ACT Paedophiles On GE March?
janice
I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
ACT members. Is this true?
j
kiwipete
news:3f99e8bd$1...@news.compass.net.nz...
>
> I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> ACT members. Is this true?
I would strongly suggest you back up your rhetoric with facts..
kiwipete
Bob Howard
> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> ACT members. Is this true?
Trying the old association trick Janice? You know very well no ACT members
would ever do such a thing. Perhaps they are ex Alliance members still
smarting over being tossed out.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"Redbaiter" <don't...@email.me> wrote in message
news:3f99fd54$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> janice says...
> >
> > I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
> > protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> > ACT members. Is this true?
> >
>
> It makes a real good smear doesn't it.?
>
> Just what the group needs, yet another intolerant leftist bigot
> and liar.
Meet Janice Graham to the left of most leftists.
Bob Howard.
Ashley
"Redbaiter" <don't...@email.me> wrote in message
news:3f99fd54$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> janice says...
> >
> > protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> > ACT members. Is this true?
> >
>
> It makes a real good smear doesn't it.?
>
> Just what the group needs, yet another intolerant leftist bigot
> and liar.
Now this is going to be fun :-)
Bob Howard
> Bob Howard says...
> possible, is it??
Makes Steve look ultra conservative.
Bob Howard.
janice
Is it true that this bunch were lead by one Andrew Bates? Has anyone heard
of him? I have been given to believe he did something similar at Auckland
University a few years back and even ACT MPs pretended to be outraged.
Anyone know anything about that?
Its just that the police were asking march organisers who these people were
and how could they be located. I myself could not offer any leads other
than the fact that this Bates person was a known nuisance some years
back on nz.politics.
All smirking aside, we must be good citizens and help the police do their
job.
jsm...@paa.net
Anti GE Against Paedophiles.
But nice bit of nastiness.
Enkidu
That reminds me of this webpage:
http://www.jimloy.com/logic/force.htm
Mind you the writer did not consider a universe which contains
politics.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
slunk
> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> ACT members. Is this true?
http://forum.kaos.gen.nz/showthread.php?s=f6dc30b2c7c319d011095fbcb8798578&t
hreadid=9
slunk
heard
> of him? I have been given to believe he did something similar at
Auckland
> University a few years back and even ACT MPs pretended to be outraged.
sounds like his sense of humour.
I can't recall many of his university capers, other than the public
masturbation episode
janice
>
> Lies, demonisation, false accusation, character assassination...
Come, come Mr Bates do not be a hypocrite or too loud in your own defence,
lest others think you protest too much.
Hmmm...now where did I see an ugly post just recently wherein you claimed
that another poster to this group 'interfered with small boys?'
Tilly
Jason M
There's a bit missing off that link.
David Pears
wrote:
>Its just that the police were asking march organisers who these people were
>and how could they be located. I myself could not offer any leads other
>than the fact that this Bates person was a known nuisance some years
>back on nz.politics.
>
>All smirking aside, we must be good citizens and help the police do their
>job.
So the police asked you if you knew the identity of the marchers. You
said you didn't, but gave them the name of someone completely
unrelated on the basis that he posted to a newsgroup years ago. And
why? So that you could smirk.
Clearly you haven't stumbled across any clues in your absence.
But at least Steve Withers is no longer the groups Biggest Loon, so
someone will be happy.
David
PS. Oh, and BTW, welcome back!
janice
Mr Bates is described as an Investigator under his box address, From his
determination to keep his identity secret one can only assume he himself
does not want to be investigated. With that sort of gross indecency in
ones cv, as described by Slunk, it is not hard to see why Redbaiter
would not want to be identified....as Andrew Bates.
:-)
Bob Howard
"janice" <janice_g-@_free.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3f99...@news.compass.net.nz...
Would you like to explain what this man whoever he is has to do with ACT? Do
you accuse any ACT members of being paedophiles or sympathetic to
paedophiles? If so perhaps you would like to name some names.
Come on Janice stop trying to be smart.
Bob Howard.
janice
No, I can assure you the signs read "Paedophiles Against GE" and is
probably the reason why the police are looking for them. Many people on
the march complained about these depraved types advertising themselves -
which is against the law apparently.
--
LeftAintRight
> Bob Howard says...
> possible, is it??
>
Maybe they're the same person!
LeftAintRight
[Obviousman says]
It's called satire. They were poking fun at the other protestors. The
marchers carrying "Paedophiles against GE" were only pretending to be
paedophiles.
[Obviousman over and out.]
Jason M
Untrue. As you can see from the pictures, those signs all had
"Paedophiles Against GE" on the border.
The middle of the signs read:
Kill a Genetic Engineer for Jesus
WE love [a heart] P.A.G.E. BOYS
Jesus hates Foreigners, Homosexuals and Genetic Engineers
Keep NZ's Youth Pure
GOD HATES G.E.
and another sign was obscured.
I was on the march and saw them myself.
It shouldn't be too hard to identify the people concerned, except for
the one with the mask on.
Ashley
> "You're guilty" say these totalitarian scum, now prove your
> innocence.
>
> They are so clearly the most verminous liars and cheats, and yet
> they expect people to buy the fantasy that they know the best
> way to govern a country.
>
> What a laff..
>
> So fucking stupid only a leftist would be capable of the degree
> of self deceit necessary to convince themselves they were doing
> it right..
>
> However, if some other poster did make that allegation, which I
> think was made in respect of the oily greasy loathsome piece of
> usenet filth using the fake name Jason Mamford, it wouldn't
> surprise me one bit to find out it was true.
See, I told you this was going to be fun ;-)
jsm...@paa.net
involved in this protest, and being paedophiles.
You need to be warned that such an inference could result in you being
summonsed to appear before parliament itself for contempt, you should be
very careful when making such allegations in public.
janice
>
> "janice" <janice_g-@_free.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:3f99...@news.compass.net.nz...
>> janice wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
>> > protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
>> > ACT members. Is this true?
>>
>> Is it true that this bunch were lead by one Andrew Bates? Has anyone
> heard
>> of him?
>
> Would you like to explain what this man whoever he is has to do with ACT?
But thats what we all would like to know Bob.
Is Andrew Baits aka Red Baiter a former Prebbles Rebel, aka Mussolini
Youth, a la genital -exhibitionist, or, is he just a solo ACT? Its hard
to say.
David Pears
wrote:
>It shouldn't be too hard to identify the people concerned, except for
>the one with the mask on.
Why would the police want to do this? No crime was commited.
David
Mainlander
> janice says...
> neither yourself or any of the other loons making this
> allegation have the slightest reason to believe it to be true,
An IP address registered to a couple of other Bates is "not the slightest
reason"?
LeftAintRight
> Bob Howard says...
