to
defend Stallman's repulsive support of child abuse *is* a part of the herd.
Period.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Hadron
Constantly posting this dirge about Stallman and his views is about to
get you back in the killfile. Stop it. Its repulsive and vindictive on
your part.
Chris
I agree with Hadron, you should drop the Stallman references. It's
obvious what he said and what he meant. Let it go.
If you want a litmus test for the herd, post references to Roy's
lies, lack of evidence of his claims and point out how the herd,
except for Homer, ignore this. And when they claim they don't read
Roy's spewing, re-post it here so that they can read it. Just don't
ever link to Roy Schestowitz's own website because it's usually full
of trojans, ip address sniffers and viruses.
Snit
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:11:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Many of the herd deny the herd (the first rule of the herd is do not talk
>> about the herd!). Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the herd...
>> one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. First, a simple fact:
>>
>> Stallman is a repulsive man who supports the sexual abuse
>> of children.
>>
>> This is based on his own words - there simply is *no* reasonable doubt:
>>
>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>
>> And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the chances
>> are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be
>> investigated by the authorities.
>>
>> Anyone who denies this is a part of the herd. Period. This is a simple
>> black and white issue where there is no middle ground - anyone who lies to
>> defend Stallman's repulsive support of child abuse *is* a part of the herd.
>>
>> Period.
>
> I agree with Hadron, you should drop the Stallman references. It's
> obvious what he said and what he meant.
children is inexcusable.
Period.
> Let it go.
>
> If you want a litmus test for the herd, post references to Roy's
> lies, lack of evidence of his claims and point out how the herd,
> except for Homer, ignore this. And when they claim they don't read
> Roy's spewing, re-post it here so that they can read it. Just don't
> ever link to Roy Schestowitz's own website because it's usually full
> of trojans, ip address sniffers and viruses.
several have threatened to try to silence me.
They cannot refute the truth... so they try to silence it.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
10:22 AM:
absurd. But it is not repulsive. When they back each other on their
support for Stallman - it is beyond absurd... it is flat out repulsive and
perhaps the strongest sign of their herd-like mentality.
There is *no* defense for Stallman's comments. Nothing this is not
"vindictive"... I am not looking for revenge against Stallman - though I
would like to see him investigated and, as is likely, if he is found to have
sexually abused children I would want him locked away. To be clear: I am
not saying there is direct evidence of him having done such - but anyone who
so strongly defends child sexual abuse almost surely has engaged in it.
--
🙈🙉🙊
TomB
does *not* support the sexual abuse of children. Not by far.
Snit's a filthy, lying prick.
--
posted from an inferior newsreader :-p
Snit
There is no question Stallman is supporting sexual abuse of children. But,
as a herd member, you *must* insist I am wrong and defend utter the utter
scum of a man. You *must*. This is a clear and easy to recognize litmus
test of herd-membership (or at least a desire to please the herd).
Read Stallman's own words. No interpretation on my part needed. The man is
repulsive.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Snit
> On 09/25/2011 07:22 PM, Hadron wrote:
See my site for links, but these are Stallman's own words... words where he
openly supports sexual abuse of children:
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing. [link]
----
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that “no animals were
harmed in making this film.” There could be a similar
certification that “no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film.” [link]
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly. [link]
-----
It is absurd to punish anyone for having sex with someone of
age 15 — it is normal for Americans of age 15 to have sex.
[link]
-----
The concept of “sexual interference with a human corpse” is
curious. All a corpse can do is decay, so the only possible
kind of interference is to prevent its decay. Thus, “sexual
interference” ought to mean playing with the corpse’s
genitals while injecting embalming fluid, or while putting it
into a refrigerator. However, I doubt that the censors
interpret this term rationally. They will have cooked up an
excuse for some twisted interpretation of the term.
This censorship cannot be justified by protecting corpses
from suffering. Whatever you do to a corpse, it can’t suffer,
not even emotionally. [link]
-----
Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign
for legalization.
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
In that last quote he is defending this:
-----
Dutch paedophiles are launching a political party to push for
a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and
the legalisation of child pornography and sex with animals.
-----
No "interpretation" needed. Stallman clearly supports the sexual abuse of
children. Period.
When you defend Stallman on this and insist merely quoting his repulsive
support of child sexual abuse is "lying", you *are* showing yourself to be
beholden to the herd.
There is no gray area here. None.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Steve Carroll
> Hadron stated in post 3g8vpcy1sn....@news.eternal-september.org on 9/25/11
Then it may follow that people who obsessively keep talking about
people that sexually abuse children almost surely ha\ve engaged in it.
