John, Meet Dale; Dale, meet John
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Hmmmm...John (Paladin of Perfect Probity)Mercer says he
> uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
> the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
> bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
> Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
> Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
> the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
> lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
> make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
>
> Rat
And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you
in another post.
Sue
Threatening email will be reported
to the authorities. You have been
warned.
R Bishop
dand...@mail.tds.net (Dale Anderson) wrote:
>Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Hmmmm...John (Paladin of Perfect Probity)Mercer says he
>> uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
>> the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
>> bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
>> Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
>> Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
>> the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
>> lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
>> make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
>
> Tisk, tisk, Karen. You used to be above such things. Getting a tad
>desperate, are we? Maybe you'll get lucky and get a few "high fives"
>from your cohorts, eh? Anything to cover that child sex consent
>debacle, I guess...
>
>
>Dale Anderson
>dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
She certainly is thrashing around in desperation, isn't she?
I think the most interesting thing about the whole child/sex discussion
is the support she was getting from other ARLs. Let's see now, Gordon,
FeralPee..... then there is James, too. Who knows what he's doing,
since he's now stopped posting again.
BTW, I'll be off the air in a few days for a few days. Don't get excited, rattie,
I'll be back....
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
><snip>
>> And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you
>> in another post.
>
> What questions were those? AFAIK, I answered all the
> questions you asked me. I can't help it if you have a hard
> time with reading comprehension.
>
> Rat
Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
>> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
>
> I posted an answer to this which hasn't shown up on my
> server yet.
>
> Of course I would not, and did not, prostitute my child.
Really? After your heated defense of prostitution as a perfectly
honorable and moral life style?
Remember your words CAN come back to haunt you. I'm sure that most
of yours will haunt you for a very long time.
> The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
> clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
> what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
> consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
>
Since you've repeatedly said that a small child should be allowed
to participate in any sexual activity with an adult, as long as the
child 'agrees' to it, I'm surprised that you now seem to be back-pedaling
so fast. If a child has sex with an adult for a candy bar or a toy,
then that's prostitution in its purest form, right?
> My child was already away at school by the time I got to
> know any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was
> already 19 when I first met him)had been an underage
> prostitute before I met him, and was quite clear that he
> enjoyed the sex itself, and much preferred that as a
> way of supporting himself to flipping burgers at McOffal's.
>
> I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
> with the responsible pedophiles I met. Just as associating
> with a gay person will not "turn" a straight kid gay,
> associating with a _responsible_ pedophile ( meaning one
> who respects his partners and does not rape or coerce
> them against their will) will not make a child who is
> not at all interested in sexual activity of some kind with
> an older person into a "victim." In our society, I would
> be much more concerned about a furtive encounter with
> a secretive, predatory rapist than a friendship between
> members of my family and someone who is willing to come out
> as a responsible pedophile. I would tend to trust such a
> person, if I knew him well enough for him to trust me with
> the information and he had proved himself honorable and
> trustworthy.
>
You certainly put some extremely strange words together. Honorable
and trustworthy and pedophile.....
> Rat
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>R Bishop wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Rat wrote:
>> > Of course I would not, and did not, prostitute my child.
>
>> Really? After your heated defense of prostitution as a perfectly
>> honorable and moral life style?
>
> I see nothing wrong, in itself, with prostitution. But
> my whole point is that it is not _my_ right to choose
> for them what kind of consentual sexual activity other
> people engage in. That includes prostitution.
I wonder if you also chose for your child whether or not he played in traffic,
drank any household substances such as bleach, stuck his finger in light
sockets, climbed out on the roof, drove a car at age five, etc.
>
> You just don't get it, do you? Goes completely over your
> head. You are so steeped in authoritarian thought and
> the idea that the State has to control people's private
> life and punish victimless crimes that the idea of
> _freedom_ is utterly beyond your comprehension.
Victimless crimes. You consider pedophilia to be a victimless crime.
You are the sickest of the sick bitches.
>
><snip>
> > The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
> > clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
> > what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
> > consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
>
>> Since you've repeatedly said that a small child should be allowed
>> to participate in any sexual activity with an adult, as long as the
>> child 'agrees' to it,
>
> <snip> *Sigh* Still don't get it, do you? That's not
> what I said.
Yes, it is what you said. Still back-pedaling, I see.
>
>> I'm surprised that you now seem to be back-pedaling
>> so fast. If a child has sex with an adult for a candy bar or a toy,
>> then that's prostitution in its purest form, right?
>
> Possibly. It could also be an exchange of gifts between
> lovers. If you had sex for a wedding ring, would that be
> prostitution in its purest form?
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm still waiting for you to answer _my_ question: if
> the State declared homosexuality the only legal form of
> sexual activity, would you find a woman lover and
> support State punishment of male/female sex?
Since I have no interest in women as a lover, I would do neither. Besides,
you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
>
> What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
> did get an answer to that one.
My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
YOU are the one who is obsessed with answers. It's really funny, especially
since you don't even have to answer any of mine. Yet you feel driven to
explain and excuse and justify ALL of your views.
>
> Fair's fair: I answered your question. Now, you answer
> mine.
Rattie, obviously you've never learned that 'life ain't fair'.
Rat & Swan
uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
Rat
Dale Anderson
Rat & Swan
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Hmmmm...John (Paladin of Perfect Probity)Mercer says he
> > uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
> > the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
> > bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
> > Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
> > Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
> > the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
> > lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
> > make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
> Tisk, tisk, Karen. You used to be above such things.
Well, I like to think I have always been capable of
asking probing questions to nail the squirming and
waffling of the less-than-candid. So -- are you now
agreeing with John that calves in the "veal industry"
are deliberately fed iron-deficient milk replacer? Or are
you saying John is either lying or ignorant of the sources
of his serum?
Rat
<snip>
Dale Anderson
>
>> Tisk, tisk, Karen. You used to be above such things.
>
> Well, I like to think I have always been capable of
> asking probing questions to nail the squirming and
> waffling of the less-than-candid.
Please show me where I have not been candid, Karen. I said I disagree
with John's point, as you stated it to me. What more would you like?
Life might be different for you, but I really don't hang on every word
of every thread, you know. ;-)
> So -- are you now
> agreeing with John that calves in the "veal industry"
> are deliberately fed iron-deficient milk replacer?
I do not agree with anyone who tries to make this point. For one, the
replacer is iron fortified. If you or anyone else doesn't believe me,
all they have to do is go to a feed store, grab the tag off a bag of
replacer, and confirm it for themselves. Seems I recall doing this
many moons ago in Animal Rights. (That's one of the problems of going
to the effort of providing proof for you ARAs. You "conveniently"
forget it happened. Might have something to do with denial...)
Secondly, as you know I have also pointed out before, one of the
symptoms of anemia is loss of appetite. Yet, these calves eat to the
point they grow at nothing short of phenominal rates. Rates that I, as
a dairy farmer, had a hard time matching.
> Or are
> you saying John is either lying or ignorant of the sources
> of his serum?
Not knowing what John's actual point is, I'd be "less than candid" if
I were to try to agree or disagree with your black and white term,
here. Perhaps John will take the time to enlighten me?
It is amazing how many of you get either Sue or John "on the brain,"
though. (In your case, it appears to be both...) You then desperately
try to engage someone else into a hope of somehow baiting them,
instead of just taking them on directly, apparently. Looks pretty
desperate, for what it's worth.
John's done a pretty good job of debunking ARA "bunk," when it comes
down to it. Especially in the area of research. The amount of people
he's pinned on Thalomide alone is of pretty large proportions. Add to
that the amount of ARAs he's shown to be less than knowledgable as to
the issue of "non animal testing," and he's achieved quite a bit.
No wonder you want to target him! He's pretty effective!
Dale Anderson
dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
Rat & Swan
> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
I posted an answer to this which hasn't shown up on my
server yet.
Of course I would not, and did not, prostitute my child.
The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
My child was already away at school by the time I got to
know any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was
already 19 when I first met him)had been an underage
prostitute before I met him, and was quite clear that he
enjoyed the sex itself, and much preferred that as a
way of supporting himself to flipping burgers at McOffal's.
I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met. Just as associating
with a gay person will not "turn" a straight kid gay,
associating with a _responsible_ pedophile ( meaning one
who respects his partners and does not rape or coerce
them against their will) will not make a child who is
not at all interested in sexual activity of some kind with
an older person into a "victim." In our society, I would
be much more concerned about a furtive encounter with
a secretive, predatory rapist than a friendship between
members of my family and someone who is willing to come out
as a responsible pedophile. I would tend to trust such a
person, if I knew him well enough for him to trust me with
the information and he had proved himself honorable and
trustworthy.
Rat
Rat & Swan
<snip>
Rat wrote:
> > Of course I would not, and did not, prostitute my child.
> Really? After your heated defense of prostitution as a perfectly
> honorable and moral life style?
I see nothing wrong, in itself, with prostitution. But
my whole point is that it is not _my_ right to choose
for them what kind of consentual sexual activity other
people engage in. That includes prostitution.
You just don't get it, do you? Goes completely over your
head. You are so steeped in authoritarian thought and
the idea that the State has to control people's private
life and punish victimless crimes that the idea of
_freedom_ is utterly beyond your comprehension.
<snip>
> The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
> clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
> what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
> consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
> Since you've repeatedly said that a small child should be allowed
> to participate in any sexual activity with an adult, as long as the
> child 'agrees' to it,
<snip> *Sigh* Still don't get it, do you? That's not
what I said.
> I'm surprised that you now seem to be back-pedaling
> so fast. If a child has sex with an adult for a candy bar or a toy,
> then that's prostitution in its purest form, right?
Possibly. It could also be an exchange of gifts between
lovers. If you had sex for a wedding ring, would that be
prostitution in its purest form?
<snip>
I'm still waiting for you to answer _my_ question: if
the State declared homosexuality the only legal form of
sexual activity, would you find a woman lover and
support State punishment of male/female sex?
What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
did get an answer to that one.
R Bishop
Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Since I have no interest in women as a lover, I would do neither.
> <snip>
>
> Ah -- NOW we're getting somewhere. You do not feel the
> State has a right to define your sexuality ( you wouldn't
> take a woman lover), AND you would not support the State in
> punishing a form of sexual activity you do not consider wrong.
> That is exactly my position. You are _agreeing_ with me here.
> So what's your beef with my view of State authority over
> consentual sexual activity?
Because a child is a child. They have diminished capacity to judge what
is or is not good for them. You want to give that capacity away, leave
them at the mercy of any adult who can talk or bribe them into any type
of harmful activity. And you are a sick disgusting piece of shit for
wanting to harm children this way.
>
> Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
The state is not going to do so. You want to go off into ridiculously
idiotically stupid scenarios. And it just makes you look even more silly.
>
>>Besides,
>> you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
>
> No, Sue. I am phrasing the question in a way you can
> understand. Gotta symplify these things for you, and
> take it down to one-syllable, concrete words before you
> get it, it seems.