>
>
>>
>
>
> Man, she is so dumb even for a leftist.
>
> What a laff that these absolute retards can delude themselves
> that they have the intelligence to tell the rest of us the right
> way to live..
>
> What a bunch of unbelievably stoopid fucktards...
>
>
>
And from this thread they completely lack a sense of humour.
Redbaiter
>reason"?
Get off nz.politics with your one track fantasies and false accusations Dunford
you boring ill mannered ignorant cretin and abuser of usenet.
I am not Andrew Bates and neither do I have any IP address that has anything
to do with him. Stop wasting my time retard.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
---------------------------POST VIA--------------------------------
news://nntp.xusenet.com http://www.xusenet.com
===================================================================
Jason M
Oh the suggestion was made that they might be ACT members.
It does look like some organisation was involved, since the posters
and signs look professionally produced.
Tum
I hope you're not serious.
David Pears
wrote:
>>>It shouldn't be too hard to identify the people concerned, except for
>>>the one with the mask on.
>>
>>Why would the police want to do this? No crime was commited.
>
>Oh the suggestion was made that they might be ACT members.
>It does look like some organisation was involved, since the posters
>and signs look professionally produced.
Still not a crime. So why the police interest?
My immediate thought was that it was the same as the tractor driving
case, where a police friend of a Labour Minister uses his powers to
make life a misery for a protester to punish them for making the
government look like an arse.
But then I remembered that the pedophiles are on the government's side
here.
David
dan
janice <janice_g-@_free.net.nz> wrote:
Did it occur to you that this might be a pro-GE provocation?
Mainlander
Probably works for Bates Forensics Ltd
janice
Mmm interesting. I notice Andrew Bates recently acquired hundreds of new
IP addresses under various Bates names. Perhaps he is hoarding or maybe he
has some interest in a Server, like Orcon for example -- which may explain
why the many and frequent complaints to Orcon about his objectionable
language and abusiveness find little or no response.
janice
No. What pro-GE provocation could this form of protest elicit other than
utter contempt for other marchers and an insincere desire for attention
rather than any genuine desire to prevent large corporations from grabbing
dangerous monopoly control over food production and distribution.
j.
Tilly
>
> Probably works for Bates Forensics Ltd
Actually he works for Bates Pest Control Ltd.
Tilly
janice
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:58:52 +1300, "slunk" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Is it true that this bunch were lead by one Andrew Bates? Has anyone
>>heard
>>> of him? I have been given to believe he did something similar at
>>Auckland
>>> University a few years back and even ACT MPs pretended to be outraged.
>>
>>sounds like his sense of humour.
>>
>>I can't recall many of his university capers, other than the public
>>masturbation episode
>
> But hey it was his birthday.
Redbaiters very same words." It was my birthday, I didnt know what I was
doing because I was so pissed; I couldnt get a hard on."
O yeah, so do it in public Andrew like you do everything else in public.
Just one more demonstration to the world of just how sad, friendless and
lonely Andrew Bates/Redbaiter really is,
Dave
"Tilly" <Bri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wntmb.189896$JA5.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Mainlander wrote:
> >
> > Probably works for Bates Forensics Ltd
>
> Actually he works for Bates Pest Control Ltd.
He is clearly the "Master" then....'explains much.
DW
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>
>I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
>protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
>ACT members. Is this true?
Oh, hello Janice. :-)
How's the 63 inch boobs these days? :->
--
Karen Hayward-King
"I try to be as philosophical as the old lady
who said that the best thing about the future
is that it only comes one day at a time."
Dean Acheson
Michael Gordge
Oh believe me, the (real) Andrew Bates is, NOT the pathetic freedom
fraudster redbaiter who I have only met at Google, that's an insult to
Andrew Bates no less.
They ARE two very different people, Andrew IS a libertarian.
BTW I cant imagine Andrew Bates would take too kindly people even
thinking he was in any way linked to Act. Redbaiter is a socialist in
waiting, you socialists have NOTHING to fear from him.
Speaking for myself
Michael Gordge
Bob Howard
"Ashley" <ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:wKqmb.189780$JA5.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
>
> See, I told you this was going to be fun ;-)
Janice/Redbaiter should be a good combination.
Bob Howard.
Karen Hayward-King
>janice says...
>>
>> I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
>> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
>> ACT members. Is this true?
>>
>As if you care whether its true or not..
>
>It makes a real good smear doesn't it.?
>
>Just what the group needs, yet another intolerant leftist bigot
>and liar.
Oh dear.....I gather you've never met out Janice? ;->
She ran for parliament a couple of years ago as the Alliance candidate
for Hunua. Surely you've heard of her?
Karen Hayward-King
<ashleyjane@U.N_S.P*A.M&E+D_xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>See, I told you this was going to be fun ;-)
Yes, you sure did. :-)
Bob Howard
> >
> > Probably works for Bates Forensics Ltd
>
> Actually he works for Bates Pest Control Ltd.
Any relation to Bates of "Pyscho" fame.?
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"LeftAintRight" <kda...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bnd9jm$ogc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> [Obviousman says]
>
> It's called satire. They were poking fun at the other protestors. The
> marchers carrying "Paedophiles against GE" were only pretending to be
> paedophiles.
>
> [Obviousman over and out.]
That's right you have to explain to left supporters preferably with words of
no more than two syllables.
Talking of the anti-GE march I saw a woman with a placard on TV. There were
two pictures on it. One was of a normal baby and the other of a monstrous
baby showing us what could happen if we eat GM food. That is the level of
intelligence in these people.
Now by comparison if a serious scientist says cross pollination of weeds by
pest resistant GM crops might result in weeds which are difficult to control
I think that is a legitimate point against GE especially if he is only
urging caution over GM releases.
Bob Howard.
LeftAintRight
> dan wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3f9a...@news.compass.net.nz>,
>> janice <janice_g-@_free.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jsm...@paa.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"janice" <janice_g_@_free.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:3f99e8bd$1...@news.compass.net.nz...
>>>>
>>>>>I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
>>>>>protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
>>>>>ACT members. Is this true?
>>>>>
>>>>>j
>>>>>The signs read as you well know TROLL.....read
>>>>
>>>>Anti GE Against Paedophiles.
>>>
>>>No, I can assure you the signs read "Paedophiles Against GE" and is
>>>probably the reason why the police are looking for them. Many people on
>>>the march complained about these depraved types advertising themselves -
>>>which is against the law apparently.
>>
>>Did it occur to you that this might be a pro-GE provocation?
>
>
> No. What pro-GE provocation could this form of protest elicit other than
> utter contempt for other marchers
Bingo!
