JoePedo will pen the next Lolita, I'm calling it now.

Every pedophile on Earth needs to be locked up. They actively seek relationships with people who are not possibly old enough to maturely make decisions regarding those matters, especially sex. It's unfair to the child and it's shit that will hang around for life. Every pedophile will feed the bullshit, "But she'd done this and that and was so independent!" No, dude. You're taking advantage of a person whose brain hasn't fully developed and pursuing a relationship is only going to cause physical and emotional harm. I know a girl who went through this shit and it totally fucked up her teenage years and now carries through into early twenties. All those high school years of dying her hair brown, because she thought guys 'wanted' her for her blonde hair, severe trust issues with partners in the future, not being able to let them get too close in case they take advantage of her, social anxiety which resulted in poor grades in uni because she couldn't bear to go to class somedays.

If I saw JoePedo in the street and knew who he was, I would have to severely control myself from striking him with whatever instrument was nearby. I hope a man with some moral compass finds out about you, dude, and does it for me.

Hey man, did you not read properly?

She came on to him.

You're taking advantage of a person whose brain hasn't fully developed and pursuing a relationship is only going to cause physical and emotional harm. I know a girl who went through this shit and it totally fucked up her teenage years and now carries through into early twenties. All those high school years of dying her hair brown, because she thought guys 'wanted' her for her blonde hair, severe trust issues with partners in the future, not being able to let them get too close in case they take advantage of her...

inb4...
- DerDrache/KoB/Carbon start talking shit & calling me a "fag" and "weak" for not taking advantage of her in the "I'll put out if you'll be my friend" phase like a "real" man.

FTMFW!!!! lol...

how old?

,\|/
\_2

...and a half!!!

It's important, you know. Halves count for a lot.

If I saw JoePedo in the street and knew who he was, I would have to severely control myself from striking him with whatever instrument was nearby. I hope a man with some moral compass finds out about you, dude, and does it for me.

Uh-huh. 'n I'm sure I'd be, like, totally unable to offer up any resistance to your surging masculinity, allowing you to stand over my broken body and finally experience one moment of triumph to make up for all the miserable failure in your life... right?

Riiiiiiiight.

Don't worry, brother. I know I'm going to die for my race eventually. I learned that much before I was the age the girl under discussion was at the time, just like she had to learn and learn well that she was the only person that was going to look out for her.

But the difference between me and you is that I accept the inevitable. People in the real world sometimes have to grow up pretty fucking fast, and can't stay stuck on one thing when just making it by means coming to terms with some pretty incomprehensible shit and moving on. Only people with their perfect little life of sheltered priviledge have the luxury to stay stuck on set-tripping like they think it's some sort of panacea that will make up for their personal shortcomings, disappointed when it doesn't work, but returning to it over, and over, and over like a broken record. Those of us out here in the real world have real challenges which demand our attention, and don't have time to make up imaginary ones to feel better about ourselves, like we've ever accomplished something. We're too busy.

Unfortunately, your wish that my death in this civil war come from "a person with some moral compass" is drastically infeasible. This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis) should help clue you in. Kick back, pop in some tunes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSXM8yTbEA), and don't worry - I'll die fighting for my race soon enough, and I'll take the bastard that did it with me, too. Known that since I was in diapers - you learn it fast.

Of course, my death, when it comes, isn't going to change anything about you. So really, your underlying problems won't go away when it happens. They'll still be there, still gnawing at you, until you stop looking outside yourself for solutions to problems that lie within.

Sad thing is, if you breeder folk hadn't been so obsessive with this "pay no attention to daddy" bullshit to keep from owning up to responsibility for what you've done, chances are we could've ended runaway retrieval by now. Not to mention a whole host of other social ills.

Until then, people like me will have to keep cleaning up the messes left behind by people like you. Until we die. But that's pretty inconsequential, as another of my people will just take my place... every day's deaths are met with every day's births, and I'm just a stand-in in the flow of history.

Nothing will change until you stop looking outside yourself. Best of luck with that.