No, Rattie, you want to propose all sorts of things, just to take the
pressure off of yourself.
>
>> > What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
>> > did get an answer to that one.
>>
>> My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
>
> Make that "can't." A person who can't come up with
> reasons for holding her own ethical opinions has no
> right or ability to criticize the ethics of others.
No, Rattie. I don't have to justify ANYTHING. You don't either. Yet
you will try and try and try to do so. Why? Because you really deep down
don't trust your own judgment, your own ethics. You keep trying to
justify them to us, explain them to us to see if you can somehow, some
desperate way earn our approval.
Guess what. It's not going to happen.
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> She certainly is thrashing around in desperation, isn't she?
>
>Maybe, but what I've seen so far is an obvious attempt to avoid
>answering her question. Or even addressing it. Next thing you know,
>you'll be trying to divert the discussion back to another subject to
>avoid further comment on the question Rat had.
>
>> I think the most interesting thing about the whole child/sex discussion
>> is the support she was getting from other ARLs.
>
>Can I predict 'em or what?
>
>> Let's see now, Gordon,
>> FeralPee..... then there is James, too. Who knows what he's doing,
>> since he's now stopped posting again.
>
>I guess I'm just man enough to jump the fence when I feel it needs to be
>jumped. Maybe I'm one of the few people here who recognizes that anyone
>is capable of making a good point. Even you, Sue.
>
So, James, make a stand. Do you really agree with Rat on pedophilia?
>If you ever paid attention to my posts, you'd have noticed by now that I
>don't post on weekends. I enjoy a life filled with Rock and Roll and
>empty of the internet. I recommend it for anyone who wants to keep
>sanity.
>
>> BTW, I'll be off the air in a few days for a few days. Don't get excited, rattie,
>> I'll be back....
>
>Of course you will.
>
>James Helper
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>R Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <3788D7...@pacbell.net>,
>> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >R Bishop wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
>
>She answered this, Sue.
>
>> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
>
>She answered this too.
>
>Apparently, you DO have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't
>call you a liar. You just exhibit a contempt for the truth.
>
There you go again. James, Not All Posts Reach Servers At The Same Speed.
Read that slowly and perhaps you will understand why I hadn't yet received
the post where she DID answer the question.
Are you going to get off that skinny fence and decide whether or not you
support her stand on pedophilia or not?
And, perhaps if you stopped being such an asshole, you might learn something.
>James Hepler
R Bishop
James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>R Bishop wrote:
>
>> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
>> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
>> > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
>>
>> The state is not going to do so. You want to go off into ridiculously
>> idiotically stupid scenarios. And it just makes you look even more silly.
>
>So, no answer. Noted. I would keep having sex with my wife. Hell, I'd
>send videos to the governor. I'd do it on his lawn in protest.
>
>> >>Besides,
>> >> you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
>> >
>> > No, Sue. I am phrasing the question in a way you can
>> > understand. Gotta symplify these things for you, and
>> > take it down to one-syllable, concrete words before you
>> > get it, it seems.
>>
>> No, Rattie, you want to propose all sorts of things, just to take the
>> pressure off of yourself.
>
>And you'll do anything to avoid pressure. COWard.
>
>> >> > What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
>> >> > did get an answer to that one.
>> >>
>> >> My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
>> >
>> > Make that "can't." A person who can't come up with
>> > reasons for holding her own ethical opinions has no
>> > right or ability to criticize the ethics of others.
>>
>> No, Rattie. I don't have to justify ANYTHING. You don't either.
>
>BS. I expect everyone here to provide justification. Even if the
>answer is, "I don't know, I just feel this way", it beats, "I don't have
>to answer anything". Your fifth amendment right is worthless here.
>
>> Yet
>> you will try and try and try to do so. Why? Because you really deep down
>> don't trust your own judgment, your own ethics. You keep trying to
>> justify them to us, explain them to us to see if you can somehow, some
>> desperate way earn our approval.
>
>Funny how you think this way. You refuse to post your reasoning for the
>same reason. You know as soon as you do you will be shot out of the
>water. You know that your ethics are indefensible. You'll do anything
>to prevent having your ideals questioned. Funny. What do you have to
>lose?
>
>> Guess what. It's not going to happen.
>
>She got my approval this way.
Your continuing support for a woman who thinks pedophilia is totally
honorable is noted.
Grow up, James. Your constant ranting and raving at me is getting very
boring. You sound like the little boys in the schoolyard, following the
girls around, when they really are just seeking their attention.
If you keep this up, I might come to the conclusion you have a crush on
me.
Sue
>
>James Hepler
>
>> >
>> > Rat
Tom Maynard
>> > uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
>> > the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
>> > bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
>> > Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
>> > Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
>> > the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
>> > lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
>> > make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
From Hyclone's web page, they show two types of Bovine Calf Serum:
Defined Bovine Calf Serum (SH30072.03, 500 ml plastic)
(which states that it is iron supplemented)
Defined Bovine Calf Unsupplemented (SH30073.03, 500 ml Plastic)
(which states that it is non-iron supplemented)
I do not use either product; however, I can vouch for the very high
quality of their Defined FBS (SH30070.03, 500 ml Plastic). I have
grown a wide variety of primary cells in this, as well as rat, mouse,
human, and insect cell lines.
--Tom Maynard (may...@oregon.uoregon.edu)
cell culture geek
Rat & Swan
<snip>
Rat wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for you to answer _my_ question: if
> > the State declared homosexuality the only legal form of
> > sexual activity, would you find a woman lover and
> > support State punishment of male/female sex?
> Since I have no interest in women as a lover, I would do neither.
<snip>
Ah -- NOW we're getting somewhere. You do not feel the
State has a right to define your sexuality ( you wouldn't
take a woman lover), AND you would not support the State in
punishing a form of sexual activity you do not consider wrong.
That is exactly my position. You are _agreeing_ with me here.
So what's your beef with my view of State authority over
consentual sexual activity?
Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
>Besides,
> you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
No, Sue. I am phrasing the question in a way you can
understand. Gotta symplify these things for you, and
take it down to one-syllable, concrete words before you
get it, it seems.
> > What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
> > did get an answer to that one.
>
> My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
Make that "can't." A person who can't come up with
reasons for holding her own ethical opinions has no
right or ability to criticize the ethics of others.
Rat
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> From Hyclone's web page, they show two types of Bovine Calf Serum:
> Defined Bovine Calf Serum (SH30072.03, 500 ml plastic)
> (which states that it is iron supplemented)
> Defined Bovine Calf Unsupplemented (SH30073.03, 500 ml Plastic)
> (which states that it is non-iron supplemented)
Thank you very much; that is helpful. Do you know if the
level of iron in the unsupplemented calf serum in such that
the living calf from which it came would be iron-deprived
or anemic?
Rat
Rat & Swan
> In article <378A11...@pacbell.net>,
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Ah -- NOW we're getting somewhere. You do not feel the
> > State has a right to define your sexuality ( you wouldn't
> > take a woman lover), AND you would not support the State in
> > punishing a form of sexual activity you do not consider wrong.
> > That is exactly my position. You are _agreeing_ with me here.
> > So what's your beef with my view of State authority over
> > consentual sexual activity?
> Because a child is a child. They have diminished capacity to judge what
> is or is not good for them.
<snip>
Agreed. But I'll bet you'd object quite quickly if the
State tried to tell you you _had_ to have sex with
children, but not with adults.
Don't you see that the issue is one of State force, _not_
whether children can consent or not? Do you really
believe that existing laws have prevented sex with children?
Certainly many of the things adults do to children are at
least as traumatic as forcing sex on them, yet the State ignores
that and focuses on sexual activity because our culture is so
weird about sex in general.
> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
> The state is not going to do so.
<snip>
Not the point. The question is: would you obey the law or
not, IF the law existed? It's called a "thought experiment,"
Sue. Intelligent people do it all the time. Too bad you
don't qualify. We are talking about a principle here.
> > No, Sue. I am phrasing the question in a way you can
> > understand. Gotta symplify these things for you, and
> > take it down to one-syllable, concrete words before you
> > get it, it seems.
>
> No, Rattie, you want to propose all sorts of things, just to take the
> pressure off of yourself.
I try to see if you can actually comprehend an abstract
thought or a philosophical concept. So far -- we have
had 100% failure in that department. I'm amazed you
have risen off all-fours and made it as far as using
a keyboard. If you ever learn to _think_, we're all in
trouble.
Rat
Swamp Thing
I've calmed down enough to venture into these inky waters once again.
BTW, my new wetlands job came with a great excuse to get a laptop. I can now
type on the floor, my massive haunches securely asquat. No need to assume
the upright posture anymore!
--
Swamp
--
Rat & Swan wrote in message <378A30...@pacbell.net>...
Tom Maynard
I have no idea. I would assume that the animals would be in
very good condition overall; otherwise the serum would suck.
With each batch of cell culture serum, there is a detailed list of
dozens of tests to certify its quality. Besides testing for
the presence of many diseases and viruses, the level of various
metabolic products are listed. I have a hard time believing
that a sick or injured animal would have acceptable levels in this
extremely detailed analysis...
--Tom Maynard
(may...@oregon.uoregon.edu)
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <3788AE...@pacbell.net>,
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Hmmmm...John (Paladin of Perfect Probity)Mercer says he
> > uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
> > the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
> > bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
> > Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
> > Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
> > the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
> > lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
> > make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
> >
> > Rat
>
> And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you
> in another post.
And I'm, waiting for my man.
Thank you Lou Reed.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Dale Anderson wrote:
>
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Hmmmm...John (Paladin of Perfect Probity)Mercer says he
> > uses serum derived from the iron-deprived products of
> > the "veal industry" for his research. This obviously
> > bothers him not at all. Dale (Defender of Dairy-Farming)
> > Anderson claims that veal calves are not deprived of iron.
> > Can it be that John is lying, or is it that Dale is fudging
> > the truth a bit? Or is it that both of them are willing to
> > lie like a rug to defend their selfish interests and try to
> > make ARAs look bad? The Mystery Deepens. Stay Tuned.
>
> Tisk, tisk, Karen. You used to be above such things. Getting a tad
> desperate, are we? Maybe you'll get lucky and get a few "high fives"
> from your cohorts, eh? Anything to cover that child sex consent
> debacle, I guess...
Dale, did you ever say veal calves were not deprived of iron? If so,
and I know that John said his comment, whassup? I know there's a good
reason for the discrepancy, but I'd like to know what exactly it is if
there is one.
James Hepler
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> She certainly is thrashing around in desperation, isn't she?
Maybe, but what I've seen so far is an obvious attempt to avoid
answering her question. Or even addressing it. Next thing you know,
you'll be trying to divert the discussion back to another subject to
avoid further comment on the question Rat had.
> I think the most interesting thing about the whole child/sex discussion
> is the support she was getting from other ARLs.