Say, your 'wife' runs a child daycare center, right? Hmm...
Steve Carroll
> TomB stated in post dk74l8-a05....@mordor.drumscum.be on 9/25/11 11:14 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 09/25/2011 07:22 PM, Hadron wrote:
> >> Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
> >>> Many of the herd deny the herd (the first rule of the herd is do not talk
> >>> about the herd!). Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the herd...
> >>> one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. First, a simple fact:
>
> >>> Stallman is a repulsive man who supports the sexual abuse
> >>> of children.
>
> >>> This is based on his own words - there simply is *no* reasonable doubt:
>
> >>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>
> >>> And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the chances
> >>> are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be
> >>> investigated by the authorities.
>
> >>> Anyone who denies this is a part of the herd. Period. This is a simple
> >>> black and white issue where there is no middle ground - anyone who lies to
> >>> defend Stallman's repulsive support of child abuse *is* a part of the herd.
>
> >> Constantly posting this dirge about Stallman and his views is about to
> >> get you back in the killfile. Stop it. Its repulsive and vindictive on
> >> your part.
>
> > And on top of that he's flat out lying about Stallman's views. Stallman
> > does *not* support the sexual abuse of children. Not by far.
>
> > Snit's a filthy, lying prick.
>
> See my site for links
Here's an interesting link:
<http://leicester.academia.edu/VincentEgan/Papers/44986/
Sexual_offenders_personality_and_obsessionality>
Hadron
> Chris stated in post j5nplv$ft0$1...@speranza.aioe.org on 9/25/11 10:50 AM:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:11:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Many of the herd deny the herd (the first rule of the herd is do not talk
>>> about the herd!). Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the herd...
>>> one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. First, a simple fact:
>>>
>>> Stallman is a repulsive man who supports the sexual abuse
>>> of children.
>>>
>>> This is based on his own words - there simply is *no* reasonable doubt:
>>>
>>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>>
>>> And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the chances
>>> are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be
>>> investigated by the authorities.
>>>
>>> Anyone who denies this is a part of the herd. Period. This is a simple
>>> black and white issue where there is no middle ground - anyone who lies to
>>> defend Stallman's repulsive support of child abuse *is* a part of the herd.
>>>
>>> Period.
>>
>> I agree with Hadron, you should drop the Stallman references. It's
>> obvious what he said and what he meant.
>
> It is obvious what he meant: and his support for the sexual abuse of
> children is inexcusable.
>
has liberal views : nothing more.
If you think 15 year old girls having sex is "abuse" you better be ready
to arrest and incarcerate most of europe.
Are you one of these wankers who things because the legal age to drink
is 21 in the US then it should be the same in, say, Germany?
Nowhere does he "support" ABUSE with minors.
Stop this nonsense. It reflects poorly on you.
Snit
6:33 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> Chris stated in post j5nplv$ft0$1...@speranza.aioe.org on 9/25/11 10:50 AM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:11:34 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many of the herd deny the herd (the first rule of the herd is do not talk
>>>> about the herd!). Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the herd...
>>>> one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. First, a simple fact:
>>>>
>>>> Stallman is a repulsive man who supports the sexual abuse
>>>> of children.
>>>>
>>>> This is based on his own words - there simply is *no* reasonable doubt:
>>>>
>>>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>>>
>>>> And when someone is that supportive of sexual abuse of children, the
>>>> chances
>>>> are they have engaged in sexual abuse of children. Stallman should be
>>>> investigated by the authorities.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who denies this is a part of the herd. Period. This is a simple
>>>> black and white issue where there is no middle ground - anyone who lies to
>>>> defend Stallman's repulsive support of child abuse *is* a part of the herd.
>>>>
>>>> Period.
>>>
>>> I agree with Hadron, you should drop the Stallman references. It's
>>> obvious what he said and what he meant.
>>
>> It is obvious what he meant: and his support for the sexual abuse of
>> children is inexcusable.
>
> You're being a total idiot. Nowhere does he support abuse. Nowhere. He
> has liberal views : nothing more.
<http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
children. Period.
> If you think 15 year old girls having sex is "abuse" you better be ready
> to arrest and incarcerate most of europe.
> Are you one of these wankers who things because the legal age to drink
> is 21 in the US then it should be the same in, say, Germany?
>
> Nowhere does he "support" ABUSE with minors.