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
wrote:
>That's is obviously because people who read Redbaiter posts do
>so completely voluntarily, and because apart from the occasional
>bit of bad language, (often exceeded by leftists who strangely
>don't seem to attract the same attention), his posts are always
>quite in keeping with the idea of usenet discussion groups,
Including the incessant unprovoked attacks on Jason M.? I mean, I
understand you getting tetchy if he's personally attacking you, or
even your chosen spokespeople, but you seem to attack every post he
makes for no apparent reason. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it.
>Here's a clue for you, you leftist fuckwits.. you don't like bad
>language, fucking don't read Redbaiter. Don't download his
>posts, or don't click on his posts, or if your that surprising
>kind of leftist who possess the modicum of intelligence needed,
>use your fucking killfile you fucking dumbarsed cretinous
>loathsome hypocrites...
Just what do you think the bad language adds to the debate, Red? Do
you think you gain credibility? Popularity? Make the point better?
If you were really here for serious discussion you'd just ignore the
cretins, left or right, and get on with talking to people who have
something useful to contribute. I see little evidence of that.
Stumpy.
--
R.G. "Stumpy" Marsh Timaru, New Zealand
<http://marsh.orcon.net.nz/>
Roger Dewhurst
"Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote in message
news:bnctp4$h2q$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Redbaiter" <don't...@email.me> wrote in message
> news:3f99fd54$1...@news.orcon.net.nz...
> > janice says...
> > >
> > > I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
> > > protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> > > ACT members. Is this true?
> > >
> >
> > It makes a real good smear doesn't it.?
> >
> > Just what the group needs, yet another intolerant leftist bigot
> > and liar.
>
She has not been around for a while. Has she just been let out of prison?
R
>
>
> Bob Howard.
>
>
plonker
> janice says...
> > Redbaiter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Lies, demonisation, false accusation, character assassination...
> >
> >
> > Come, come Mr Bates do not be a hypocrite or too loud in your own
defence,
> > lest others think you protest too much.
> >
> > Hmmm...now where did I see an ugly post just recently wherein you
claimed
> > that another poster to this group 'interfered with small boys?'
> >
>
> Fuck off with your false allegations you leftist fuckwit, both
> of your charges are baseless and wrong, like almost everything
> you post come to think of it.
Your memory seems to be failing you "Redbaiter". Perhaps that is the reason
why you have X-No Archive set to YES, so that your posts "disappear".
Fortunately for us, people sometimes reply to your invective, and provide us
with proof that at least our memories don't suffer the same apparent
fragility as do yours.
We find in Message-ID: <g4ka6vsplmsc1j1ea...@4ax.com> the
following comments made by yourself regarding another poster by the name of
"Jason M";
"What I asked stalker, was whether you are still banned from that surf
club for molesting small boys.
Seeing as how you have not denied that then 'WE' must also assume that
you are in fact the Ernie (Jason, hah hah) who is known as the West Coast
pervert. Mustn't 'WE'..??"
> Intolerant totalitarian leftists, (just like the hated Secret
> Police in Eastern Europe with their false accusations), are
> always trying to smear people who have opposing political views,
> and always doing so without the slightest evidence or clue.
>
> "You're guilty" say these totalitarian scum, now prove your
> innocence.
It would appear that one of your problems, "Redbaiter", is that you rush in
too quickly without thinking about the potential veracity of a claim, or
make any attempt to establish the facts of a case. As a result, as can be
seen in these circumstances, you merely on instinct attack the poster
without any thought or consideration on whether or not a statement has any
basis.
With regard to your response to the original post, which was seeking
clarification on a description of a series of witnessed events, you
immediately denounced it as "Lies, demonisation, false accusation, character
assassination". Since that time we have seen a photo backing up exactly
what was written on the placards, leaving the only question - whether or not
they are ACT members.
In case you didn't catch it the first time (due to a rush of blood and a
knee-jerk reaction), she was wanting to establish some facts. I repeat her
question here so you can read it again.
"I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
ACT members. Is this true?"
So far we have established for a fact that there were indeed a group of men
in the anti-GE protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE".
The only thing left to establish is whether they were ACT members
> They are so clearly the most verminous liars and cheats, and yet
> they expect people to buy the fantasy that they know the best
> way to govern a country.
>
> What a laff..
>
> So fucking stupid only a leftist would be capable of the degree
> of self deceit necessary to convince themselves they were doing
> it right..
>
> However, if some other poster did make that allegation, which I
> think was made in respect of the oily greasy loathsome piece of
> usenet filth using the fake name Jason Mamford, it wouldn't
> surprise me one bit to find out it was true.
Your own words make for interesting reading when analysing your comments
about others:
"always trying to smear people who have opposing political views, and always
doing so without the slightest evidence or clue. "You're guilty" say these
totalitarian scum, now prove your innocence."
You might actually receive a bit more respect and have a bit more
credibility, if you didn't engage in such intellectual dishonesty and
display such a level of contemptuous hypocrisy.
plonker
claimed that another poster to this group 'interfered with small boys?'"
REDBAITER> "Fuck off with your FALSE ALLEGATIONS you leftist fuckwit, BOTH
OF YOUR CHARGES ARE BASELESS AND WRONG, like almost everything you post come
to think of it."
Lying?
REDBAITER> "However, IF SOME OTHER POSTER did make that allegation, which I
think was made in respect of the oily greasy loathsome piece of usenet filth
using the fake name Jason Mamford, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find
out it was true."
Deception and misrepresentation?
===
We find in Message-ID: <g4ka6vsplmsc1j1ea...@4ax.com> the
following comments made by "Redbaiter" regarding another poster by the name
of
"Jason M";
"What I asked stalker, was whether you are still banned from that surf
club for molesting small boys.
Seeing as how you have not denied that then 'WE' must also assume that
you are in fact the Ernie (Jason, hah hah) who is known as the West Coast
pervert. Mustn't 'WE'..??"
===
Redbaiter's credibility: 0
Daniel Silva
> "plonker" wrote:
> [...] especially when such complaints as this are raised by some
> "newcomer" obviously a cowardly frequent user too yellow to
> identify themselves [...]
Ah, the irony. LOL.
plonker
> plonker says...
> > JANICE> "Hmmm...now where did I see an ugly post just recently wherein
you
> > claimed that another poster to this group 'interfered with small boys?'"
> >
> > REDBAITER> "Fuck off with your FALSE ALLEGATIONS you leftist fuckwit,
BOTH
> > OF YOUR CHARGES ARE BASELESS AND WRONG, like almost everything you post
come
> > to think of it."
> >
> > Lying?
> >
> highlighted here.
It was rather interesting that you considered it recent enough to comment on
it at the very end of the same post (after firstly trying to denounce it as
being false), by attempting to claim that it may have been someone else who
made such a post.