Can I predict 'em or what?
> Let's see now, Gordon,
> FeralPee..... then there is James, too. Who knows what he's doing,
> since he's now stopped posting again.
I guess I'm just man enough to jump the fence when I feel it needs to be
jumped. Maybe I'm one of the few people here who recognizes that anyone
is capable of making a good point. Even you, Sue.
If you ever paid attention to my posts, you'd have noticed by now that I
James Hepler
Rat & Swan wrote:
> Well, I like to think I have always been capable of
> asking probing questions to nail the squirming and
> waffling of the less-than-candid. So -- are you now
> agreeing with John that calves in the "veal industry"
> are deliberately fed iron-deficient milk replacer? Or are
> you saying John is either lying or ignorant of the sources
> of his serum?
Well, I know for a fact that not all veal calves are raised deficient of
iron. I don't know how much serum one calf makes, and I don't know how
much serum is required by animal research folk, but I would think a vast
majority of veal calves are not deprived of iron based on those
numbers. Am I right, science guys?
James Hepler
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <3788D7...@pacbell.net>,
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >R Bishop wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you
> >> in another post.
> >
> > What questions were those? AFAIK, I answered all the
> > questions you asked me. I can't help it if you have a hard
> > time with reading comprehension.
> >
> > Rat
>
> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
She answered this, Sue.
> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
She answered this too.
Apparently, you DO have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't
call you a liar. You just exhibit a contempt for the truth.
James Hepler
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <378918...@pacbell.net>,
> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >R Bishop wrote:
> >
> >> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
> >> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
> >
> > I posted an answer to this which hasn't shown up on my
> > server yet.
> >
> > Of course I would not, and did not, prostitute my child.
>
> Really? After your heated defense of prostitution as a perfectly
> honorable and moral life style?
You must stop opening doors for yourself like this. She said she
wouldn't prostitute her child. She didn't say she wouldn't let him
prostitute himself. You really have a problem with that whole
comprehension thing don't you?
> Remember your words CAN come back to haunt you. I'm sure that most
> of yours will haunt you for a very long time.
Yeah, her words. What about yours?
> > The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
> > clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
> > what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
> > consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
> >
>
> Since you've repeatedly said that a small child should be allowed
> to participate in any sexual activity with an adult, as long as the
> child 'agrees' to it, I'm surprised that you now seem to be back-pedaling
> so fast. If a child has sex with an adult for a candy bar or a toy,
> then that's prostitution in its purest form, right?
Good question here though. Except that you are still mixed up. Rat
said she wouldn't pimp her child out. Again she didn't say she wouldn't
let him have sex for a candy bar. I think that is what you missed.
> You certainly put some extremely strange words together. Honorable
> and trustworthy and pedophile.....
Not as strange as 'honorable' and 'trustworthy' and 'Sue' would be.
James Hepler
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> > You just don't get it, do you? Goes completely over your
> > head. You are so steeped in authoritarian thought and
> > the idea that the State has to control people's private
> > life and punish victimless crimes that the idea of
> > _freedom_ is utterly beyond your comprehension.
>
> Victimless crimes. You consider pedophilia to be a victimless crime.
She didn't say pedophilia. When I read this, I was agreeing that
prostitution is a victimless crime. It is all in how you choose to read
it.
> You are the sickest of the sick bitches.
If she is that sick, she can still only be the second sickest, Sue. You
take the cake every time.
> ><snip>
> > > The fact that you can suggest such a thing shows more
> > > clearly than anything I could write that you have no idea
> > > what I am talking about: freedom, consent, and removing
> > > consentual sexual/sensual activity from State control.
> >
> >> Since you've repeatedly said that a small child should be allowed
> >> to participate in any sexual activity with an adult, as long as the
> >> child 'agrees' to it,
> >
> > <snip> *Sigh* Still don't get it, do you? That's not
> > what I said.
>
> Yes, it is what you said. Still back-pedaling, I see.
No, it isn't. Here you are actually lying. You know the truth and you
still post lies.
> > I'm still waiting for you to answer _my_ question: if
> > the State declared homosexuality the only legal form of
> > sexual activity, would you find a woman lover and
> > support State punishment of male/female sex?
>
> Since I have no interest in women as a lover, I would do neither. Besides,
> you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
Right up your alley then.
> > What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
> > did get an answer to that one.
>
> My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
Now who is backpedaling?
> YOU are the one who is obsessed with answers.
From Sue, less than twenty hours before she wrote this clap trap:
"And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you in
another post."
Need I mention that Rat had answered those questions days ago?
> It's really funny, especially
> since you don't even have to answer any of mine.
Umm, she answered all of yours Sue. Your delusions are worsening.
> Yet you feel driven to
> explain and excuse and justify ALL of your views.
Isn't that why we are here?
> > Fair's fair: I answered your question. Now, you answer
> > mine.
>
> Rattie, obviously you've never learned that 'life ain't fair'.
Backpedal away, Sue. But I now know that just because you are on the
"anti" side of the fence, most of the others there will agree with you,
pat you on the proverbial butt and say, "Good Game". I'm no longer
scared to say that my goal is to be above that fence.
James Hepler
>
> >
> > Rat
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
>
> The state is not going to do so. You want to go off into ridiculously
> idiotically stupid scenarios. And it just makes you look even more silly.
So, no answer. Noted. I would keep having sex with my wife. Hell, I'd
send videos to the governor. I'd do it on his lawn in protest.
> >>Besides,
> >> you are proposing a ridiculously idiotic cloud-coo-coo land question.
> >
> > No, Sue. I am phrasing the question in a way you can
> > understand. Gotta symplify these things for you, and
> > take it down to one-syllable, concrete words before you
> > get it, it seems.
>
> No, Rattie, you want to propose all sorts of things, just to take the
> pressure off of yourself.
And you'll do anything to avoid pressure. COWard.
> >> > What is the basis of your ethical decision-making? Never
> >> > did get an answer to that one.
> >>
> >> My ethics are my ethics. Other than that, I don't have to answer anything.
> >
> > Make that "can't." A person who can't come up with
> > reasons for holding her own ethical opinions has no
> > right or ability to criticize the ethics of others.
>
> No, Rattie. I don't have to justify ANYTHING. You don't either.
BS. I expect everyone here to provide justification. Even if the
answer is, "I don't know, I just feel this way", it beats, "I don't have
to answer anything". Your fifth amendment right is worthless here.
> Yet
> you will try and try and try to do so. Why? Because you really deep down
> don't trust your own judgment, your own ethics. You keep trying to
> justify them to us, explain them to us to see if you can somehow, some
> desperate way earn our approval.
Funny how you think this way. You refuse to post your reasoning for the
same reason. You know as soon as you do you will be shot out of the
water. You know that your ethics are indefensible. You'll do anything
to prevent having your ideals questioned. Funny. What do you have to
lose?
> Guess what. It's not going to happen.
She got my approval this way.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Rat & Swan wrote:
> Don't you see that the issue is one of State force, _not_
> whether children can consent or not? Do you really
> believe that existing laws have prevented sex with children?
> Certainly many of the things adults do to children are at
> least as traumatic as forcing sex on them, yet the State ignores
> that and focuses on sexual activity because our culture is so
> weird about sex in general.
You know, we can't even pinpoint what is wrong either. All we can say
is that the laws are weird, but we can't say why it came to pass. I
find that frustrating. Just for kicks, lets ask Sue if she gives her
hubby knob shines. And lets ask her if she would do it in NC. I'll bet
her ears turn red after just reading the words knob shine. That's what
I'm talking about. Why?
James Hepler
Dale Anderson
>Well, I know for a fact that not all veal calves are raised deficient of
>iron.
How do you know this?
Dale Anderson
dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> So, James, make a stand. Do you really agree with Rat on pedophilia?
As far as I can determine, James agrees with me that there
should not be age of consent laws, but disagrees on the
nature of child sexuality and how adults should respond to it.
Am I right, James? If so, it seems a perfectly reasonable
position to me.
Rat
Rat & Swan
> Feel free to toss your little thought experiment my way, Rat.
> I've calmed down enough to venture into these inky waters once again.
Feel free to respond. All are welcome. Everybody into
the pool!...er, swamp....<g>
<snip>
> Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> have sex with your spouse if both of you wanted it?
Would you advocate publically against the law, and work
to change it?
Rat
Martin Martens
This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
against all laws.
Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
they should have their balls cut off.
Martin Martens
with prepubescent children do not belong out in any society. As I said
Michael Cerkowski
(...)
.> Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
.> with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
.> they should have their balls cut off.
Would that include the women, or is it news to you that not all
adults
who are attracted to children are men?
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Dale Anderson
John and I certainly have had the honor of having our names on one of
the bigger threads of the period. Although I imagine everyone now will
winder if we're a couple of pedophiles, given the way the thread has
turned. :^>
Dale Anderson
dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> So, James, make a stand. Do you really agree with Rat on pedophilia?
Would you like for me to go back through my other several posts and
compile a list of quotes concerning my feelings on pedophilia, or would
you rather just read my posts about pedophilia? If I didn't do a good
enough job of explaining it yesterday, I'll be glad to attempt to repeat
myself. But if you aren't going to read my posts, I don't see how it
matters. My guess is you wrote this before you saw my explanation of my
stance.
> >If you ever paid attention to my posts, you'd have noticed by now that I
> >don't post on weekends. I enjoy a life filled with Rock and Roll and
> >empty of the internet. I recommend it for anyone who wants to keep
> >sanity.
Everybody read this again. Two times. I DON'T POST ON WEEKENDS.
Got it, Doug? Sue?
James Hepler
James Hepler
Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> R Bishop wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > So, James, make a stand. Do you really agree with Rat on pedophilia?
>
> As far as I can determine, James agrees with me that there
> should not be age of consent laws, but disagrees on the
> nature of child sexuality and how adults should respond to it.
> Am I right, James? If so, it seems a perfectly reasonable
> position to me.
You are absolutely right. I think I'm just a romantic with regards to
my feelings on innocence. I've just become so jaded lately. I hate
adults. Each day my old feeling that people are inherently good wanes a
little more. As I peruse Usenet, my cynicism grows exponentially,
especially when I realized that the people on my side of the fence are
indistinguishable from to people on the other side. Opinions differ,
but deep down, many people here are the same. Useless.
James Hepler
>
> Rat
James Hepler
Dale Anderson wrote:
>
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Well, I know for a fact that not all veal calves are raised deficient of
> >iron.
>
> How do you know this?
Because I have seen the milk replacer of which you spoke. We used
similar stuff on my grandparent's farm. Also, I saw the post from
another gentleman who showed catalog like listings of Bovine Serum with
iron. Is my statement above not logical or true? I thought you'd
agree. Is that not the case?
James Hepler
>
> Dale Anderson
> dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <378A535D...@email.unc.edu>,
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >R Bishop wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3788D7...@pacbell.net>,
> >> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >R Bishop wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> And I'm still waiting for an answer to the questions I asked you
> >> >> in another post.