Okay.


That was pretty fucking cool.

Uh-huh. 'n I'm sure I'd be, like, totally unable to offer up any resistance to your surging masculinity, allowing you to stand over my broken body and finally experience one moment of triumph to make up for all the miserable failure in your life... right?


It's got nothing to do with 'surging masculinity' but to do with you drastically altering another humans life. You talk about my miserable failures in life... And then go on to say you were fucked up at a young age like this makes your crime somehow justifiable? Who's the one trying to experience a moment of triumph for miserable failures? Think about it, fuckwit.


Don't worry, brother. I know I'm going to die for my race eventually. I learned that much before I was the age the girl under discussion was at the time, just like she had to learn and learn well that she was the only person that was going to look out for her.


Yeah, at two and a half. Solid reasoning. People are well equipped to learn valuable lessons of independence at that age.



But the difference between me and you is that I accept the inevitable. People in the real world sometimes have to grow up pretty fucking fast, and can't stay stuck on one thing when just making it by means coming to terms with some pretty incomprehensible shit and moving on. Only people with their perfect little life of sheltered priviledge have the luxury to stay stuck on set-tripping like they think it's some sort of panacea that will make up for their personal shortcomings, disappointed when it doesn't work, but returning to it over, and over, and over like a broken record. Those of us out here in the real world have real challenges which demand our attention, and don't have time to make up imaginary ones to feel better about ourselves, like we've ever accomplished something. We're too busy.


Trust me, I know hard roads. The difference between us isn't that you accept the inevitable. The difference is that you project your mind-fucks onto another generation. What everyone else is doing is fucking irrelevant! You know what you're doing is wrong or you wouldn't have thought out this happy little fucking fantasy of, "Oh, but I'm just teaching kids how to be independent! People who don't understand this have just been sheltered and hidden from the real world!" Who's hiding from the real world?



Unfortunately, your wish that my death in this civil war come from "a person with some moral compass" is drastically infeasible. This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis) should help clue you in. Kick back, pop in some tunes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSXM8yTbEA), and don't worry - I'll die fighting for my race soon enough, and I'll take the bastard that did it with me, too. Known that since I was in diapers - you learn it fast.


I don't get it? You were fucked up so it's cool to fuck up other innocent people? What about the people that helped you, why don't you go and help them? The answer: there's no selfish sexual satisfaction in it for you. Don't hide behind this, "The world fucked me, so fuck the world!" You're trying to construct an intelligent argument.


Of course, my death, when it comes, isn't going to change anything about you. So really, your underlying problems won't go away when it happens. They'll still be there, still gnawing at you, until you stop looking outside yourself for solutions to problems that lie within.

Sad thing is, if you breeder folk hadn't been so obsessive with this "pay no attention to daddy" bullshit to keep from owning up to responsibility for what you've done, chances are we could've ended runaway retrieval by now. Not to mention a whole host of other social ills.

Until then, people like me will have to keep cleaning up the messes left behind by people like you. Until we die. But that's pretty inconsequential, as another of my people will just take my place... every day's deaths are met with every day's births, and I'm just a stand-in in the flow of history.

Nothing will change until you stop looking outside yourself. Best of luck with that.

Yeah, I will agree with you on the fact that the problem of pedophilia in society does gnaw at me. Most people do feel a sick repulsion at the idea. You say to look within for the solutions to these problems but this just shows that you don't understand why it gnaws at people. The outcome of this isn't 'piece of mind', it's protection for the worlds children. For that, the answer does lie outside, doesn't it?

A couple of questions; Do you have children? Do you have friends? Do you have friends that know about this lifestyle of yours?

Finally, do you know what happens to people like you in jail? Good luck with that.

Wow, pedo guy has a flair for the dramatic. And cheese.

Cheers.

Joe, you are by far my favorite pedophile. That's right, even cooler then my Uncle. Fuck, even Chris Hansen would like you.

Oh, my God, the lulzcow...

Anyways... to start somewhere else...