>
> Stop this nonsense. It reflects poorly on you.
and to call it "educational material". He creates his own class of sexual
abuse and calls it "voluntarily pedophilia"... *by definition*, though, the
abused is not in a position to "volunteer". On and on... the man is
repulsive.
There is no reason to deny this... and no gray area to wiggle out.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Ender2070
Snit
1939977.2002.1317059141136.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnv12 on 9/26/11
10:45 AM:
olds - he backs a group which calls itself the "Dutch pedophiles" and have
formed a political party to campaign for legalization of pedophilia with
kids as young as *12* and seeks the legalization of child pornography.
Stallman also pushes to have pornography made available in public schools
and to redefine porn as "educational material". To be clear: he is not
saying that some currently banned sex-education material should be allowed -
he is saying uncensored *porn* should be allowed in the class and called
"educational".
In short: Stallman is supporting the sexual abuse of children.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Hadron
> Hadron stated in post bxd3enz...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
> 6:33 AM:
>> has liberal views : nothing more.
>
> Here are his own words. I have full links for all quotes, here:
> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>
> -----
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
> on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by
> parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
> is maturing. [link]
Where? And WHY are you reposting the SAME huge text sgement AGAIN!?!?!?
What part of "voluntary" escapes you? e.g A sexually active 15 year old
girl and a 17 year boy : Is that abuse in your book?
You're taking this FAR too far.
Ender2070
In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no longer legally abuse.
John
> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>
> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no longer legally abuse.
It's like that nut organization NAMBLA.
Those creeps don't believe they are doing anything wrong and that
the little boys they prey on "want it".
And before anyone accuses me of connecting RMS with that, forget it.
I already stated that RMS making statements is far different from
him acting upon them. I truly doubt RMS would behave like that.
Herd Watch
11:29 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron stated in post bxd3enz...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
>> 6:33 AM:
>>> You're being a total idiot. Nowhere does he support abuse. Nowhere. He
>>> has liberal views : nothing more.
>>
>> Here are his own words. I have full links for all quotes, here:
>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>
>> -----
>> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
>> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
>> is maturing. [link]
>
> *snip*
>
> Where? And WHY are you reposting the SAME huge text sgement AGAIN!?!?!?
> What part of "voluntary" escapes you? e.g A sexually active 15 year old
> girl and a 17 year boy : Is that abuse in your book?
> You're taking this FAR too far.
--
Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
Herd Watch
engaging in the activities he verbally supports.
I disagree with you on the idea he is unlikely to have engaged in such
activities, but that is just an opinion. I do *not* claim his words are
direct evidence of him having engaged in anything of the sort - and would
actively argue against anyone who did make such an unjust claim.
Stallman's words are offensive and repulsive, but their is no evidence I
have seen that he has acted in a criminal way. There is enough evidence, I
believe, that he should be *investigated*, but that is a completely
different idea.
John
> John stated in post j5qjnh$ro$1...@speranza.aioe.org on 9/26/11 12:27 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>>>
>>> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no longer
>>> legally abuse.
>>
>> Correct.
>> It's like that nut organization NAMBLA.
>> Those creeps don't believe they are doing anything wrong and that
>> the little boys they prey on "want it".
>>
>> And before anyone accuses me of connecting RMS with that, forget it.
>> I already stated that RMS making statements is far different from
>> him acting upon them. I truly doubt RMS would behave like that.
>
> I very, very much agree that Stallman's *words* are not the same thing as
> engaging in the activities he verbally supports.
> Stallman's words are offensive and repulsive, but their is no evidence I
> have seen that he has acted in a criminal way. There is enough evidence, I
> believe, that he should be *investigated*, but that is a completely
> different idea.
say or write and seeing as most of the world live in countries that
support free speech to some extent, this is a very dangerous concept
and could lead to unfounded witch hunts which would put us back 600
years.
Unless there is proof outside and independent of his statements I
believe he should be left alone. If you know something else the rest
of us do not, fire away, but that's the way I feel about it.
Herd Watch
21867118.1516.1317062090179.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqih9 on 9/26/11
11:34 AM:
> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>
> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no longer
> legally abuse.
the laws. Anywhere.
Ender2070
What were we taught when we were kids? Don't get into a strangers car even if they are offering gifts.
You might even have poor parents talking their children into voluntary sex with strangers for benefits. This happens in some of the third world countries where having sex with children is legal.
Herd Watch
want to see free speech banned - though free speech does not excuse calls
for violence or the ol' calling "fire" in a crowded theater.
At the same time, I do not want to see witch hunts either. People should be
free to speak their minds... but that includes me noting that I find his
comments utterly repulsive and indefensible.