> >> >
> >> > What questions were those? AFAIK, I answered all the
> >> > questions you asked me. I can't help it if you have a hard
> >> > time with reading comprehension.
> >> >
> >> > Rat
> >>
> >> Did you allow your pedophile friends to 'play' with your child?
> >
> >She answered this, Sue.
> >
> >> Did you shop him on the street corner to passersby?
> >
> >She answered this too.
> >
> >Apparently, you DO have a problem with reading comprehension. I won't
> >call you a liar. You just exhibit a contempt for the truth.
> >
>
> There you go again. James, Not All Posts Reach Servers At The Same Speed.
I'll concede that. But you should keep that in mind when you accuse Rat
of not answering your questions, no?
While you are at it, why don't you send an email to Doug J. explaining
to him that comment of yours.
> Read that slowly and perhaps you will understand why I hadn't yet received
> the post where she DID answer the question.
I see. Again, perhaps you should keep that in mind next time you spew
about Rat ignoring your questions, which shouldn't matter to you in the
first place since you systematically refuse to answer hers. Hypocrite.
> Are you going to get off that skinny fence and decide whether or not you
> support her stand on pedophilia or not?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Lemme quote you for this one, idiot: "James, Not All
Posts Reach Servers At The Same Speed."
How you can type it and not even understand it is way beyond me.
> And, perhaps if you stopped being such an asshole, you might learn something.
How would you know, you haven't A) stopped being an asshole OR B)
learned a damn thing. Pot, meet ma kettle.
And before you go on a tirade about age, it was a pun. I know a 16 YO
ma. She's stupid too. You guys could form a bridge team.
James Hepler
James Hepler
R Bishop wrote:
> Your continuing support for a woman who thinks pedophilia is totally
> honorable is noted.
By now, if you don't understand my stance on both pedophilia and Rat,
you are more brain dead than I can imagine. I'll give you the benefit
of the doubt though. You probably haven't seen my post yet. Not that
that would keep you from jumping to the same old conclusions.
> Grow up, James. Your constant ranting and raving at me is getting very
> boring.
Then don't respond, stupid. Killfile me.
> You sound like the little boys in the schoolyard, following the
> girls around, when they really are just seeking their attention.
I have yours, so I guess you are the sucker. Well done.
> If you keep this up, I might come to the conclusion you have a crush on
> me.
I wouldn't be surprised if you did. I would expect that level of denial
from someone as closed minded as you.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Martin Martens wrote:
> This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
>
> Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> against all laws.
>
> Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
> they should have their balls cut off.
You could in theory just answer her hypothetical question. What on
earth are you afraid of?
You pull logical fallacy comments out of your ass, but you have no
problem with using logical fallacies. Maybe you should figure out that
not everything in Usenet needs to be summed up in logical terms. We're
people, I think using this logical fallacy crap is a pitiful way to
avoid commenting on difficult subject material, except this subject
material isn't difficult.
I don't know, this is just so disappointing.
James Hepler
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
> (...)
>
> .> Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> .> with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
> .> they should have their balls cut off.
>
> Would that include the women, or is it news to you that not all
> adults who are attracted to children are men?
Go find out the percentage of female pedophiles and get back to us
Michael.
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
>
> > This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> > inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
> >
> > Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> > against all laws.
> >
>
> earth are you afraid of?
Nothing. I did answer it. I also point out the flaws in her "thought"
experiment, which is a more relevent commentary on the issue.
I'm still waiting for you to retract the implication you made about me
and 4 year olds. What are you afraid of?
[...]
Swamp Thing
Rat & Swan wrote in message <378AA8...@pacbell.net>...
> Feel free to respond. All are welcome. Everybody into
> the pool!...er, swamp....<g>
>
> <snip>
> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > have sex with your spouse if both of you wanted it?
I could probably wait the two days it would take for the revolution to
totally squash the ridiculous government that passed such a law.
>
> Would you advocate publically against the law, and work
> to change it?
>
I could join the bazillion others that would rise up in outrage, but more
than likely I'd simply wait for my more energetic and industrious peers to
take care of things for me. Such is the benefit of belonging to a majority.
--
Swamp
--
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan wrote:
<snip>
> > > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > > have sex with your spouse if both of you wanted it?
> > Would you advocate publically against the law, and work
> > to change it?
> This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
There is no fallacy involved. What I'm getting at is the
question of whether we agree that the State has the right
to ban something which does no harm, define morality (in
this case, sexual morality), and whether those who support
age of consent laws would also support (and follow) any legal
definition of what they could or could not do with their
own consentual sexual partner.
I suspect that most of us, if not all, would feel outraged if
the State outlawed and punished their sexuality _as a class_
rather than judging whether a specific sexual act or
relationship was non-consentual and harmful. I suspect most
of us would break the law. This is the argument against
across-the-board age-of-consent laws, and against victimless
crime laws in general.
The argument as to whether any particular sexual activity
or relationship is harmful is something entirely different.
You may, as many do, conclude that _all_ pedophile activity
( however defined -- a lot of the time it is uselessly
vague) creates a victim. That is a defendable position,
although not one I agree with. But I am working toward a
larger point here: what makes State power legitimate (if
anything).
> Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> against all laws.
Of course not.
> Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> with prepubescent children do not belong out in any society. As I said
> before,
> they should have their balls cut off.
But again, IMO there is considerable question as to how
"sex" can be defined in terms of a prepubescent child --
which will differ IMO, with the particular age and child
involved.
Rat
James Hepler
Martin Martens wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> >
> > Martin Martens wrote:
> >
> > > This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> > > inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
> > >
> > > Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> > > against all laws.
> > >
> > > Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> > > with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
> > > they should have their balls cut off.
> >
> > You could in theory just answer her hypothetical question. What on
> > earth are you afraid of?
>
> Nothing. I did answer it. I also point out the flaws in her "thought"
> experiment, which is a more relevent commentary on the issue.
What answer did you give? Apparently, my server is rather behind this
week.
> I'm still waiting for you to retract the implication you made about me
> and 4 year olds. What are you afraid of?
Ah, but see I need retract nothing.
You were in fact the first one to bring up 4 year old children.
Thursday, 11:29 PM. If someone at an earlier time mentioned something
about sex with four year olds, please provide a header as it doesn't
exist on my server. If you just pulled it out of your ass I understand,
but you were in fact the first. Therefore you brought it up.
Plus, all I asked was, "what must be happening in your mind?" Surely
you could provide an answer.
The more I look at it, the more disturbing it is. You actually
suggested, jokingly or not, that pedophiles be sent to have sex with her
4 year old children. If you think it is so wrong, why would you suggest
such a thing? To prove a point? Disgusting by your own standards.
But then, I'm just as disturbed by Rats suggestion that your wife be
raped, your stuff be stolen, your kids be tortured, and you be killed.
Is that why you responded the way you did? If so, why not just say so?
It's legitimate.
I can't help the fact that I struck somewhat of a major nerve with my
post. I guess you can easily dish out the BS but can't take much.
But notice how I don't harp on it. You have drawn significantly more
attention to my post than the post itself drew. I imagine had you
ignored it, no one would be thinking about it. But since you insist on
keeping it a major topic, I'll make an offering. If it would really
help heal your emotional wounds, I'll make a half assed apology,
something to the effect of, "I'm sorry I (tongue in cheekily) drew
Martin's attention to the remote possibility that his making up a
hypothetical situation involving sex with a 4 year old could be
interpreted as subconscious desires or repressed memories." Would that
make you feel better? Next time, maybe you won't make up such idiotic
crap in a weak attempt to "get" someone.
James Hepler
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
> >
> > James Hepler wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin Martens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> > > > inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
> > > >
> > > > Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> > > > against all laws.
> > > >
> > > > Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> > > > with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
> > > > they should have their balls cut off.
> > >
> > > You could in theory just answer her hypothetical question. What on
> > > earth are you afraid of?
> >
> > Nothing. I did answer it. I also point out the flaws in her "thought"
> > experiment, which is a more relevent commentary on the issue.
>
> What answer did you give? Apparently, my server is rather behind this
> week.
The answer is right up there. Something is behind but it isn't your
server.
> > I'm still waiting for you to retract the implication you made about me
> > and 4 year olds. What are you afraid of?
>
> Ah, but see I need retract nothing.
You wouldn't. Doug's right, you get pissed off at someone and hold a
grudge forever.
[...]
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > Martin Martens wrote:
.> > (...)
.> >
.> > .> Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage
in sex
.> > .> with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said
before,
.> > .> they should have their balls cut off.
.> >
.> > Would that include the women, or is it news to you that not all
.> > adults who are attracted to children are men?
.>
.> Go find out the percentage of female pedophiles and get back to us
.> Michael.
Irrelevant. The percentage of them with "balls" is zero. Time to stop
thinking with your reflexes.
rick etter
>
snippage....
>
> Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> ------------------------------------------
Yeah, and the other thing is, I'd bet that all those libbies that gave
up there guns or demanded registration, would then be begging the others
that weren't stupid, to help in overthrowing said gov.
--
Canoe North!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Step outside...The Graphics are Amazing!
rick etter
well, I'm getting away the the kid sex stuff, you are one sick puppy for
that. but, since everything needs 'consensous', what is your take on
some of your alf buds that insist that their cats/dogs/etc eat vegan??
Seems to me there is no consensous there, just a one-sided do-as-i-say
human who is sure they 'know' what's best.
Martin Martens
>
> Martin Martens wrote:
[...]
> .> Go find out the percentage of female pedophiles and get back to us
> .> Michael.
>
> Irrelevant. The percentage of them with "balls" is zero. Time to stop
> thinking with your reflexes.
I'm not particularly concerned with an extremely small group. The vast
majority of pedophiles are males.
"The current evidence strongly indicates that it is a common event which
is highly likely to cause both short- and long-term harm to its victims.
The perpetrators generally are psychiatrically otherwise 'normal' men
who are skilled at both planning their offending behaviours and denying
their existence."
Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1998 Apr;32(2):162-7
Psychiatry and paedophilia: a major public health issue. Glaser B
Your attempt at redirecting attention away from Rat's beliefs and
protecting your cohort is not going well.
James Hepler
Rat & Swan wrote:
> You may, as many do, conclude that _all_ pedophile activity
> ( however defined -- a lot of the time it is uselessly
> vague)
Guilty.
And I know I'm not the only one. This is what I'm trying to explain to
Doug. I just didn't know.
James Hepler
Martin Martens
[...]
> But I am working toward a
> larger point here: what makes State power legitimate (if
> anything).
Go read any Pol Sci 101 textbook.
Or if you don't wish to visit a library:
http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/needfor.html
[...]
Swamp Thing
>Rat & Swan wrote:
>[...]
>> But I am working toward a
>> larger point here: what makes State power legitimate (if
>> anything).
Probably just as important as the State's mandates on illegal activities,
are the punishment guidelines for same.