REDBAITER> "However, IF SOME OTHER POSTER did make that allegation, WHICH I
THINK WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF the oily greasy loathsome piece of usenet filth
using the fake name JASON MAMFORD, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find
out it was true."
Trying to make out it wasn't you....
In fact, not only did you recall the general content of the post, but you
even managed to recall who the original post was about.
It must be difficult for you when you need to extricate yourself from the
position you have found yourself in - clutching at straws?
Denounce, distract, and divert attention - are these the operational tactics
of the Red Squad?
kiwipete
> janice wrote:
>
> >
> > I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
> > protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> > ACT members. Is this true?
>
heard
> of him? I have been given to believe he did something similar at
Auckland
> University a few years back and even ACT MPs pretended to be outraged.
>
>
> Its just that the police were asking march organisers who these people
were
> and how could they be located. I myself could not offer any leads other
> than the fact that this Bates person was a known nuisance some years
> back on nz.politics.
>
> All smirking aside, we must be good citizens and help the police do their
> job.
II wonder about you.... a nasty piece of work...
If you want to play the association game then be prepared for it played
against you...
kiwipete
kiwipete
> Redbaiter wrote:
>
> >
> > Lies, demonisation, false accusation, character assassination...
>
>
> Come, come Mr Bates do not be a hypocrite or too loud in your own defence,
> lest others think you protest too much.
>
> that another poster to this group 'interfered with small boys?'
I don't think you should forget this is a public forum and that you have
responsibilities here the same as any other forum....
You really like to make allegations.... prove them...
kiwipete
John Sefton
> Bob Howard says...
>
> >
> > Come on Janice stop trying to be smart.
> >
> "Try" being the operative word Bob.
>
> Man, she is so dumb even for a leftist.
There was a time when those on this group belongong to the right would say
they didn't need to work so hard when she was posting and some on the left
who called her a right-wing troll. The more things change, the more they
stay the same...
> What a laff that these absolute retards can delude themselves
> that they have the intelligence to tell the rest of us the right
> way to live..
>
> What a bunch of unbelievably stoopid fucktards...
>
>
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
supernova
> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> ACT members. Is this true?
One wonders whether paedophiles are the next group to attempt to assert
their rights with regard to discrimination based on the contrived sexual
orientation provisions of human rights legislation.
Ashley
> You know what I mean you useless wank..
>
> Pity you weren't so observant of such detail during the last few
> decades when you and your self centered blinkered ilk, thru your
> apathy, your ignorance your lack of awareness, and your weak
> compliance, let the leftists take over this country.
You tell him, Red, you tell him.
Daniel, it's all your fault. Obviously.
Bluefish
>Fuck off with your false allegations you leftist fuckwit, both
>of your charges are baseless and wrong, like almost everything
>you post come to think of it.
>
>Intolerant totalitarian leftists, (just like the hated Secret
>Police in Eastern Europe with their false accusations), are
>always trying to smear people who have opposing political views,
>and always doing so without the slightest evidence or clue.
>
>"You're guilty" say these totalitarian scum, now prove your
>innocence.
>
>They are so clearly the most verminous liars and cheats, and yet
>they expect people to buy the fantasy that they know the best
>way to govern a country.
>
>What a laff..
>
>So fucking stupid only a leftist would be capable of the degree
>of self deceit necessary to convince themselves they were doing
>it right..
>
>However, if some other poster did make that allegation, which I
>think was made in respect of the oily greasy loathsome piece of
>usenet filth using the fake name Jason Mamford, it wouldn't
>surprise me one bit to find out it was true.
Mmmmmmmm, baiter you sound like a REAL MAN!
I think you need someone who can be there for you while you are
fighting those battles - you know, someone who can keep you "up" to
the ocassion.
You need someone who can discuss those hard won sorties on the net
against those soft commie's - someone who can massage those words into
fine poetry and who understands the thrusting and pounding of the
intent.
Come on baiter, surely it's time....
Hugh Young
>One wonders whether paedophiles are the next group to attempt to assert
>their rights with regard to discrimination based on the contrived sexual
>orientation provisions of human rights legislation.
Why doesn't one cross that bridge when one comes to it?
Michael Gordge
> I was told the group of men in suits who were in the anti-GE
> protest carrying banners that read "Paedophiles Against GE" were
> ACT members. Is this true?
>
Do you seriously believe that there is anyone in Act (including
redbaiter) clever enough to think of "Paedophiles Against GE?" That
really is very very PIC (Politically In-Correct) clever and very
funny, I can just imagine the look that must have been on a
troglodyte's face when they saw that, jeeeeez I wished I'd been there.
Nice one.
Speaking for myself
Michael Gordge
FREE GE
Karen Hayward-King
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 09:26:15 +1300, Redbaiter <don't...@email.me> wrote:
>
>>You are a pathetic and stupid liar, just so typical of those who
>>push leftist politics.
>
>Didn't someone say in a recent post that janice stood for the
>Alliance? That says it all, doesn't it? That was the commie loser
>party.
I believe she stood for Alliance in Hunua, the election before the
last one..
Daniel Silva
Obviously. I must try to become a more useful wank.
slunk
> other than that one of their brainless pack of cretins thinks it
> to be true,
christ... if Andrew bates were anywhere on this NG you'd be riding his arse
harder than Steve's or Jason M's.
nothing in common at all
R. G. 'Stumpy' Marsh
wrote:
>Oh don't be such a sanctimonious hypocrite. I really enjoy all
>of you self appointed judges coming out with these impartial
>findings on Redbaiter yet when the fake named Jason Mamford was
>carrying out his never ending attacks on Redbaiter, YOU WERE
>QUIET AS A MOUSE.
And I didn't call you on it either until you suggested that you're
somehow better than him.
>Fuck off with you one eyed bigoted pronouncements. Anyone
>supporting the loathsome anti freedom of speech scum Mamford is
>no friend of mine, and nobody I want the respect of. Neither do
>I care one fucking iota for their judgements on my credibility
>or popularity.
I'm not supporting anyone. It's an intervention. Consider it a
compliment, Red. I think you're worth trying to save. Every once in a
while you say something worth reading.
>And here's some simple advice Stumpy, you want civil discourse,
>then exercise it yourself, and I will respond in kind.
What about this has been uncivil?
>Just don't insult my intelligence with any more of this farcical
>impartial judge crapola. If you had, previous to this
>sanctimonious bullshit, made just one complaint about the
>behaviour of leftists in this forum Stumpy, I might have been
>ready to credit you with the impartiality you pretend to.
I never claimed impartiality. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
janice
> Did it occur to you that this might be a pro-GE provocation?
Yes Dan this sick attempt at humour was a pro-GE provocation. ACT
supporters were recognised.
j.