> Unless there is proof outside and independent of his statements I
> believe he should be left alone. If you know something else the rest
> of us do not, fire away, but that's the way I feel about it.
his private life.
Herd Watch
29439858.478.1317066951981.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 9/26/11
12:55 PM:
> That's RMS's POV... It's in the quotes and on his site. He thinks that if the
> other person volunteers its fair game. I argue with a counter point. Look how
> easy it is to bribe thinking and reasonable adults who understand the world.
> Then consider the fact that 15 year olds could be bribed into volunteering as
> well.
just 15 year olds... some of his comments point to the idea of supporting
sex with *12* year olds.
> What were we taught when we were kids? Don't get into a strangers car even if
> they are offering gifts.
>
> You might even have poor parents talking their children into voluntary sex
> with strangers for benefits. This happens in some of the third world countries
> where having sex with children is legal.
and then have it made available in schools.
John
> Ender2070 stated in post
> 29439858.478.1317066951981.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 9/26/11
> 12:55 PM:
>
>> That's RMS's POV... It's in the quotes and on his site. He thinks that if the
>> other person volunteers its fair game. I argue with a counter point. Look how
>> easy it is to bribe thinking and reasonable adults who understand the world.
>> Then consider the fact that 15 year olds could be bribed into volunteering as
>> well.
>
> It also ignores all of the power adults have over children. And it is not
> just 15 year olds... some of his comments point to the idea of supporting
> sex with *12* year olds.
female body can mature physically at an early age, say 12 yo, the
female brain does not mature with regard to cognitive decision
making and maturity till the early 20's.
Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking.
Herd Watch
having sex with such emotionally and mentally immature people, he talks of
*anyone*.
There is a big difference between a 15 year old having sex with an 18 year
old and that same 15 year old having sex with a 50 year old. In general:
the 18 year old should be discouraged; the 50 year old should be in jail.
And it is *not* normal for a 50 year old to want to have sex with a 15 year
old.
chris
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Ender2070 wrote:
>
>> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>>
>> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no
>> longer legally abuse.
>
> Correct.
> It's like that nut organization NAMBLA.
> Those creeps don't believe they are doing anything wrong and that
> the little boys they prey on "want it".
After reading the Wikipedia article on "Coercion" again I still stand by my
opinion that if they don't "really want it" (i.e. are not mature enaugh to
make that decision) it is a form of coercion. And that's what Stallman is
_not_ talking about since his words are "as long as no one is coerced".
According to Snit this phrase is "irrelevant" and thus Stallman allegedly
supports "abuse of children" (which in my view can also only happen by
coercing).
Yes, I take the term coercion in a broader term that includes persuading a
child which is not mature enaugh to make that decision and I believe that
Stallman does too. However I have no direct evidence for that, I get it from
the way he speaks about it.
Snit apparently doesn't. Snit also thinks Stallman "supports" and "defends"
the dutch party. I don't see him doing that. He posted a link and stated his
opinion on the general matter. You would need to ask him if he also supports
that party.
I personally am not really sure in what extent I would be happy with a
change of legislation: On the one hand current legislating may restrict
mature youths actual experimenting, on the other hand it may make it harder
for abusers to get away since abuse may not be so easy to prove when some
"brainwashing" is applied.
> And before anyone accuses me of connecting RMS with that, forget it.
> I already stated that RMS making statements is far different from
> him acting upon them. I truly doubt RMS would behave like that.
Try arguing with Snit about that. When he posted this the first time it took
me some time to find out that he had no actual position and not even an
argument.
I doubt you will get something more than his copy&paste out of him...
Herd Watch
9/26/11 1:42 PM:
> John wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>>>
>>> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no
>>> longer legally abuse.
>>
>> Correct.
>> It's like that nut organization NAMBLA.
>> Those creeps don't believe they are doing anything wrong and that
>> the little boys they prey on "want it".
>
> After reading the Wikipedia article on "Coercion" again I still stand by my
> opinion that if they don't "really want it" (i.e. are not mature enaugh to
> make that decision) it is a form of coercion. And that's what Stallman is
> _not_ talking about since his words are "as long as no one is coerced".
> According to Snit this phrase is "irrelevant" and thus Stallman allegedly
> supports "abuse of children" (which in my view can also only happen by
> coercing).
The concept of "coercion" assumes someone who is mature enough to decide on
their own. When talking about an adult concept such as sex, children are
not capable of making informed decisions.