That was pretty fucking cool.

:D That's 'cause ascii + zeppelin can make ANYTHING into win!! :D

Anyways... now... to the epic lulz.

It's got nothing to do with 'surging masculinity'

Uh-huh. Suuuuuuurrre it doesn't, buddy.

but to do with you drastically altering another humans life.

Everyone changes the lives of those around them, grasshopper. Like a pebble dropped in a pond, the ripples flow outwards, without cease.

You talk about my miserable failures in life...

Yes.

Yes I did.

Mostly, because I reckon it ties in to your need to be "important" and "a(n) hero" by singlehandedly "vanquishing" people who exist solely and entirely in your fucking head, ya know?

Think about that for a bit. Maybe you'll learn a little bit about yourself, even.

And then go on to say you were fucked up at a young age

Actually, I think that you'll find that - unlike you - I wasn't particularly whining all butthurt about it. The world simply is, for better or for worse, and it is up to us to adapt to the situation and surmount it.

That's not to say that I might not end up whining all butthurt about this racewar and its effects at some later date... just that I don't think you'll exactly find it in that message.

like this makes your crime

Can you cite the case number, or are you just making this shit up?

Sort of ties into what I was talking about regarding "completely imaginary people who exist entirely inside your own head" as relates to your need to see yourself as some sort of "supreme hero," y'know?

somehow justifiable?

I need no justification, brother - I'm a living being on this earth, same as everyone (and everything) else.

When you understand the meaning behind that, you'll stop worrying about labels, and "us" and "them," or "self" and "other," and stop trying to hurt other people you know nothing about in an attempt to create for yourself some sense of self-worth, and realize that you have worth just the way you are, just like everyone else - including the people you "hate" but do not know.

Until then.... shanti. Just because you choose to reject your potential as a human being does not mean it is not a part of you.

Who's the one trying to experience a moment of triumph for miserable failures? Think about it, fuckwit.

Lol... I dunno, who's the one who has to make up imaginary people in their head so they can fantasize about "conquering" them to reinvent themselves as some sort of defender of truth and justice, again?

Wake me when you've got an answer to that one.

Yeah, at two and a half.

You don't read none too well, does ya?

Solid reasoning. People are well equipped to learn valuable lessons of independence at that age.

Well... she did.

She shouldn't have had to do so, but she did.

Trust me, I know hard roads.

Uh-huh.

I'm sure that's why you have to make up imaginary problems so you can imagine yourself solving them.

The difference between us isn't that you accept the inevitable.

ORLY? 'cause it seems you were pretty fucking hung up on its occurance, when death comes to everyone in the end, anyway. If you'd accepted it, you could just sit back and know it would be, without the intervention of human hand... and yet, you devoted a whole message to praying it would come about.

Do you have some sort of different definition of "to accept?"

The difference is that you project your mind-fucks onto another generation.

Oh, you're right - I'm sure she'd had a perfectly idyllic life, and I was just projecting when she told me about what had happened on her journey so far...

What everyone else is doing is fucking irrelevant!

You're right; your obsessive and delusional set-tripping is pretty fucking irrelevant.

Here's a question - I've been hearing mouthy little wannabe racewarriors since I was a fucking kid. Since you're obviously not just making up some fantasy about people you know nothing about, can you tell me what the hell is so special about you that makes you so god-damn different from the last ten thousand or so fake-down "breeder supersoldier" to spin me a fantastic tale about how I'll be "powerless" in the face of their "awesome vanquishment?"

'cause if not, you can shut the hell up and get in line like everyone else, son. 'n you could've probably figured that out before you opened your mouth, too.

You know what you're doing is wrong

Actually, I can drop a milligram of LSD and come out loving myself.

It judges far more harshly than any man, but unlike humans, it doesn't lie.

or you wouldn't have thought out this happy little fucking fantasy of, "Oh, but I'm just teaching kids how to be independent!"

No, actually - if you'd read, you'd notice that she damn well taught herself long before I showed up.