Enkidu
>>
>> I'm not supporting anyone. It's an intervention. Consider it a
>> compliment, Red. I think you're worth trying to save. Every once in a
>> while you say something worth reading.
>
>
Well, obviously, Stumpy was.
I also think you are worth trying to save, in spite of your
determination not to be.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
David McLoughlin
> Yes Dan this sick attempt at humour was a pro-GE provocation. ACT
> supporters were recognised.
You and Dave Lloyd Lennard out stalking people again, huh?
Craigmudgeon
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:41:23 +1300, "supernova" <big.bang> said:
>
> >One wonders whether paedophiles are the next group to attempt to assert
> >their rights with regard to discrimination based on the contrived sexual
> >orientation provisions of human rights legislation.
What, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual *and* heterosexual, you mean??
>
> Why doesn't one cross that bridge when one comes to it?
I'd rather blow up the bridge with the paedophiles on it...
heh heh heh...
Craigmudgeon
Bob Howard
"supernova" <big.bang> wrote in message news:3f9b...@clear.net.nz...
That in fact is an interesting point. It is not a crime to be a paedophile.
Presumably some men can't help being sexually attracted to children. The
idea is so repugnant to me I assume it must be natural to them.
What is a crime is molesting children. There must be plenty of paedophiles
working and living a normal life. Is an employer, landlord, restaurant owner
etc. allowed to refuse employment or service to a paedophile? In my opinion
not if he hasn't committed a crime. But normally a paedophile wouldn't be
known unless he has been in trouble with the law. In any case unless he has
a conviction he probably can complain of discrimination.
What is the law? Can a landlord for instance refuse accommodation to a
convicted paedophile? It is not only paedophiles. Can an employer refuse a
job to a convicted rapist because he doesn't want him near his female
employees?
Bob Howard.
Flannagan
Because a propositions truth is confirmed or denied by the logical
implications which follow from it regardless of wether or not anyone
chooses to act upon such implications.
If it is wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their
sexual orientation and some people are orientated sexually towards
children. Then it must be true that its wrong to discriminate against
these people on that basis. If this is an absurd conclusion then the
original claim, which entails this absurd claim must itself be
absurd.
Matt
Flannagan
It has never been a crime to be a homosexual, Presumably some men
can't help being attracted to other men. The idea is so repugnant to
me I assume it must be natural to them.
What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons,There must
be plenty of homosexuals working and living a normal life. Is an
employer, landlord, restaurant owner etc. allowed to refuse employment
or service to a paedophile? In my opinion not if he hasn't committed
sodomy. But normally a homosexual wouldn't be known unless he was
engaging in sodomy. In any case unless he is a sodomite he a probably
can complain of discrimination.
If one draws a distinction between act and orientation then
discrimination against sodomites ( those who engage in sodomy) does
not fall fowl of the ban on discrimination against sexual orientation.
On the other hand if this distinction amounts to nothing then
discrimination against child molestation can not be distinguished
agaisnt discrimination against people with a pedophilic orientation.
Nor for that matter can laws against incest and bestality be
distinguished from this either as some people I presume cannot help
being attracted to an animal or a close relative and by gay rights
logic if this is true of around 1%-2% or so of people then it follows
that people have a right to engage in such acts, and any
discrimination against it is akin to racism.
Matt
Flannagan
Sounds like an you suffer from paedophobia and support hate crimes
against paedophiles.
Matt
Roger Dewhurst
"Flannagan" <n...@soul.org.nz> wrote in message
news:4e3facfd.03110...@posting.google.com...
From all that rant it is hard to tell whether he /she is a homosexual
pederast or homophbic who would like to see them all hung from lamposts.
Actually it probably does not matter one way or the other what he wants.
R
Calum Bennachie
Again, the Justice Spokesperson of the chp, the wunderboy, gets it wrong. There is a vast
difference between sexual orientation and sexual paraphilias. Perhaps he should read about the
difference someday. But it would probably be a cold day in that place he classifies as hell before
that would happen as it would challenge all his beliefs in regards to sexual orientation and
paraphilias.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
"Flannagan" <n...@soul.org.nz> wrote in message news:4e3facfd.0311...@posting.google.com...
> The same logic can be applied to homosexuals,
>
> It has never been a crime to be a homosexual, Presumably some men
> can't help being attracted to other men. The idea is so repugnant to
> me I assume it must be natural to them.
>
> What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons,There must
Again, the Justice Spokesperson of the chp gets it wrong- what a surprise.
Ohdearhowsadnevermind.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
No. We leave that to people who call themselves christian. Especially those who agree that
decisions by the Court of Appeal allowing greater access to kiddie porn are acceptable.
Calum
Steve B
What Court of Appeal decisions? Please enlighten me (and, I'm sure,
others).
Steve B.
Steve B
>The same logic can be applied to homosexuals,
>
>It has never been a crime to be a homosexual, Presumably some men
>can't help being attracted to other men. The idea is so repugnant to
>me I assume it must be natural to them.
>
>What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons,
What is a crime, surely is rape. Homosexual or heterosexual copulation
can, obviously, be entirely consensual. But a child is judged not
capable of giving consent. So sex between an adult and a child is
always rape.
(I'm not sure how it applies to alleged consensual sex between one
child/young teenager and another; that's technically illegal, but
probably handled a lot more leniently; does anyone have factual cases
they can report on?)
But I'm glad to see someone point out that there is no crime until
something happens. Having an inclination is not a crime; it is absurd
to talk of "convicted pedophiles" when you mean "convicted rapists".
Who knows how many "celibate pedophiles" there may be - or what use
they could be as counsellors to their active counterparts? The way
things are today, they dare not strick their head above the parapet.
A good many child rapists are, of course, not, in the strict sense of
the word, pedophiles; just rapists seeking a vulnerable or gullible
victim. I do wonder about the recent case where he was called a
pedophile but committed his subsequent rape on an intellectually
disabled adult woman. A pure pedophile would surely not be interested
in such a woman, but a rapist not confident with mature and assertive
victims would.
As I've said before, calling someone who rapes a child a "convicted
pedophile" makes as much sense as calling a man who rapes another man
a "convicted homosexual".
There are other parallels too. When homosexuality was judged a
"paraphilia" rather than a legitimate "sexual orientation",
homosexuals were alleged to be indiscriminate predators who hung
around public lavatories. The concept of a committed sexual
relationship between two men just did not occur to most people.
Similarly, pedophiles are today regarded as predators, but I have
encountered inactive pedophiles who are fixated on a particular child
and really imagine themselves to be 'in love'. No, that does not make
any action on their part to interfere with the child's life any more
defensible, but the stereotype of an incurable indiscriminate repeat
offender does not apply to them, any more than it did to homosexuals.
Steve B.