> Yes, I take the term coercion in a broader term that includes persuading a
> child which is not mature enaugh to make that decision and I believe that
> Stallman does too. However I have no direct evidence for that, I get it from
> the way he speaks about it.
> Snit apparently doesn't. Snit also thinks Stallman "supports" and "defends"
> the dutch party. I don't see him doing that. He posted a link and stated his
> opinion on the general matter. You would need to ask him if he also supports
> that party.
He pointed to the political party and then defended it by saying:
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
> I personally am not really sure in what extent I would be happy with a
> change of legislation: On the one hand current legislating may restrict
> mature youths actual experimenting, on the other hand it may make it harder
> for abusers to get away since abuse may not be so easy to prove when some
> "brainwashing" is applied.
>
>> And before anyone accuses me of connecting RMS with that, forget it.
>> I already stated that RMS making statements is far different from
>> him acting upon them. I truly doubt RMS would behave like that.
>
> Try arguing with Snit about that. When he posted this the first time it took
> me some time to find out that he had no actual position and not even an
> argument.
> I doubt you will get something more than his copy&paste out of him...
I am happy to discuss it. While I do not agree with all of your comments,
you are not just attacking the messenger.
One challenge: whenever I comment on what Stallman says some moron in COLA
is sure to say I am "twisting" it... and when I do not and merely quote him
I will be accused of just copying and pasting his words.
The fact is his words are damning enough... not much discussion is needed.
But I am open to listening to your ideas.
TomB
> Hadron stated in post 5yr533x...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
> 11:29 AM:
>> Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> Hadron stated in post bxd3enz...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
>>> 6:33 AM:
>>>> You're being a total idiot. Nowhere does he support abuse. Nowhere. He
>>>> has liberal views : nothing more.
>>>
>>> Here are his own words. I have full links for all quotes, here:
>>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
>>> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
>>> on cases which arenšt voluntary, which are then stretched by
>>> parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
>>> is maturing. [link]
>>
>> *snip*
>>
>> Where? And WHY are you reposting the SAME huge text sgement AGAIN!?!?!?
>
> Because you and others keep denying it exists.
No, you lying piece of shit, he and others are not denying it exists.
Those *are* the words of Richard Stallman, and that's about the only
thing you got right. There's nothing in what the man wrote that even
remotely suggests that he supports the sexual abuse of children. Nothing.
You are an immoral and lying piece of shit.
>> What part of "voluntary" escapes you? e.g A sexually active 15 year old
>> girl and a 17 year boy : Is that abuse in your book?
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> You're taking this FAR too far.
>
> If you think I am wrong then show it.
It has been shown a million times, you idiot.
Kolyder
69a3da...@dk6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Steve Carroll <fretw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 11:57�am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > Hadron stated in post 3g8vpcy1sn....@news.eternal-september.org on 9/25/1
> 1
> > 10:22 AM:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> >
> > >> Many of the herd deny the herd (the first rule of the herd is do not t
> alk
> > >> about the herd!). �Here is a good litmus test to see who is in the h
> erd...
> > >> one that has nothing to do with anyone in COLA. �First, a simple fac
> t:
> >
Usually as victims...how do you think homosexuals recruit their
new cult members?
Herd Watch
> On 09/26/2011 09:30 PM, Herd Watch wrote:
>> Hadron stated in post 5yr533x...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
>> 11:29 AM:
>>> Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>>> Hadron stated in post bxd3enz...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
>>>> 6:33 AM:
>>>>> You're being a total idiot. Nowhere does he support abuse. Nowhere. He
>>>>> has liberal views : nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> Here are his own words. I have full links for all quotes, here:
>>>> <http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
>>>> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
>>>> is maturing. [link]
>>>
>>> *snip*
>>>
>>> Where? And WHY are you reposting the SAME huge text sgement AGAIN!?!?!?
>>
>> Because you and others keep denying it exists.
>
> No, you lying piece of shit, he and others are not denying it exists.
So I quote it and prove you wrong.
You deny it.
So I quote it again and prove you wrong.
Again and again and again this happens. Stallman specifically says he wants
to place children in a situation where they are given access to porn and it
is called "educational material". How is this anything other than a
sexually abusive situation?
You have no answer. You just deny he says what he says:
<http://stallman.org/archives/2010-jan-apr.html>
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
Porn is not "educational material" and allowing students to access it in
schools is a form of sexual abuse.
> Those *are* the words of Richard Stallman, and that's about the only
> thing you got right. There's nothing in what the man wrote that even
> remotely suggests that he supports the sexual abuse of children. Nothing.