Can't have us conservatives running around castrating pedophiles
willy-nilly.
--
Swamp
--
Dale Anderson
>Then don't respond, stupid. Killfile me.
Done deal.
Dale Anderson
dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski proclaimed:
.> >
.> > Martin Martens wrote:
.> [...]
.> > .> Go find out the percentage of female pedophiles and get back to
us
.> > .> Michael.
.> >
.> > Irrelevant. The percentage of them with "balls" is zero. Time to
stop
.> > thinking with your reflexes.
.>
.> I'm not particularly concerned with an extremely small group. The
vast
.> majority of pedophiles are males.
.>
.> "The current evidence strongly indicates that it is a common event
which
.> is highly likely to cause both short- and long-term harm to its
victims.
.> The perpetrators generally are psychiatrically otherwise 'normal' men
.> who are skilled at both planning their offending behaviours and
denying
.> their existence."
.>
.> Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1998 Apr;32(2):162-7
.> Psychiatry and paedophilia: a major public health issue. Glaser B
So "generally" equals "vast majority"? I hope that you don't
get paid for research, Martin. That cite says nothing about how many
pedophiles are women; it merely states that active ones who get
documented
are "generally" men.
.>
.> Your attempt at redirecting attention away from Rat's beliefs and
.> protecting your cohort is not going well.
No, my intent is to get you to put a little thought into what you
write, instead of spouting macho nonsense about lopping "balls" off.
Martin Martens
[...]
> So "generally" equals "vast majority"?
Yep.
> I hope that you don't get paid for research, Martin.
Yes, I do.
Jealous?
> That cite says nothing about how many
> pedophiles are women; it merely states that active ones who get
> documented are "generally" men.
So? I didn't claim that that cite makes that claim.
[...]
jnilsen
# >Rat & Swan wrote:
# >[...]
# >> But I am working toward a
# >> larger point here: what makes State power legitimate (if
# >> anything).
# Probably just as important as the State's mandates on illegal activities,
# are the punishment guidelines for same.
# Can't have us conservatives running around castrating pedophiles
# willy-nilly.
Specially since it won't do a wit off good, be better off doing some brain
surgery.
# --
# Swamp
# --
James Hepler
Martin Martens wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote:
> >
> > Martin Martens wrote:
> > >
> > > James Hepler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Martin Martens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is nicely combined set of fallacies. A false dichotomy neatly
> > > > > inserted inside of an argument from adverse consequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > Advocating against a one law does not mean that one must advocate
> > > > > against all laws.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pedophilia is still offensive and repugnant. Adults who engage in sex
> > > > > with prepubescent do not belong out in any society. As I said before,
> > > > > they should have their balls cut off.
> > > >
> > > > You could in theory just answer her hypothetical question. What on
> > > > earth are you afraid of?
> > >
> > > Nothing. I did answer it. I also point out the flaws in her "thought"
> > > experiment, which is a more relevent commentary on the issue.
> >
> > What answer did you give? Apparently, my server is rather behind this
> > week.
>
> The answer is right up there. Something is behind but it isn't your
> server.
OIC. You mean your non answer. The one you gave to avoid actually
thinking about her point. For a second there I thought you actually
grew a pair and provided a pertinent opinion. My mistake.
> > > I'm still waiting for you to retract the implication you made about me
> > > and 4 year olds. What are you afraid of?
> >
> > Ah, but see I need retract nothing.
>
> You wouldn't. Doug's right, you get pissed off at someone and hold a
> grudge forever.
And you think this will get to me. But your assertion is demonstrably
untrue. Of course, not unlike the ARA's you spend so much time
mindlessly bashing here, you don't bother doing a speck of research to
back your assertion up. Point of fact: Rat and I had some mean mean
fights in the past. Now look. How does it feel to be so wrong so
often?
And, for the Book of Hypocrite, I find it more than a little amusing how
you snip all that content where I describe the very logical and
reasonable explanation for my not needing to retract OR apologize. Have
you not roasted other folks for doing this? Funny how the ethical
tables turn. I really thought you were something more than a weak,
emotional git, but as it turns out, I am mistaken. Some scientist.
Now go lick your wounds.
I anxiously await your next attempt at a reply.
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> [...]
.>
.>
.> Yep.
I'm beginning to understand why you won't reveal what you "teach".
.>
.> > I hope that you don't get paid for research, Martin.
.>
.> Yes, I do.
.>
.> Jealous?
No. Appalled, actually.
.>
.> > That cite says nothing about how many
.> > pedophiles are women; it merely states that active ones who get
.> > documented are "generally" men.
.>
.> So? I didn't claim that that cite makes that claim.
I think that John is still over in the corner playing "semantics"
with himself. Feel free to join him. First you post the Enlightened
Opinion that you think that pedophiles should be castrated; when I
point out that there are pedophiles who are women, you order me to
tell you how many. When that fails, you post a quote that doesn't
support anything that you have said, and promptly back away from it.
I think that I've made my point.
.>
>
>
> [...]
Martin Martens
[...]
> .> So? I didn't claim that that cite makes that claim.
>
> I think that John is still over in the corner playing "semantics"
> with himself. Feel free to join him. First you post the Enlightened
> Opinion that you think that pedophiles should be castrated;
That's just for starters. It's nice to hear of your support for these
predators.
> when I
> point out that there are pedophiles who are women,
I was well aware of it. Your "point" is still irrelevant.
> you order me to tell you how many.
Which you still have failed to do. Research isn't your strong point.
> When that fails, you post a quote that doesn't
> support anything that you have said,
It supports what I've said. It just doesn't fit what you claim I said.
IOW, it doesn't fit your usual strawman.
> and promptly back away from it.
I haven't backed away from anything. I've merely pointed out that you
are creating your usual strawman argument.
> I think that I've made my point.
You've created your usual strawman argument.
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> I could join the bazillion others that would rise up in outrage, but more
> than likely I'd simply wait for my more energetic and industrious peers to
> take care of things for me. Such is the benefit of belonging to a majority.
Indeed. I could not have stated it better.
Freedom is fairly pointless for a vast majority: they
will have the _power_ to do what they want, and force
those in power to agree -- by mass revolt, or by peaceful
means. It is the minority who have to worry about State
power, and the tyranny of the majority.
Must be nice to be the majority. Wait until you become an
unpopular minority and tell me again how nice it is then.
I've been both. I learned.
Rat
Swamp Thing
Rat & Swan wrote in message <378BF3...@pacbell.net>...
>Swamp Thing wrote:
>
><snip>
>> I could join the bazillion others that would rise up in outrage, but more
>> than likely I'd simply wait for my more energetic and industrious peers
to
>> take care of things for me. Such is the benefit of belonging to a
majority.
>
> Indeed. I could not have stated it better.
>
I anticipated your approval. So you see how your thought experiment falters
in this regard?
Perhaps you need to rephrase the question.
> Freedom is fairly pointless for a vast majority: they
> will have the _power_ to do what they want, and force
> those in power to agree -- by mass revolt, or by peaceful
> means.
Ever occur to you that the majority can quite often get things right? There
are *some* good reasons why there are so many of them. BTW, we're talking
about values and attitudes here, no fair playing the race card. That's a
somewhat separate argument, IMO.
> It is the minority who have to worry about State
> power, and the tyranny of the majority.
>
Perhaps the minority factions should try a little harder to recognize what
it is that makes them so small and unpopular.
> Must be nice to be the majority. Wait until you become an
> unpopular minority and tell me again how nice it is then.
> I've been both. I learned.
>
Which moral value of mine do you anticipate becoming unpopular?
--
Swamp T.
--
James Hepler
But if either of you two turn out to be pedophiles, it's my credibility,
so don't go and do anything too naughty!
James Hepler
Dale Anderson wrote:
>
> John and I certainly have had the honor of having our names on one of
> the bigger threads of the period. Although I imagine everyone now will
> winder if we're a couple of pedophiles, given the way the thread has
> turned. :^>
>
> Dale Anderson
> dand...@waun.tdsnet.com
James Hepler
rick etter wrote:
>
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> >
> snippage....
> >
> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
> > ------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, and the other thing is, I'd bet that all those libbies that gave
> up there guns or demanded registration, would then be begging the others
> that weren't stupid, to help in overthrowing said gov.
Why is registering a gun bad, and why are waiting periods bad?
James Hepler, confused libbie.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Martin Martens wrote:
>
> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
> [...]
> > .> So? I didn't claim that that cite makes that claim.
> >
> > I think that John is still over in the corner playing "semantics"
> > with himself. Feel free to join him. First you post the Enlightened
> > Opinion that you think that pedophiles should be castrated;
>
> That's just for starters. It's nice to hear of your support for these
> predators.
Non sequiter.
> > when I
> > point out that there are pedophiles who are women,
>
> I was well aware of it. Your "point" is still irrelevant.
His point is you can't lop the balls off a woman. Relevant to this
particular threadlet, not relevant to your point that pedophiles need to
be punished in a painful way. There, now both of you shut the hell up.
> > you order me to tell you how many.
>
> Which you still have failed to do. Research isn't your strong point.
But if it is irrelevant, why need you demand numbers? Or, how can you
think it is relevant now, but not several lines ago?
> > When that fails, you post a quote that doesn't
> > support anything that you have said,
>
> It supports what I've said. It just doesn't fit what you claim I said.
> IOW, it doesn't fit your usual strawman.
You said, "A vast majority of pedophiles are males" tuesday at 2:30.
You other post doesn't support what you said. But again, if it were
irrelevant, why would you bother to post evidence at all?
> > and promptly back away from it.
>
> I haven't backed away from anything. I've merely pointed out that you
> are creating your usual strawman argument.
Maybe he is, I wouldn't be surprised, but how so?
> > I think that I've made my point.
>
> You've created your usual strawman argument.
You have hidden behind your logical fallacy BS yet again to avoid a
discussion.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Swamp Thing wrote:
> Probably just as important as the State's mandates on illegal activities,
> are the punishment guidelines for same.
> Can't have us conservatives running around castrating pedophiles
> willy-nilly.
Willy-Nilly? Neat!
person #1 to convicted ped.: "Willy?"
convicted ped.: "Nilly".
Sorry, bad joke.
James Hepler
Swamp Thing
James Hepler wrote in message <378C95FA...@email.unc.edu>...
Actually, the *practices* aren't bad, but not much good either (in curbing
actual gun violence).
Have you heard Rush's current conspiracy theory on ineffective gun laws?
He's thinking gun laws are deliberately created ineffective so that
eventually the demand for the complete ban will be given serious attention.
Then the true bad part about registering comes in..........
>James Hepler, confused libbie.
>
Confusion is a symptom of an open mind.
--
Swamp T.
--
James Hepler
Swamp Thing wrote:
> > Freedom is fairly pointless for a vast majority: they
> > will have the _power_ to do what they want, and force
> > those in power to agree -- by mass revolt, or by peaceful
> > means.