Peter Jenkins
> > >
> > > >One wonders whether paedophiles are the next group to attempt to assert
> > > >their rights with regard to discrimination based on the contrived sexual
> > > >orientation provisions of human rights legislation.
Not in my lifetime. Or anyone elses either.
I cant ever see it happening. Too many victims
> >
> > What, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual *and* heterosexual, you mean??
> > >
> > > Why doesn't one cross that bridge when one comes to it?
> >
> >
> > I'd rather blow up the bridge with the paedophiles on it...
> > heh heh heh...
> >
> > Craigmudgeon
>
>
> Sounds like an you suffer from paedophobia and support hate crimes
> against paedophiles.
>
> Matt
Man, that has got to be the most insane response to a post I have ever
seen. Total nutjob material. Of course Craig is "paedophobic" All
decent people are, regardless of orientation.
Regards
Peter J
Calum Bennachie
"Steve B" <s.b...@nospam-iecho.co.nz> wrote in message
news:osmeqvofsqd02v3q2...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> >> Sounds like an you suffer from paedophobia
> >>
> >> Matt
> >
> >No. We leave that to people who call themselves christian. Especially those who agree that
> >decisions by the Court of Appeal allowing greater access to kiddie porn are acceptable.
> >
> >Calum
> >
> What Court of Appeal decisions? Please enlighten me (and, I'm sure,
> others).
>
> Steve B.
Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [1999] NZCA 154 (17 December 1999). The decision can
be seen here http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/cases/NZCA/1999/329.html - particularly paragraphs 15-20
Calum
Calum Bennachie
"Peter Jenkins" <peja!!!!capitalpunishmentforspammers!!!!@xtra.co.enzed> wrote in message
news:0tLpb.7688$Mn.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > against paedophiles.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Man, that has got to be the most insane response to a post I have ever
>
> Regards
> Peter J
Did you expect anything else from the Justice Spokesperson for the Christian Heritage Party?
Calum
JJ Williams
wrote in message news:0tLpb.7688$Mn.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> > Sounds like an you suffer from paedophobia and support hate crimes
> > against paedophiles.
> Man, that has got to be the most insane response to a post I have ever
> seen. Total nutjob material. Of course Craig is "paedophobic" All
> decent people are, regardless of orientation.
Er, I think it was supposed to be ironic - however, the pedant in me
suspects that "paedophobia" must mean fear of children (I'm sure Hugh could
advise).
<snaps fingers in a peremptory fashion to summon Hugh>.
J
A L P
>>There must
>>be plenty of homosexuals working and living a normal life. Is an
>>employer, landlord, restaurant owner etc. allowed to refuse employment
>>or service to a paedophile?
>>In my opinion not if he hasn't committed
>>sodomy.
Eh? Heterosexual paedophiles are okay? It's fine for a man to have sex
with a 5-yr-old girl? An interesting opinion but not one that would be
widely shared outside the paedophile cohort.
But normally a homosexual wouldn't be known unless he was
>>engaging in sodomy. In any case unless he is a sodomite he a probably
>>can complain of discrimination.
>
>
> Really? I know lots of gay men. I know they are gay because they
> mention their partners just as I mention mine. I have no idea if they
> engage in sodomy however, just as they don't know what I do in bed.
>
In the absence of other information - such as a good gossip session with
the people concerned or an ex-partner - none of us has much
information about what other individuals do, sexually. I suppose we
tend to think that people of the same sexual orientation as ourselves do
the same things we do, and people of different orientation do ... um ...
whatever stereotype we have picked. So if we have sex once every fourth
Saturday and are happy with that, we'll tend to think that the majority
of "normal" people of our orientation have sex once a month, the
definition of someone crazed with lust being anyone who wants sex - ooh,
once every week! The "other" are of course mysterious and probably
excessively crazed with lust, look at the stereotypes of other races
over the years.
A L P
harry
Quite so, children and dolls are evil and scary, thats why they use them in
horror movies.
A L P
>>There must
>>be plenty of homosexuals working and living a normal life. Is an
>>employer, landlord, restaurant owner etc. allowed to refuse employment
>>or service to a paedophile?
>>In my opinion not if he hasn't committed
>>sodomy.
Eh? Heterosexual paedophiles are okay? It's fine for a man to have sex
with a 5-yr-old girl? An interesting opinion but not one that would be
widely shared outside the paedophile cohort.
But normally a homosexual wouldn't be known unless he was
>>engaging in sodomy. In any case unless he is a sodomite he a probably
>>can complain of discrimination.
>
>
akratic
interestingly enough if it wasn't for what we now call paedophiles the
world would be a very different place. Most of us wouldn't be here for
a start...throughout human history the average mating age was
considerably lower than the legal 'age of consent' that most countries
now adopt....this leads to the bizarre conclusion that for the
majority of human history men have been paedophiles (age 11+ at least)
;)
> Regards
> Peter J
akratic
:p
Flannagan
> > seen. Total nutjob material. Of course Craig is "paedophobic" All
> > decent people are, regardless of orientation.
>
> Er, I think it was supposed to be ironic - however, the pedant in me
> suspects that "paedophobia" must mean fear of children (I'm sure Hugh could
> advise).
> <snaps fingers in a peremptory fashion to summon Hugh>.
Yes I was being sarcastic which is evident from the other comments I
made.
Interestingly enough the response I gave is precisely analogous to the
response typically made to any moral objections against homosexual
intercourse and I agree it is totally nuts. Just as the phrase "your a
pedophobe does not" provide the slightest reason for affirming that
pedophila is acceptable or even begin to provide the rudimentary
elements of an intellectual defense of peadophila ( if that were
acceptable) So affirming that a person who makes a claim about the
immorality of homosexual sex is homophobic does not provide any reason
for thinking homosexuality is acceptable it is just as intellectually
bankrupt in doing so.
As to the comments about pedophobe meaning fear of children this is
strictly correct. Just as it is strictly correct that the term
homophobe means fear of sameness. So again there is parity.
Many times on this ng I have pointed out that certain patterns of
reasoning employed with regard to homosexuality are obviously invalid
by showing how the exact line of reasoning would be obviously "nuts"
in any other context. The response to my post to date only confirms
this.
Matt
Flannagan
> Again, the Justice Spokesperson of the chp, the wunderboy, gets it wrong. There is a vast
> difference between sexual orientation and sexual paraphilias.
A pedophile has a sexual preference for children, her is orientated
towards children. A homosexual has a preference for sex towards
someone of the same sex he is orientated towards people of this sex.
Perhaps one day Calum wunderboy will learn some logic and realise that
insulting people or mentioning there political affliation is not a
rebuttal.