> You are an immoral and lying piece of shit.
offended his religious views. Better censor me!
>>> What part of "voluntary" escapes you? e.g A sexually active 15 year old
>>> girl and a 17 year boy : Is that abuse in your book?
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>>> You're taking this FAR too far.
>>
>> If you think I am wrong then show it.
>
> It has been shown a million times, you idiot.
that I misrepresented your misrepresentation of me. And every time you are
shown this you snip, run, and call me names.
Not even you believe your own BS: but your religion forbids you from
speaking the truth. Your cult. Your herd.
Snit
PM:
>> Then it may follow that people who obsessively keep talking about
>> people that sexually abuse children almost surely ha\ve engaged in it.
>
> Usually as victims...how do you think homosexuals recruit their
> new cult members?
type idiocy is *that*?
I mean, really... that is just insane.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Ender2070
> Those *are* the words of Richard Stallman, and that's about the only
> thing you got right. There's nothing in what the man wrote that even
> remotely suggests that he supports the sexual abuse of children. Nothing.
A sick way of twisting it into something that pretends not to be repulsive. RMS ***is*** advocating (by promoting the party on his site) the right for the dutch to legally have sex with children 12+.
Herd Watch
14708597.1088.1317094392552.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 9/26/11
8:33 PM:
to censor me.
There is *nothing* else to this.
Sneaky Weasel
fuck on people.
chris
> chris stated in post j5qo5o$dai$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de on
> 9/26/11 1:42 PM:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Ender2070 wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with you perhaps I need to be more clear
>>>>
>>>> In their eyes he is doing nothing wrong because if he succeeds, its no
>>>> longer legally abuse.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>> It's like that nut organization NAMBLA.
>>> Those creeps don't believe they are doing anything wrong and that
>>> the little boys they prey on "want it".
>>
>> After reading the Wikipedia article on "Coercion" again I still stand by
>> my opinion that if they don't "really want it" (i.e. are not mature
>> enaugh to make that decision) it is a form of coercion. And that's what
>> Stallman is _not_ talking about since his words are "as long as no one is
>> coerced". According to Snit this phrase is "irrelevant" and thus Stallman
>> allegedly supports "abuse of children" (which in my view can also only
>> happen by coercing).
>
> The concept of "coercion" assumes someone who is mature enough to decide
> on
> their own. When talking about an adult concept such as sex, children are
> not capable of making informed decisions.
You are not paying attention. It is my view that persuading a child who
would otherwise not want to - maybe because it is not mature enaugh - is
coercion.
>
>> Yes, I take the term coercion in a broader term that includes persuading
>> a child which is not mature enaugh to make that decision and I believe
>> that Stallman does too. However I have no direct evidence for that, I get
>> it from the way he speaks about it.
>> Snit apparently doesn't. Snit also thinks Stallman "supports" and
>> "defends" the dutch party. I don't see him doing that. He posted a link
>> and stated his opinion on the general matter. You would need to ask him
>> if he also supports that party.
>
> He pointed to the political party and then defended it by saying:
> -----
> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
> on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
> parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
> is maturing.
> -----
He is stating his opinion on the general matter, he doesn't say anything
about the party here.
>> I personally am not really sure in what extent I would be happy with a
>> change of legislation: On the one hand current legislating may restrict
>> mature youths actual experimenting, on the other hand it may make it
>> harder for abusers to get away since abuse may not be so easy to prove
>> when some "brainwashing" is applied.
>>
>>> And before anyone accuses me of connecting RMS with that, forget it.
>>> I already stated that RMS making statements is far different from
>>> him acting upon them. I truly doubt RMS would behave like that.
>>
>> Try arguing with Snit about that. When he posted this the first time it
>> took me some time to find out that he had no actual position and not even
>> an argument.
>> I doubt you will get something more than his copy&paste out of him...
>
> I am happy to discuss it. While I do not agree with all of your comments,
> you are not just attacking the messenger.
>
> One challenge: whenever I comment on what Stallman says some moron in COLA
> is sure to say I am "twisting" it... and when I do not and merely quote
> him I will be accused of just copying and pasting his words.
"some of his comments point to the idea of supporting
sex with 12 year olds."
Oh really? The quoted goals from said party are that this is allowed and
somehow now Stallman supports that?
"he is saying uncensored porn should be allowed in the class"
Oh really? I must have missed that.
> The fact is his words are damning enough... not much discussion is needed.
> But I am open to listening to your ideas.