>
> Ever occur to you that the majority can quite often get things right?
I don't know about quite often, but the majority can get things right.
The problem is this IMO. The majority is influenced by the media for
the most part. The majority getting something right is coincidental.
The majority is either going to vote for Republican or Democrat. Why?
Because they won't even let the libertarian guy participate in the
debate. The majority will do as told by their Gods, whether they be
religious in nature or the media itself.
> There
> are *some* good reasons why there are so many of them. BTW, we're talking
> about values and attitudes here, no fair playing the race card. That's a
> somewhat separate argument, IMO.
Apparently and from my experience, the majority finds it appropriate to
pull out in front of me on the highway going 25 and giving me all of 25
feet to slow down. Forgive my cynicism. The majority thinks drug use
is limited to slums and college kids.
> > It is the minority who have to worry about State
> > power, and the tyranny of the majority.
> >
>
> Perhaps the minority factions should try a little harder to recognize what
> it is that makes them so small and unpopular.
Whoa there. This assumes that the minority has some choice as to
whether or not they want to stay the minority.
> > Must be nice to be the majority. Wait until you become an
> > unpopular minority and tell me again how nice it is then.
> > I've been both. I learned.
> >
>
> Which moral value of mine do you anticipate becoming unpopular?
I personally don't know enough about your values to say.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Swamp Thing wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote in message <378C95FA...@email.unc.edu>...
> >
> >
> >rick etter wrote:
> >>
> >> Rat & Swan wrote:
> >> >
> >> snippage....
> >> >
> >> > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> >> > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> >> > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
> >> > ------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yeah, and the other thing is, I'd bet that all those libbies that gave
> >> up there guns or demanded registration, would then be begging the others
> >> that weren't stupid, to help in overthrowing said gov.
> >
> >Why is registering a gun bad, and why are waiting periods bad?
> >
>
> Actually, the *practices* aren't bad, but not much good either (in curbing
> actual gun violence).
I see. I agree that they are sort of knee jerky, but I do think a
waiting period *might* weed out potentially violent people. Not that
they couldn't figure out how to get a gun anyway.
> Have you heard Rush's current conspiracy theory on ineffective gun laws?
> He's thinking gun laws are deliberately created ineffective so that
> eventually the demand for the complete ban will be given serious attention.
> Then the true bad part about registering comes in..........
Hard for me not to attack Rush with an ad hominem.
His conspiracy theory is bunk, IMO. My feeling is that gun control laws
are nothing more than knee jerks that make the masses think our gummint
is actually paying attention to the problem. Of course, the problem
isn't with the guns. The problem is some other mysterious thing that
makes people willing to kill other people. Our government is all but
ignoring that. I feel this is because they don't want to A) work, or B)
think.
I'm all for waiting periods, because I don't consider it much of an
inconvenience. I'm all for registering, so we can trace guns when
problems do occur. I'm all for banning certain weapons, just because I
don't think we need tanks. But I don't think any of these things solve
a damn thing.
Of course, if things come to us defending ourselves against a tyrannical
gummint, we're screwed. The government already has a head start, since
they have spent the last couple of years practicing maneuvers just in
case Americans revolt, according to some. I'll bring in the article I
read tomorrow and post it.
> >James Hepler, confused libbie.
> >
>
> Confusion is a symptom of an open mind.
Don't let it get out. I have too many people here fooled.
James hepler
Swamp Thing
James Hepler wrote in message <378CA554...@email.unc.edu>...
>
>
>Swamp Thing wrote:
>> Ever occur to you that the majority can quite often get things right?
>
>I don't know about quite often, but the majority can get things right.
>The problem is this IMO. The majority is influenced by the media for
>the most part.
The influence runs in both directions. I will agree that the media
contributes to the problems. Its unfortunate that so many will blindly
credit stories that conveniently match their preperceptions. Damn easy thing
to do though.
>The majority getting something right is coincidental.
Things like 1+1=2 will gather a large following. How's that Coincidence?
>The majority is either going to vote for Republican or Democrat. Why?
>Because they won't even let the libertarian guy participate in the
>debate.
Libertarians are now banned from debating? Dang, they usually provide the
comic relief. ;)
> The majority will do as told by their Gods, whether they be
>religious in nature or the media itself.
>
For those that believe in God, following His word is to be expected. Think
about it, an incredibly powerful, omniscient God shows you the path towards
salvation and immortality. Which way do you expect them to go?
Those that just blindly follow whatever media bias they choose aren't quite
so formidable. I'd venture that a shrewd activist could use them to an
advantage.
>
>Apparently and from my experience, the majority finds it appropriate to
>pull out in front of me on the highway going 25 and giving me all of 25
>feet to slow down.
Most people do that to you? That's quite a stressful burden! I consider
idiot drivers a very visible minority. The good drivers are seldom noticed.
> Forgive my cynicism. The majority thinks drug use
>is limited to slums and college kids.
>
It would appear that the intelligence of majorities vary greatly in
different regions. I doubt a survey in my neighborhood would yield the same
opinion.
>>
>> Perhaps the minority factions should try a little harder to recognize
what
>> it is that makes them so small and unpopular.
>
>Whoa there. This assumes that the minority has some choice as to
>whether or not they want to stay the minority.
>
The alliance might not be a choice, but the visible activity is. When
homosexuals openly support pedophilia, they jeopardize whatever hard-earned
respect has been gained. When the ARAs destroy property and jeopardize human
lives, they bring negative attention to their cause. The minorities can gain
respect and tolerance by demonstrating their value and disproving the
harmful stereotypes. That's what I meant about recognizing the cause of the
unpopularity.
>> > Must be nice to be the majority. Wait until you become an
>> > unpopular minority and tell me again how nice it is then.
>> > I've been both. I learned.
>> >
>>
>> Which moral value of mine do you anticipate becoming unpopular?
>
>I personally don't know enough about your values to say.
>
The question was directly meant for Rat. I've a feeling she had something
specific in mind.
--
Swamp
--
Swamp Thing
James Hepler wrote in message <378CBC81...@email.unc.edu>...
>> Have you heard Rush's current conspiracy theory on ineffective gun laws?
>> He's thinking gun laws are deliberately created ineffective so that
>> eventually the demand for the complete ban will be given serious
attention.
>> Then the true bad part about registering comes in..........
>
>Hard for me not to attack Rush with an ad hominem.
>
He does make it easy.... Hard to maintain balance that far out on a wingtip.
>His conspiracy theory is bunk, IMO.
The fact that things have gotten so whacky that such theories are considered
is the alarming part.
> My feeling is that gun control laws
>are nothing more than knee jerks that make the masses think our gummint
>is actually paying attention to the problem. Of course, the problem
>isn't with the guns. The problem is some other mysterious thing that
>makes people willing to kill other people. Our government is all but
>ignoring that. I feel this is because they don't want to A) work, or B)
>think.
>
You just paraphrased a Rush monologue. Would you prefer wrist-slashing,
poison or car-fumes?
>I'm all for waiting periods, because I don't consider it much of an
>inconvenience. I'm all for registering, so we can trace guns when
>problems do occur. I'm all for banning certain weapons, just because I
>don't think we need tanks. But I don't think any of these things solve
>a damn thing.
>
Then why endorse them? Keep letting that camel stick his head in the tent
and pretty soon........
>Of course, if things come to us defending ourselves against a tyrannical
>gummint, we're screwed. The government already has a head start, since
>they have spent the last couple of years practicing maneuvers just in
>case Americans revolt, according to some. I'll bring in the article I
>read tomorrow and post it.
>
By all means. If its long, email it to me. Hate to see the ng police scream
about bandwidth and all.
BTW, the new ultimate weapon against gov't tyranny would appear to be in the
possesion of a Mr. Gates.
--
Swamp T.
--
Elizabeth Windsor
>R Bishop wrote:
>> Your continuing support for a woman who thinks pedophilia is totally
>> honorable is noted.
>By now, if you don't understand my stance on both pedophilia and Rat,
Good. Now why don't you wander over to the NAMBLA homepage
and sign their guest book (http://www.nambla.com). While you're at
it, send them five dollars for a sample bulletin.
>> Grow up, James. Your constant ranting and raving at me is getting very
>> boring.
>Then don't respond, stupid. Killfile me.
Stupid?! Seems to me Jimmy, that you can't help responding
to Sue. If she posts, you follow up. It doesn't matter what the
subject may be, you follow up. Why don't *you* killfile her if
you think she's stupid, stupid?
>> You sound like the little boys in the schoolyard, following the
>> girls around, when they really are just seeking their attention.
>I have yours, so I guess you are the sucker. Well done.
She certainly has your attention, eh Jimmy.
>> If you keep this up, I might come to the conclusion you have a crush on
>> me.
>I wouldn't be surprised if you did. I would expect that level of denial
>from someone as closed minded as you.
Run along Jimmy. Much like an ant drowning in a puddle of
poodle piss, you're in way over your head.
- Betty
Angi Long
A pedophile is just someone with an attraction for children. People
can't help who (or what) they're attracted to. Many pedophiles never
act on their attractions.
"Pedophilia" and "sex with children" are not the same thing.
-- Angi Long of House Windstalker
Martin Martens
>
> Language quibble:
>
> A pedophile is just someone with an attraction for children. People
> can't help who (or what) they're attracted to. Many pedophiles never
> act on their attractions.
If you want to be more accurate, it is a sexual attraction to children,
not merely an attraction for children.
"Many" pedophiles may never act but it appears that most do.
"Using self-reports gathered with assured confidentiality from 561
nonincarcerated paraphiliacs, we discovered that most paraphiliacs have
had significant experience with as many as ten different types of
deviant sexual behavior without regard, in many cases, to gender, age,
and familial relationship of the victim."
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1988;16(2):153-68
Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Abel GG, Becker JV,
Cunningham-Rathner J, Mittelman M, Rouleau JL
Swamp Thing
Many people find children attractive for entirely different reasons than a
pedophile might.
Otherwise, its a good point.
Kind of like the meteor/meteorite thing.
Not official until it falls.
--
Swamp T., Survivor of a pedophile/child molester who choose to act.
--
Angi Long wrote in message ...
>Language quibble:
>
>A pedophile is just someone with an attraction for children. People
>can't help who (or what) they're attracted to. Many pedophiles never
>act on their attractions.
>
Malcolm McMahon
<martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>
>"Using self-reports gathered with assured confidentiality from 561
>nonincarcerated paraphiliacs, we discovered that most paraphiliacs have
>had significant experience with as many as ten different types of
>deviant sexual behavior without regard, in many cases, to gender, age,
>and familial relationship of the victim."
>
And why would anyone imagine that a significant proportion of people
with such feelings who don't do anything about it would even dream of
taking part in such a survey?
James Hepler
Elizabeth Windsor wrote:
>
> James Hepler <hep...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> >R Bishop wrote:
>
> >> Your continuing support for a woman who thinks pedophilia is totally
> >> honorable is noted.