For the record ( seeing it will undoubtably be said) I am not saying
that homosexuals are pedophiles nor am I saying that there is an
empirical link between the practises, nor am I saying the to practises
are on par in all respects. What I am pointing out is the certain
arguments used to justify homosexual sex would if valid also justify
pedophila. If this is absurd ( which I grant that it is)then these
arguments must be unsound. If Calum wunderboy would look up the
meaning of a redutio ad absurdium he would discover this.
Perhaps he should read about the
> difference someday. But it would probably be a cold day in that place he classifies as hell before
> that would happen as it would challenge all his beliefs in regards to sexual orientation and
> paraphilias.
Well this again shows your lack of understanding, my beliefs about
homosexuality are normative moral beliefs. You can not disprove
normative propositions with descriptive propositions, that is called
the naturalistic fallacy, and it is repeated everytime you or any one
else claims that certain scientific studies about sexual orientation
prove homosexuality is morally licit. Science can prove no such thing,
thats a question of applied ethics, and I suspect I know significantly
more about that topic than you do.
Matt
Flannagan
Actually no,
First, I have cited evidence that sodomy can be defined this way in
english and
Second, sodomy is a crime if you do not adopt a postivistic
understanding of law and crime. Opponents of sodomy are typically not
legal postivists.
Third, you miss the context of my discussion. I was simply showing
that anyone who supported sodomy laws could use the very same
arguement used above and conclude it was compatible with the Bill of
rights. Doing so does not commit me to the argument or the premises of
it. All I am commited to is that the two arguments are analogous so
that if one is valid so must be the other, But then if you knew about
philosophical argument and bothered to understand things before you
pontificated about others alleged ignorance you would know this.
Matt
Flannagan
>
> What is a crime, surely is rape. Homosexual or heterosexual copulation
> can, obviously, be entirely consensual. But a child is judged not
> capable of giving consent. So sex between an adult and a child is
> always rape.
I agree that rape is a crime however your argument here is fallicous,
you claim that rape is a crime, homosexual copulation is not always
rape and appear to conclude from this that homosexual sex is not
always a crime. This is like arguing that (a) murder is a crime (b)
fraud is not murder therefore (c) fraud is not a crime.
> But I'm glad to see someone point out that there is no crime until
> something happens. Having an inclination is not a crime; it is absurd
> to talk of "convicted pedophiles" when you mean "convicted rapists".
>
> Who knows how many "celibate pedophiles" there may be - or what use
> they could be as counsellors to their active counterparts? The way
> things are today, they dare not strick their head above the parapet.
This raises an interesting issue, if what you say is true then there
is a difference between discriminating against people on the basis of
sexual orientation and discriminating on the basis of wether a person
engages in homosexual acts. If this is so then why is sacking someone
because he sleeps with a man, (i.e on the basis of his conduct)
contrary to the Bill of rights?
> A good many child rapists are, of course, not, in the strict sense of
> the word, pedophiles; just rapists seeking a vulnerable or gullible
> victim. I do wonder about the recent case where he was called a
> pedophile but committed his subsequent rape on an intellectually
> disabled adult woman. A pure pedophile would surely not be interested
> in such a woman, but a rapist not confident with mature and assertive
> victims would.
>
> As I've said before, calling someone who rapes a child a "convicted
> pedophile" makes as much sense as calling a man who rapes another man
> a "convicted homosexual".
It makes as much sense sense as calling repeal of a law that
prohibits sexual behavour between people of the same sex as "the
homosexual law reform". Or as much sense as calling opposition to
homosexual acts discrimination against people on the basis of there
sexual orientation.
> There are other parallels too. When homosexuality was judged a
> "paraphilia" rather than a legitimate "sexual orientation",
Define "legitmate here", if this a moral term then hard sciences (such
as Psycology) can show no such thing . If its a non moral distinction
then what relevance does it have to the question at hand?
> homosexuals were alleged to be indiscriminate predators who hung
> around public lavatories. The concept of a committed sexual
> relationship between two men just did not occur to most people.
> Similarly, pedophiles are today regarded as predators, but I have
> encountered inactive pedophiles who are fixated on a particular child
> and really imagine themselves to be 'in love'. No, that does not make
> any action on their part to interfere with the child's life any more
> defensible, but the stereotype of an incurable indiscriminate repeat
> offender does not apply to them, any more than it did to homosexuals.
I agree both peadophiles and homosexuals (and Roman Catholic priests)
are subject to various stero types which in some cases, perhaps in
many cases are unjust.
However some philosophers who defend Gay rights ( such as Richard
Mohr) have appealed to the fact that such sterotypes persist as
evidence that laws against sodomy are unjust. If this were a valid
argument then it one would have to conclude that the facts you cite is
evidence that laws against child molestation were unjust. Again whats
good for the goose is good for the gander.
Which is why I maintain that such arguments are invalid.
Matt
Calum Bennachie
> > difference between sexual orientation and sexual paraphilias.
>
>
> A pedophile has a sexual preference for children, her is orientated
> towards children. A homosexual has a preference for sex towards
> someone of the same sex he is orientated towards people of this sex.
Bzzt!!! Wrong Again, (and I am not surprised at that). I really do suggest you consult a
dictionary to find out the difference between paraphilia and orientation before you burble on. You
are taking the incorrect meaning spouted by right wing christians who refuse to accept anything
other than their own benighted bigoted views.
Your views on sexuality are not normative. Your views are coloured by your religious opinions, not
by fact.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
> "Calum Bennachie" <benn...@DELETETHISparadise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:<XDHpb.4788$ws.4...@news02.tsnz.net>...
> > "Flannagan" <n...@soul.org.nz> wrote in message
news:4e3facfd.0311...@posting.google.com...
> > > The same logic can be applied to homosexuals,
> > >
> > > It has never been a crime to be a homosexual, Presumably some men
> > > can't help being attracted to other men. The idea is so repugnant to
> > > me I assume it must be natural to them.
> > >
> > > What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons,There must
> >
> > Again, the Justice Spokesperson of the chp gets it wrong- what a surprise.
>
> Actually no,
>
> First, I have cited evidence that sodomy can be defined this way in
> english and
>
> Second, sodomy is a crime if you do not adopt a postivistic
> understanding of law and crime.
Bzzt still wrong. Read the Crimes Act. Does it say there that sodomy between consenting partners
is a crime? No. You, the justice spokesperson for the christian heritage party, are lacking in
knowledge about what constitutes a crime in New Zealand, and yet you stood for parliament as a
candidate in the last general election. As such, you should have at least a basic knowledge of what
constitutes a crime. Until you actually get that right, you would have no real idea of justice.
Calum
Calum Bennachie
<snip>
> Many times on this ng I have pointed out that certain patterns of
> reasoning employed with regard to homosexuality are obviously invalid
> by showing how the exact line of reasoning would be obviously "nuts"
> in any other context. The response to my post to date only confirms
> this.