No you are not. You state in too many of your posts that you are not willing
to discuss:
- No "interpretation" needed.
- There is nothing else to this.
- There is no gray area here. None.
- No interpretation on my part needed. The man is repulsive.
- ...
Well, I still see no point in trying to discuss it with you. I have my view
and you have not presented a logical argument against it.
Also keep in mind that I don't support somebody who supports the abuse of
children because in my view abuse includes coercion and Stallman explicitely
said "as long as no one is coerced". Tough I am not really sure that
coercion is used in that context in everyday language. I don't think I have
heard somebody use this word in a conversation yet.
RonB
> Snit is twisting the shit out of comments about free speech. Move the
> fuck on people.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.6 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
or Linux Mint 10
Herd Watch
PM:
<http://trw.gallopinginsanity.com/2011/09/01/sex-scandals>
Herd Watch
9/27/11 12:01 AM:
...
>>> my opinion that if they don't "really want it" (i.e. are not mature
>>> enaugh to make that decision) it is a form of coercion. And that's what
>>> Stallman is _not_ talking about since his words are "as long as no one is
>>> coerced". According to Snit this phrase is "irrelevant" and thus Stallman
>>> allegedly supports "abuse of children" (which in my view can also only
>>> happen by coercing).
>>
>> The concept of "coercion" assumes someone who is mature enough to decide on
>> their own. When talking about an adult concept such as sex, children are not
>> capable of making informed decisions.
>>
> You are not paying attention. It is my view that persuading a child who would
> otherwise not want to - maybe because it is not mature enaugh - is coercion.
Got it. And sorry about that.
...
>> -----
>> I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
>> children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
>> on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
>> parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
>> is maturing.
>> -----
>
> He is stating his opinion on the general matter, he doesn't say anything
> about the party here.
...
>> you are not just attacking the messenger.
>>
>> One challenge: whenever I comment on what Stallman says some moron in COLA
>> is sure to say I am "twisting" it... and when I do not and merely quote
>> him I will be accused of just copying and pasting his words.
>
> "some of his comments point to the idea of supporting
> sex with 12 year olds."
>
> Oh really? The quoted goals from said party are that this is allowed and
> somehow now Stallman supports that?
> "he is saying uncensored porn should be allowed in the class"
>
> Oh really? I must have missed that.
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
"educational material".
That is a clear example of supporting child sexual abuse.
>> The fact is his words are damning enough... not much discussion is needed.
>> But I am open to listening to your ideas.
>
> No you are not.
> You state in too many of your posts that you are not willing
> to discuss:
>
> - No "interpretation" needed.
> - There is nothing else to this.
> - There is no gray area here. None.
> - No interpretation on my part needed. The man is repulsive.
But I am open to discussion.
> - ...
>
> Well, I still see no point in trying to discuss it with you.
> I have my view
> and you have not presented a logical argument against it.
> Also keep in mind that I don't support somebody who supports the abuse of
> children because in my view abuse includes coercion and Stallman explicitely
> said "as long as no one is coerced".
> Tough I am not really sure that
> coercion is used in that context in everyday language. I don't think I have
> heard somebody use this word in a conversation yet.
Ender2070
Herd Watch
11296779.1442.1317138762190.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgn17 on 9/27/11
8:52 AM:
> Theres nothing free speech about wanting to have sex with 12+ year olds
(the ol' screaming fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.)
TomB
> TomB stated in post 4fb7l8-...@mordor.drumscum.be on 9/26/11 3:37 PM:
>> On 09/26/2011 09:30 PM, Herd Watch wrote:
>>> Hadron stated in post 5yr533x...@news.eternal-september.org on 9/26/11
>>> 11:29 AM:
>>>> Where? And WHY are you reposting the SAME huge text sgement AGAIN!?!?!?
>>>
>>> Because you and others keep denying it exists.
>>
>> No, you lying piece of shit, he and others are not denying it exists.
>
> You deny Stallman has said what I quoted.
TomB
> I am absolutely for free speech, though I do agree with some limitations
> (the ol' screaming fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.)
Ender2070
Herd Watch
you dodged my comments on misrepresenting your misrepresentation.
You used to not do that... before you become so beholden to the herd.
But to get back to your point, and from a past post to you (of which you
have no response but to call me names for noting facts about one of your
cult-gods):
---------------------------------------------------------------
Let me be clear and specific:
I work in schools. There was a school I used to work at where, before I
worked there, it had no Internet policy and no blocking of anything. And
the computers were set up so that students could view them without an
instructor in the room and where screens were not visible to the center of
the room - easy for students to do as they pleased.