>
> >By now, if you don't understand my stance on both pedophilia and Rat,
>
> Good. Now why don't you wander over to the NAMBLA homepage
> and sign their guest book (http://www.nambla.com). While you're at
> it, send them five dollars for a sample bulletin.
Because I'm against age of consent laws? Is that really the extent to
which you understand my feelings? Oh well, you can get some of the
people to understand some of the time, but you can't get all of the
people to understand all of the time.
In my opinion, you are among the many that did not read my views on the
subject. But then, I wouldn't give you credit for being able to read
anyway.
What problem did you have in particular with my position?
And I wonder how you are so familiar with NAMBLA's web page? Not good
enough for your hubby? Does he prefer the little boyeez?
> >> Grow up, James. Your constant ranting and raving at me is getting very
> >> boring.
>
> >Then don't respond, stupid. Killfile me.
>
> Stupid?! Seems to me Jimmy, that you can't help responding
> to Sue.
Sure, but I don't really complain about her posts being boring. In
fact, I find them interesting, if only in their simplicity. And I
rather enjoy the debate, however heated it may get.
See, that's the point. If you are going to whine about my posts being
boring, killfile me. That simple. Of course I'm not surprised that
something even that simple flew over your head.
> If she posts, you follow up. It doesn't matter what the
> subject may be, you follow up.
That isn't true. Just like the last time this accusation was made, I
can show several instances in which I don't follow up to her. And as it
is, is there a law against my following her up? I'm not following her
to other newsgroups. I'm not looking up her address or anything. I'm
just answering posts of hers that I feel need to be responded to. No
big deal. It isn't like I show up just every once in a while to throw
insults and then fly away again. Sound familiar?
> Why don't *you* killfile her if
> you think she's stupid, stupid?
Because she has a right to be stupid. And, as I said before (and since
I know you from past experiences, I know I need to say it twice in order
for you to understand) I find the sludge that she calls an opinion to be
rather interesting. I read her posts like I watch 3 minutes of Jerry
Springer. Just to get caught up on how screwed up our civilization is.
Got a problem with that, Lizzie?
> >> You sound like the little boys in the schoolyard, following the
> >> girls around, when they really are just seeking their attention.
>
> >I have yours, so I guess you are the sucker. Well done.
>
> She certainly has your attention, eh Jimmy.
I guess so. So does everyone else who carries on discussions with me.
I would say it is much better than having a debate and not paying
attention. I leave that kind of stuff to people like you and Sue.
Sheesh, as if having someone's attention is bad now. It wouldn't
surprise me, considering the shit that goes on in this NG.
> >> If you keep this up, I might come to the conclusion you have a crush on
> >> me.
>
> >I wouldn't be surprised if you did. I would expect that level of denial
> >from someone as closed minded as you.
>
> Run along Jimmy. Much like an ant drowning in a puddle of
> poodle piss, you're in way over your head.
>
> - Betty
How on earth so? Hey here's a little observation for you! Rat asked
Sue a while back about what would happen if it became law that women
could only have sex with women. Sue refused to answer it. Such a
refusal, and it is her right, inevitably leads to people drawing their
own conclusions, and since you so magically appeared again, my guess is
her hubby is out of town for a few days and yer over for, ahem, a
"visit". But I am open to the distinct probability that I am wrong.
And also, a little shady to set replies to misc.test, no? From that I
conclude that you are little more than a netcunt, trying to stick and
move in all sorts of below the belt manners. But as usual, you lose.
Shame too. But please come back, as I will enjoy kicking your ass for
the next, what, three days?
James Hepler
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:48 -0700, Martin Martens
.> <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
.>
.> >
.> >"Using self-reports gathered with assured confidentiality from 561
.> >nonincarcerated paraphiliacs, we discovered that most paraphiliacs
have
.> >had significant experience with as many as ten different types of
.> >deviant sexual behavior without regard, in many cases, to gender,
age,
.> >and familial relationship of the victim."
.> >
.>
.> And why would anyone imagine that a significant proportion of people
.> with such feelings who don't do anything about it would even dream of
.> taking part in such a survey?
Martin isn't going to be convinced by something as mundane as logic
or reason. He's got it into his head that virtually all pedophiliacs
are predatory men who regularly rape children. Whatever he finds on
the subject will be convincing - to him.
James Hepler
Swamp Thing wrote:
>
> James Hepler wrote in message <378CA554...@email.unc.edu>...
> >
> >
> >Swamp Thing wrote:
>
> >> Ever occur to you that the majority can quite often get things right?
> >
> >I don't know about quite often, but the majority can get things right.
> >The problem is this IMO. The majority is influenced by the media for
> >the most part.
>
> The influence runs in both directions. I will agree that the media
> contributes to the problems. Its unfortunate that so many will blindly
> credit stories that conveniently match their preperceptions. Damn easy thing
> to do though.
It really is. I regurgitated some nonsense I heard on NPR and got taken
to task for it. I'm glad I did. You can't trust anyone anymore.
> >The majority getting something right is coincidental.
>
> Things like 1+1=2 will gather a large following. How's that Coincidence?
That's more than simply a majority based thing though. That's simply a
fact. Hell I can't really defend the statement I made, so I might as
well retract it. I just feel as though I stand outside the majority
simply because of the complexity of my opinions. I guess I just
overthink things sometimes.
> >The majority is either going to vote for Republican or Democrat. Why?
> >Because they won't even let the libertarian guy participate in the
> >debate.
>
> Libertarians are now banned from debating? Dang, they usually provide the
> comic relief. ;)
Heh. I know! Maybe it is just in my state, but man, it is tough to get
ole Jesse to debate with anyone, let alone the lib. But all other
parties in NC are systematically silenced by the media during campaigns.
> > The majority will do as told by their Gods, whether they be
> >religious in nature or the media itself.
> >
>
> For those that believe in God, following His word is to be expected. Think
> about it, an incredibly powerful, omniscient God shows you the path towards
> salvation and immortality. Which way do you expect them to go?
I guess my problem is that they follow their religion rather than their
God at times. I'm not trying to bash the religious, because I recognize
it's value in our society. I guess my beef is, Christians tend to love
categorizing themselves. Especially here, where if you aren't Southern
Baptist, you are going to Hell no matter what. In addition to that, I
think a lot of political agendas get pushed in the church. I don't
think God cares about the age difference between my brother and my
sister in law, but the church asked my father to resign his seat as
deacon because of it. I know not all churches are like it. But little
things like that made me lose my faith.
Sorry if I offended you.
> Those that just blindly follow whatever media bias they choose aren't quite
> so formidable. I'd venture that a shrewd activist could use them to an
> advantage.
And they do. Need I bring up Meryl Streep and alar?
> >Apparently and from my experience, the majority finds it appropriate to
> >pull out in front of me on the highway going 25 and giving me all of 25
> >feet to slow down.
>
> Most people do that to you? That's quite a stressful burden! I consider
> idiot drivers a very visible minority. The good drivers are seldom noticed.
Unfortunately, it is the case. And it is stressful. It is also among
the main reasons why I am moving.
> > Forgive my cynicism. The majority thinks drug use
> >is limited to slums and college kids.
>>
> It would appear that the intelligence of majorities vary greatly in
> different regions. I doubt a survey in my neighborhood would yield the same
> opinion.
I guess it is all perception based. I can say I think the majority
thinks love is good. A majority thinks that helping out people in need
is a good thing to do. I can say I'm in a lot of majorities.
> >> Perhaps the minority factions should try a little harder to recognize
> what
> >> it is that makes them so small and unpopular.
> >
> >Whoa there. This assumes that the minority has some choice as to
> >whether or not they want to stay the minority.
> >
>
> The alliance might not be a choice, but the visible activity is.
I see.
> When
> homosexuals openly support pedophilia, they jeopardize whatever hard-earned
> respect has been gained.
Do you mean respect for the individuals or all homosexuals? And why
single out homosexuals? If a heterosexual supported pedophilia, would
there be a different result?
> When the ARAs destroy property and jeopardize human
> lives, they bring negative attention to their cause.
This is true. And I can see more easily in this case how it would
affect ones perception of all ARA's as a result, but I can no longer
justify such generalizations. I can't say that if a group of ARA's
destroyed a lab at UNC that I would hold it against all ARA's.
> The minorities can gain
> respect and tolerance by demonstrating their value and disproving the
> harmful stereotypes. That's what I meant about recognizing the cause of the
> unpopularity.
I see. I'm glad you didn't say anything about kissing in public. I was
set to pop!
> >> > Must be nice to be the majority. Wait until you become an
> >> > unpopular minority and tell me again how nice it is then.
> >> > I've been both. I learned.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which moral value of mine do you anticipate becoming unpopular?
> >
> >I personally don't know enough about your values to say.
> >
>
> The question was directly meant for Rat. I've a feeling she had something
> specific in mind.
Ahh. OK.
And lemme say at the end here a little something. Weeks ago, I was in
the minority of people (in the country, definitely not the world), that
really appreciates soccer. I think now we have taken over a majority.
Congrats US of A. And to gush with pride, UNC at Chapel Hill
REPRESENT!!
James Hepler
> --
> Swamp
> --
James Hepler
Swamp Thing wrote:
> > My feeling is that gun control laws
> >are nothing more than knee jerks that make the masses think our gummint
> >is actually paying attention to the problem. Of course, the problem
> >isn't with the guns. The problem is some other mysterious thing that
> >makes people willing to kill other people. Our government is all but
> >ignoring that. I feel this is because they don't want to A) work, or B)
> >think.
> >
>
> You just paraphrased a Rush monologue. Would you prefer wrist-slashing,
> poison or car-fumes?
I'll take all three. Do I get a discount?
> >I'm all for waiting periods, because I don't consider it much of an
> >inconvenience. I'm all for registering, so we can trace guns when
> >problems do occur. I'm all for banning certain weapons, just because I
> >don't think we need tanks. But I don't think any of these things solve
> >a damn thing.
> >
>
> Then why endorse them? Keep letting that camel stick his head in the tent
> and pretty soon........
Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess I endorse them because they seem to
do more potential good than harm. I think I can explain the feeling
behind them better than I can explain the feelings against them. But
that camel head thing is a damn good argument.
> >Of course, if things come to us defending ourselves against a tyrannical
> >gummint, we're screwed. The government already has a head start, since
> >they have spent the last couple of years practicing maneuvers just in
> >case Americans revolt, according to some. I'll bring in the article I
> >read tomorrow and post it.
> >
>
> By all means. If its long, email it to me. Hate to see the ng police scream
> about bandwidth and all.
Not too long. But realize it is from the Utne, so there's an inherent
bias.
But a great real life example of a tyrannical government imposing on
citizens would be ion the documentary: Waco: The Rules of Engagement.
> BTW, the new ultimate weapon against gov't tyranny would appear to be in the
> possesion of a Mr. Gates.