>
> Matt
No. You have pointed out that in your view ...(the above). The fact that your view, based on your
religious opinions, is inconsistent with everyone else's view on nsq is another matter. Until you
can tell the difference between sexual orientation and paraphilia, you will continue to be confused
and espouse the view that is contrary to everyone else's.
Calum
Craigmudgeon
> >
> > Sounds like an you suffer from paedophobia and support hate crimes
> > against paedophiles.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Man, that has got to be the most insane response to a post I have ever
> seen. Total nutjob material. Of course Craig is "paedophobic" All
> decent people are, regardless of orientation.
>
of the Crimes Act (overseas child sex tourism), double and standardise
current sentence lengths for paedophile offences, etc. Moreover, I
want the Office of Film and Literature Classification and current
censorship legislation reformed to target child porn, subject to a
select committee hearing that would triangulate child porn's
interaction with other forms of child sexual abuse.
And take away seperate penal provisions for prisoners convicted of
child sexual offences.
Hardline? Oh yeah.
Craig
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
>Interestingly enough the response I gave is precisely analogous to the
>response typically made to any moral objections against homosexual
>intercourse and I agree it is totally nuts. Just as the phrase "your a
> pedophobe does not" provide the slightest reason for affirming that
>pedophila is acceptable or even begin to provide the rudimentary
>elements of an intellectual defense of peadophila ( if that were
>acceptable) So affirming that a person who makes a claim about the
>immorality of homosexual sex is homophobic does not provide any reason
>for thinking homosexuality is acceptable it is just as intellectually
>bankrupt in doing so.
So you think homosexuality is immoral. OK on what basis? Religious?
>As to the comments about pedophobe meaning fear of children this is
>strictly correct. Just as it is strictly correct that the term
>homophobe means fear of sameness. So again there is parity.
>
>Many times on this ng I have pointed out that certain patterns of
>reasoning employed with regard to homosexuality are obviously invalid
>by showing how the exact line of reasoning would be obviously "nuts"
>in any other context. The response to my post to date only confirms
>this.
What patterns of reasoning are you talking about? Is the following
statement flawed reasoning?
"What consenting adults do sexually is a fundamental human right,
therefore the state has a duty to protect that right."
If you think homosexuality is immoral, don't have homosexual sex -and
don't expect the state to impose your particular morality on everyone
else.
I fail to see what your problem is.
Geoff McCaughan
> Moreover, I want the Office of Film and Literature Classification and
> current censorship legislation reformed to target child porn,
You have evidence of material that is NOT targetted by the current
legislation?
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
>First, I have cited evidence that sodomy can be defined this way in
>english and
>
>Second, sodomy is a crime if you do not adopt a postivistic
>understanding of law and crime. Opponents of sodomy are typically not
>legal postivists.
Uhh it's NOT a crime -the law was changed it the 80s -if that what you
mean by a "postivistic" understanding of crime (i.e. what is a crime
is what has been criminalized) you'll have to explain what your notion
of what a "crime" is, and how it's better.
Unless you simply mean it's unethical (according to YOUR ethical
system) .
Could you explain if heterosexual sodomy is also a "crime"? Are
lesbians therefore not "criminals"? (within your system, of course)
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
>The same logic can be applied to homosexuals,
>
>It has never been a crime to be a homosexual, Presumably some men
>can't help being attracted to other men. The idea is so repugnant to
>me I assume it must be natural to them.
>
>What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons,There must
>be plenty of homosexuals working and living a normal life. Is an
>employer, landlord, restaurant owner etc. allowed to refuse employment
>or service to a paedophile? In my opinion not if he hasn't committed
>sodomy. But normally a homosexual wouldn't be known unless he was
>engaging in sodomy. In any case unless he is a sodomite he a probably
>can complain of discrimination.
>
>If one draws a distinction between act and orientation then
>discrimination against sodomites ( those who engage in sodomy) does
>not fall fowl of the ban on discrimination against sexual orientation.
>On the other hand if this distinction amounts to nothing then
>discrimination against child molestation can not be distinguished
>agaisnt discrimination against people with a pedophilic orientation.
The salient point, which you've missed in your effort to be clever, is
that gay rights involves "consenting adults". In the case of a person
involved in a sexual act NOT consenting, it is considered rape.
A child is below the age of consent. Ergo -it is rape.
> Nor for that matter can laws against incest and bestality be
>distinguished from this either as some people I presume cannot help
>being attracted to an animal or a close relative and by gay rights
>logic if this is true of around 1%-2% or so of people then it follows
>that people have a right to engage in such acts, and any
>discrimination against it is akin to racism.
>
>Matt
In the case of bestiality, an animal can't give consent. In the case
of incest, if a child is involved, they can't give consent. The only
possible dodgy call is incest between adult family members which did
not begin before one or both of the participants reached the age of
consent, and who are not mentally ill. Extremely unlikely.
David McLoughlin
> What is a crime is sodomy , copulation between male persons
I assure you that many if not most heterosexual couples commit this "crime" too.
Flannagan
First, what I said was that the argument used by a particular poster
viz a viz Peadophila could just as cogenty be used against
homosexuality, I demonstrated this by showing that the exact same
argument would entail certain propositions about homosexual sex, In
fact all I did was exchange the word homosexual for pedophile or
incest in the argument. Nothing you have said questions this, you
raise other arguments and suggest they may be sound but I never stated
anything about other arguments I was refering to the specific ones
mentioned, they are unsound.
Second, your claim is that homosexual sex differs from peodphila and
beastality et al because one is done between consenting adults and the
other is not. I have answered this point before,
You suggest that what makes bestality and pedophila wrong is that we
do have sex with it without its consent. I agree these practises are
wrong, but I doubt very much that this is because we engage in them
without the childs or animals consent.
The reason for this is that lack of consent by a child or animal does
not count for anything in any other context. With regards to children,
one does not normally require consent to do something to the being in
question. For example I do not need a childs consent before I operate
on it, nor do I need to ask its consent for any other activity in
order to do something to it. the idea then that one can wrong a child
by doing something to it without its consent is absurd. What governs
our duties to children is that we do not get parental consent and the
practise does not injure and harm them, if the practise is non
injurous and the parent consents then normally lack of consent on the
part of the child is a non issue.
As to animals similar things apply, in no other context are we
required to get an animals consent before we do something to it. We
may need the owners consent but if we have this and the action is not
creul (i.e inflicts excessive pain etc) then it is permissible. The
fact that an animal does not consent to an action is never an issue.
So whatever it is that makes pedophila and bestality wrong, it is not
the fact that we have not got the creatures consent. Something other
than consent, then must govern our sexual conduct if one is to make
sense of the prohibitions upon these practises.
Matt