Now, who is it that's making up fucking fantasies to try to justify themselves because they know their violence and hurtful behavior towards their fellow living being is wrong? I'd say your break with reality - or at least your break with the english language and the written word - posits a potential answer.

"People who don't understand this have just been sheltered and hidden from the real world!"

Yes; people who have to make up imaginary problems to imagine themselves solving them with some sort of unrealistic invincible infalliability do tend to not be the people who have met and adressed the real challenges in day to day life, thanks for asking.

Who's hiding from the real world?

Gee, I dunno. Who's the one making up fantasies about "vanquishing the evil other" to bolster their self-esteem, again?

I don't get it?

I noticed.

You were fucked up so it's cool to fuck up other innocent people?

lol irony.

Anyways... no. For starters, I put in the long, long hours and god-damned hard work on self-development and introspection to make sure I wasn't fucked up by being born in a god-damned brutal civil war. Happiness isn't something you hope luck deals you, it's something you damn well get off your ass and forge with your own hand.

...as for the rest... case numbers on these "innocent people," or you're making shit up again. I get the feeling you do that a lot, and I get the feeling you mostly do it in an attempt to excuse your acts of violence against innocent people in a misguided and inefficient attempt to bolster your self-esteem - which is one reason I linked to the philosophy of lex talionis.

It's an upwards limit. Rather the maximal dividing line between good and evil, as well, which is one reason that you really shouldn't speak of a "moral compass" while proposing senseless violence without justification towards living beings, and all.

Maybe someday, you'll figure it out.

What about the people that helped you

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of fieldwork in the prevention of prejudice, ain't there?

why don't you go and help them?

I'd rather help the people who never helped me at all. An eye for an eye may be the dividing line between good and evil, but it also leaves the whole world blind.

The answer:

Lemme guess, you'd prefer to hear from the completely-imaginary people which inhabit your head?

Thought so. Maybe you should re-read the "you know what you do is wrong or you wouldn't make up fantasies" bit. Then re-read the wikipedia article on lex talionis and think about it...

there's no selfish sexual satisfaction in it for you.

You really have no idea what the ads for "feed the children"-type charities revolve around, do you?

Don't hide behind this, "The world fucked me, so fuck the world!"

Oh, I'm not - in large part because "a small minority of emotionally-unhealthy psychos" is not exactly "the world," whose main crime is inaction, rather than action.

...but also in large part because, while many people can recognize that your world is entirely flawed and corrupt, few actually scrape up the resources to build something new, something different and better to replace the void.

The difference between those two is just about the only reason we have so many problems, 'n quite frankly, for the most part, it seems like something to do with my time between now and the time when some emotionally-damaged psychopath murders me for no god damned reason. 'n judging by how well you fake-downs have done so far... I've got a bit of time to kill.

You're trying to construct an intelligent argument.

...whereas you're trying to construct a man of straw.

Yeah, I will agree with you on the fact that the problem of pedophilia in society does gnaw at me.

All day and all night, when you're alone in your bedroom and sleep will not come and in the light of day when you walk the city streets, I'm guessing?

Most people do feel a sick repulsion at the idea.

I'll bet. (http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=homophobia+plethysmograph&meta=)

You say to look within for the solutions to these problems

Yes.

Yes I do.

Mostly because the person you've wasted several messages railing against doesn't exist outside your own skull. You can't look outside yourself for a solution to a problem that starts and stops inside your own head.

When your eyes see a problem in the world physically immediately around you, look to the world around you for ways to adress this problem. When your mind sees a problem with the world you think is "out there" somewhere, look within your mind, for that is where the problem is contained.

but this just shows that you don't understand why it gnaws at people.

A desperate attempt at denial regarding the vast heterosexual culpability in the topic of "daddy issues," I'm guessing?

Here ya go, son. This is what heterosexuality looks like. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure5_2.htm)

Of course - except when I'm pissed off and/or damned well feel like it, damnit - it's pretty easy to figure out that even though the problem might be "fucking breeder won't stop beating and raping their damned kids," that doesn't neccisarily mean that everyone I talk to who happens to have the misfortune of being heterosexual is automatically the person responsible - the bad apples actually make up a tiny minority.