Yeah, whatsit, money or access to information? Both I'd say.
james hepler
>
> --
> Swamp T.
> --
rick etter
>
> rick etter wrote:
> >
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
> > >
> > snippage....
> > >
> > > Now for the biggie: IF the State declared sex between
> > > consenting adult men and women illegal, would you still
> > > have sex with your husband if both of you wanted it?
> > > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > Yeah, and the other thing is, I'd bet that all those libbies that gave
> > up there guns or demanded registration, would then be begging the others
> > that weren't stupid, to help in overthrowing said gov.
>
> Why is registering a gun bad, and why are waiting periods bad?
>
>
> James Hepler
I see no reason to really hash that out. We both know both sides, and
not many ever change their minds. I'm just concerned about trading
freedom(personal) for security(state).
--
Canoe North!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
Step outside...The Graphics are Amazing!
Rat & Swan
What do you think my views are on gun-control
legislation, etc? This is quiz: how well do you
understand the basis of my opinions? Or maybe:
how well have I _explained- the basis of my
opinions? Inquiring mind wants to know if I'm
getting through here....<g>
Rat
Rat & Swan
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> But I am working toward a
> larger point here: what makes State power legitimate (if
> anything).
> Go read any Pol Sci 101 textbook.
ROTFL! This _was_ intended to be a joke, right?
Rat
Rat & Swan
<snip>
> Can't have us conservatives running around castrating pedophiles
> willy-nilly.
Why? Don't you have the courage of your own convictions?
If you believe this is an appropriate punishment, why not
try to make it socially mandated? Or do you just want to
avoid taking responsibility by forcing if off onto the
anonymous State?
Rat
Martin Martens
>
> Martin isn't going to be convinced by something as mundane as logic
> or reason.
That's cute Mikey. You are jealous.
> He's got it into his head that virtually all pedophiliacs
> are predatory men who regularly rape children.
You still think you can read my mind?
Feel free to show where I've made that statement. Otherwise, you've just
made another patented Cerkowski Strawman (tm).
> Whatever he finds on
> the subject will be convincing - to him.
It appears that you think that a significant number of pedophiles are
women who do not act on their urges.
Have you found out the percentage of female pedophiles yet?
John F Richardson
libbie, writes:
> Why is registering a gun bad, and why
> are waiting periods bad?
It's no one's business who owns what,
least of all the gummint's.
JohnR
Pit Bull Libertarian
Malcolm McMahon
<martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>
>Have you found out the percentage of female pedophiles yet?
Of course there's no possible way of knowing. Female child abuse is in
much the same state of invissibility today that male child abuse was 30
years ago. Same with female domestic violence in general.
And there's no way of measuring how many peodophiles of either sex there
are who either restrain themselves or don't get caught. Certainly if I
had been so catastrophically unlucky as to be saddled with this
particular paraphillia I'd hardly say so on a survey, even an alegdely
annomised one. Why take even a slight risk of it being traced?
Michael Cerkowski
.>
.> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:13:23 -0700, Martin Martens.> >Have you found out the percentage of female pedophiles yet?
.>
.> Of course there's no possible way of knowing. Female child abuse is
in
.> much the same state of invissibility today that male child abuse was
30
.> years ago. Same with female domestic violence in general.
Don't bother, Malcolm. He's just trying to draw attention away from
the things that he's been posting lately.
.>
.> And there's no way of measuring how many peodophiles of either sex
there
.> are who either restrain themselves or don't get caught. Certainly if
I
.> had been so catastrophically unlucky as to be saddled with this
.> particular paraphillia I'd hardly say so on a survey, even an
alegdely
.> annomised one. Why take even a slight risk of it being traced?
Not to mention other factors, like women being more likely to repress
feelings instead of acting on them, and their being even less likely to
respond to a survey like that than a man. As long as the response to
pedophiles is 'cut their balls off', there isn't going to be much hard
data on them.
frlpwr
on individual freedom.
I'm also against gun control, though for different, but related,
reasons. I don't like the idea of most of the guns being in the hands
of the military and the cops.
Swamp Thing
Rat & Swan wrote in message <378D46...@pacbell.net>...
It was a reference to vigilantism. Something I hope you would oppose (ALF's
excluded, of course). If castration was found to be a suitable punishment
for sex crimes, I would endorse it. It sounds like good punishment to me but
the jury seems to still be out on how effective such a rash act is or wether
its too far a violation of any so-called "criminal's rights."
It could even be that leaving the sex offender "intact" but incarcerated,
with no outlet for its depravity, could be the greater punishment (life
sentences only, thank you).
--
Swamp T.
--
Swamp Thing
James Hepler wrote in message <378CFBFE...@email.unc.edu>...
-snip-
>> Libertarians are now banned from debating? Dang, they usually provide the
>> comic relief. ;)
>
>Heh. I know! Maybe it is just in my state, but man, it is tough to get
>ole Jesse to debate with anyone, let alone the lib. But all other
>parties in NC are systematically silenced by the media during campaigns.
>
Oh, that would probably be a money thing then. Personally, I prefer the AP
wires, sligthly less biased than most
I really love my websearch news service. I get stuff from *everywhere* with
that. Very well rounded.
-snip-
>
>I guess my problem is that they follow their religion rather than their
>God at times. I'm not trying to bash the religious, because I recognize
>it's value in our society. I guess my beef is, Christians tend to love
>categorizing themselves. Especially here, where if you aren't Southern
>Baptist, you are going to Hell no matter what. In addition to that, I
>think a lot of political agendas get pushed in the church. I don't
>think God cares about the age difference between my brother and my
>sister in law, but the church asked my father to resign his seat as
>deacon because of it. I know not all churches are like it. But little
>things like that made me lose my faith.
>
>Sorry if I offended you.
>
Nah, no offense. Those same things kept my faith at bay for a long time. It
took a personal revelation to pull me out of the muck. I really dig my
current church, they're soooooo mellow! I just found out that my minister is
a strict vegetarian, maybe even vegan, and nobody ever knew. He never
preached that kind of preach. Turns out he's interested in saving people
*first*. He figures we gotta learn to treat each other right before we can
start working on other attitudes.
-snip-
>> Most people do that to you? That's quite a stressful burden! I consider
>> idiot drivers a very visible minority. The good drivers are seldom
noticed.
>
>Unfortunately, it is the case. And it is stressful. It is also among
>the main reasons why I am moving.
>
May I ask where to? Its not Sweden is it? If you after considerate drivers,
I would recommend Block Island.
-snip-
>> It would appear that the intelligence of majorities vary greatly in
>> different regions. I doubt a survey in my neighborhood would yield the
same
>> opinion.
>
>I guess it is all perception based. I can say I think the majority
>thinks love is good. A majority thinks that helping out people in need
>is a good thing to do. I can say I'm in a lot of majorities.
>
There you go! You do have some Faith after all.
-snip-
>> When
>> homosexuals openly support pedophilia, they jeopardize whatever
hard-earned
>> respect has been gained.
>
>Do you mean respect for the individuals or all homosexuals? And why
>single out homosexuals? If a heterosexual supported pedophilia, would
>there be a different result?
>
I was referring to endorsements by organizations or individuals who might be
commonly considered as spokespersons for the faction. Personal endorsements
by individuals for whacky causes, only hurt that individual's credibility.
>> When the ARAs destroy property and jeopardize human
>> lives, they bring negative attention to their cause.
>
>This is true. And I can see more easily in this case how it would
>affect ones perception of all ARA's as a result, but I can no longer
>justify such generalizations. I can't say that if a group of ARA's
>destroyed a lab at UNC that I would hold it against all ARA's.
>
But if a spokeperson for Animal Rights then endorsed the action?
What if most every AR type you spoke to also endorsed it, or at least
sympathised?
What if no AR type rose to challenge the action's merit?
I can justify the generalizations under those conditions.
>> The minorities can gain
>> respect and tolerance by demonstrating their value and disproving the
>> harmful stereotypes. That's what I meant about recognizing the cause of
the
>> unpopularity.
>
>I see. I'm glad you didn't say anything about kissing in public. I was
>set to pop!
>
Despite the hard line I appear to draw, I am not an enemy to the gay
community.
I used to regularly move in those circles when I was younger, causing many a
mis-assumption as to my own sexuality (it doesn't help when you look just
like a beefy John Oates either) and I got a faint hint as to the travails of
this group. I've lost far too many friends to AIDS and I will often be the
first person to act defensively when someone starts to gay-bash.
-snip-
>And lemme say at the end here a little something. Weeks ago, I was in
>the minority of people (in the country, definitely not the world), that
>really appreciates soccer. I think now we have taken over a majority.
>Congrats US of A. And to gush with pride, UNC at Chapel Hill
>REPRESENT!!
>
--
Swamp
--
Swamp Thing
Does it bother you that the civilian group with the next best training in
gun use is also the hunters?
--
Swamp
--
frlpwr wrote in message <378DB5...@flash.net>...
Swamp Thing
control.
Of course, not everyone who is pro-life favors gun-control, but the numbers
spike dramatically, I'd bet.
--
Swamp
--
Rat & Swan wrote in message <378D42...@pacbell.net>...
>Hey, James ( and any others who want to play):
>
> What do you think my views are on gun-control
> legislation, etc? This is quiz: how well do you
> understand the basis of my opinions? Or maybe:
> how well have I _explained- the basis of my
> opinions? Inquiring mind wants to know if I'm
> getting through here....<g>
>
> Rat
>
>
Martin Martens
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:13:23 -0700, Martin Martens
> <martin.martens.@ragingbull.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Have you found out the percentage of female pedophiles yet?
>
Baloney. There is an answer. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles
are male, there is not a huge hidden number of female pedophiles out
there as the same problems in measuring the rate exists for both sexes.
Pretending that women are significantly less likely to be measured is
not supported by the data or the problems with the methodology. It is
not a hidden factor.
It's just one more example of Michael being unable to do any research.
When I said that pedophiles should have their balls cut off, I wouldn't
be missing very many.
[...]
James Hepler
qualifier, "prepubescent".
Doug? This is what I'm saying. Different people have used different
definitions.
James Hepler
James Hepler
Martin Martens wrote:
>
> Angi Long wrote:
> >
> > Language quibble:
> >
> > A pedophile is just someone with an attraction for children. People
> > can't help who (or what) they're attracted to. Many pedophiles never
> > act on their attractions.
>
> If you want to be more accurate, it is a sexual attraction to children,
> not merely an attraction for children.
If you want to be even more accurate, it is a sexual attraction to
prepubescent children.
James Hepler
> "Many" pedophiles may never act but it appears that most do.
>
> "Using self-reports gathered with assured confidentiality from 561
> nonincarcerated paraphiliacs, we discovered that most paraphiliacs have
> had significant experience with as many as ten different types of
> deviant sexual behavior without regard, in many cases, to gender, age,
> and familial relationship of the victim."
>