One of the conditions I set to accept the job was I got to create an
Internet policy, move computers so their screens could always be seen and we
had to have some sort of porn blocking. To not do so, in a school, is
negligent. To not take actions of that sort is *criminally* negligent. It
is rightfully illegal and, had I maintained a situation where the students
had such access, I (and the school) *rightfully* could have been legally
liable to the harm done to the children at the school. Yes: this was a high
school. And, yes, children.
Stallman, however, thinks such sensible and reasonable measures should not
happen. I can see thinking that the automated blocking should not be done -
it did sometimes block legitimate sites and was not perfect. But *some*
safeguards are absolutely required. To provide none is *criminally*
negligent. And to encourage them and to claim that the porn the students
find is "educational material" is offensive to the extreme. It is child
sexual abuse. And Stallman supports it. So, yes, Stallman support child
sexual abuse. And it is grotesque.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you think I am missing something or misinterpreting something then I am
open to hearing your thoughts. Your cult-like BS, however, is just
insane... Scientology-level insane. Just whacked.
Herd Watch
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----
what he shows support for in that quote.
Herd Watch
15543225.2421.1317143103776.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcr11 on 9/27/11
10:05 AM:
> RMS is acting like an apologist for the dutch pedophile group as well as
> promoting it on his site..
Agreed.
Steve Carroll
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:36:21 -0700, Sneaky Weasel wrote:
> > Snit is twisting the shit out of comments about free speech. Move the
> > fuck on people.
>
> I think I've found another subject to killfile.
of stuff Snit does. You have to understand... the poor fool is
actually quite mentally ill and has been for many years. Below is a
small sampling of the stuff he wrote to a usenet anxiety newsgroup...
but to really understand how bad off poor Snit is, be sure to follow
the link at the bottom.
"I have had this for the last couple of years... Still struggling to
get over it. I can not have my BP [blood pressure] taken ANYWHERE
without bringing on an attack; doc's office, stores with machines, or
even my own cuff that I have now bought". - Snit
--
"Sigh. This Friday I am supposed to drive to another city to take
part in a surprise party for my mother that my wife and sister-in-law
have been planning for months. Due to my attacks - I will not be
going. My wife is staying with me (I told her she did not have to,
but am glad she is). So, my wife has to drive 1/2 way there to drop
off all the supplies she has been collecting - and my sister-in-law
has to drive her half way to meet her. Because of the added
complications, they have decided to not make it a complete surprise.
I feel lousy - I am inconveniencing my wife, sister-in-law, and
others, and can not even make it to my mom's B-day party after months
of promising people I would be there and help out". - Snit
--
"I have lost jobs, been essentually house-bound, etc. Many others
here have been in the same place". - Snit
Strangely, in CSMA, Snit had the stupidity to believe that others
would believe his cock and bull story shown here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/4cd40d45fe3ae622
Even without the acknowledgements from Snit as shown above this tale
would have been spotted for the BS that it was as Snit had told many
tall tales in CSMA.
Steve Carroll
should be helping to raise the profile on someone like him. The fact
is that he is very mentally ill and he really needs help but he thinks
he's OK (he's obviously not). Until the profile is raised high enough
he will never get the help he needs. It almost got raised high enough
once in another newsgroup but Snit quickly pulled up stakes and moved
to COLA. Only the advocates here can help him now;)
Sigmund
Sigmund
Ender2070
Ender2070
Herd Watch
18282524.655.1317217308576.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqjw35 on 9/28/11
6:41 AM:
> He comes nowhere close to RMS in the batshit-insane department. Perhaps when
> Snit starts eating his toe jam I might start worrying.
call to allow uncensored porn into schools and dishonestly relabel it as
"educational material".
Ender2070
They are saying RMS is talking about being able to do anything for freedom sake. Sounds familiar...
Herd Watch
21566739.1924.1317230853035.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqmw31 on 9/28/11
10:27 AM:
* Stallman says uncensored porn should be labeled "educational materials"
and made available in schools.
* Stallman claims some pedophilia should be deemed "voluntary".
* Stallman says the making of child porn should be legal.
* Stallman says the distribution of child porn should be legal, even
in cases where the child is clearly being forced against
their will.
* Stallman says necrophilia should be legal.
* Stallman says incest should be legal.
* Stallman says bestiality should be legal.
While some of those can be said to be supporting "freedom", to excuse them
all under that umbrella is just insane. And dishonest.