...but that doesn't change the fact that when I encounter someone who rather seems to have some sort of deep personal investment in going to extreme lengths to misdirect attention away from the heterosexual parent or caretaker, to the point of making up some bullshit story about chasing diaper faeries, I sort of assume their personal investment had to come from somewhere - if you catch my drift.

The outcome of this isn't 'piece of mind',

Have you ever considered that perhaps it should be?

it's protection for the worlds children. For that, the answer does lie outside, doesn't it?

Nope.

If you're spending your time tilting after windmills rather than confronting the heterosexual exemption laws which decriminalize rape (http://www.vachss.com/av_articles/willametteweek2.html) or the fact that a minor who is actively fleeing domestic and intrafamilial violence is barred from seeking safe harbor in a domestic violence shelter by a state which actively and nonconsensually traffics their human flesh back to the home they left to be subjected to the very rape the state wrote the laws to decriminalize, then it just so happens that you're a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution; the active misdirection of resources and effort away from its legitimate and intended purpouse is known as "embezzlement."

It turns out that the active solution to "get your mind right" is, actually, inside your mind - not outside of it. 'n as long as you're too afraid to speak truth to power, afraid to face the terrifying issue of heterosexual culpability in intrafamilial violence, afraid to look within the home rather than on some internet, and afraid to stand up to the breeder on the top of this racewar heap when their shit stinks rather than taking the "easy" social target as a scapegoat - it just so happens that you need to get your mind right if you want to not be full of shit. Not to mention a coward and a hypocrite.

But as long as you're facing pretend problems rather than real ones - the only solution to be found is one inside your own head, where the problem is contained. 'n conversely, if you ever want to adress real problems, you're going to have to put your mind on them, rather than elsewhere.

Either way, the solution lies inside you, not outside of it.

A couple of questions

Eh, sure.... what the hell.

Do you have children?

Nope. My signifigant other and I have been trying for a few years, but we haven't had any luck.

The doctor at the fertility clinic said it's because she hasn't hit puberty yet. 'n to think, I would've thought you would've had the basic biological knowledge to figure that one out.

Do you have friends?

lol no?

Do you have friends that know about this lifestyle of yours?

Actually, I have friends who know both my sexual orientation and my lifestyle. In case you couldn't figure it out, those are two seperate things which have nothing to do with each other; it's not like anyone hands you "the keys to the timeshare and a copy of the secret agenda" at your coming-out party, dude.

Finally, do you know what happens to people like you in jail?

Yes, actually, and unlike you I've heard it from people who have been in for childcrime, rather than just making it up in my head.

Turns out we run the food service cart and no one flicks us shit. Not that it matters much, because if I do go down on a drug beef, I'm going to be treated as a drug offender instead, no matter what my sexual orientation.

...but I suppose that much like "toddlers don't often breed," that was also a bit much for you to figure out on your own. So, since you didn't know, "what is your sexual orientation" is not part of the intake process for drug offenses. Now you know, and can skip the act of manufacturing controlled substances to find out.

I like you, kid. You're hella fucking amusing, you're actually delerious, off-base and out of touch with reality enough to make an excellent springboard for soapboxing, and with you around, I don't feel any need to rely on a man of straw, 'cause you'll engage in the phail for me so I don't have to. Maybe it's just that I'm running my catecholamine endosynthesis rather efficiently and in the gram range right now, but this is seriously fun. You're like a completely blank canvas here for me to paint on.

In the meantime, if you actually want to do something good in the world - or for that matter, simply not be evil - perhaps you should stop fantasizing about the harm you can do to some completely-mythologized "other," and start focusing on the service you can provide the very-real fellow human beings who are actually around you... if they're willing to accept it. Every living being you meet - friend or foe, human, animal, alien life form, or possibly even tree - is just another you, with all the hopes and dreams, trials and tribulations, complexities, fears, worth and potential that you have, no matter what their race, age, gender, sexual orientation... even their religious or political affiliation, believe it or not. Learn it, live it, love it, and it's a lot easier to do good in this world by doing good to people than it is to do evil unto your neighbor - who has every bit as much validity as you, no matter what.

It's also a hell of a lot more peace of mind than making up lies about people you've never met to try to justify the fact that you are in fact some sort of shady asshole, just so you know. Get your mind right, and you wouldn't even need it to feel good about yourself in the first place, really. Best of luck with that...

Wow, pedo guy has a flair for the dramatic. And cheese.

Hell yes.

:D Cheese... is what makes life worth living. Why be greyfaced when you can take life as it comes?

:D

'sides. Humanity has come up with a whopping two ways of dealing with the existance of life : cheese and whine. One of these just seems a lot more fun to indulge in to me...

This argument has provided many, many lol's.

Danny, keep going plz.

Joepedo, did you ever stick your dick in this 2 1/2 year old girl?

I'm confused as to wtf your arguing about and im not reading all that shit.

Either you got your nut on and are an evil asshole, or you didn't and are just weird.

FTMFW!!!! lol...



,\|/
\_2

...and a half!!!

It's important, you know. Halves count for a lot.



Uh-huh. 'n I'm sure I'd be, like, totally unable to offer up any resistance to your surging masculinity, allowing you to stand over my broken body and finally experience one moment of triumph to make up for all the miserable failure in your life... right?

Riiiiiiiight.

Don't worry, brother. I know I'm going to die for my race eventually. I learned that much before I was the age the girl under discussion was at the time, just like she had to learn and learn well that she was the only person that was going to look out for her.

But the difference between me and you is that I accept the inevitable. People in the real world sometimes have to grow up pretty fucking fast, and can't stay stuck on one thing when just making it by means coming to terms with some pretty incomprehensible shit and moving on. Only people with their perfect little life of sheltered priviledge have the luxury to stay stuck on set-tripping like they think it's some sort of panacea that will make up for their personal shortcomings, disappointed when it doesn't work, but returning to it over, and over, and over like a broken record. Those of us out here in the real world have real challenges which demand our attention, and don't have time to make up imaginary ones to feel better about ourselves, like we've ever accomplished something. We're too busy.

Unfortunately, your wish that my death in this civil war come from "a person with some moral compass" is drastically infeasible. This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis) should help clue you in. Kick back, pop in some tunes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGSXM8yTbEA), and don't worry - I'll die fighting for my race soon enough, and I'll take the bastard that did it with me, too. Known that since I was in diapers - you learn it fast.

Of course, my death, when it comes, isn't going to change anything about you. So really, your underlying problems won't go away when it happens. They'll still be there, still gnawing at you, until you stop looking outside yourself for solutions to problems that lie within.

Sad thing is, if you breeder folk hadn't been so obsessive with this "pay no attention to daddy" bullshit to keep from owning up to responsibility for what you've done, chances are we could've ended runaway retrieval by now. Not to mention a whole host of other social ills.

Until then, people like me will have to keep cleaning up the messes left behind by people like you. Until we die. But that's pretty inconsequential, as another of my people will just take my place... every day's deaths are met with every day's births, and I'm just a stand-in in the flow of history.

Nothing will change until you stop looking outside yourself. Best of luck with that.

Did you just dodge being a Pedo in this? You really didn't say shit!

Anyway you interest me, tell me some real pedo shit so I can jack off.

JoePedo is so good, he could make Chris Hansen come to his house.

[his last post]




Joe, you might wanna start making sense from time to time..

I know what you're talking about, but I seriously doubt anyone else does. You've laced every statement you've made with ambiguity, and I assume you're just pulling it right out of your brain and letting it ride out on here.

I kind of understand it, but your opponent here is talking about concrete issues (i.e fucking small children) and you are talking about civil wars, types of arguments, eye for and eye and shit. I get it, but at the end of the day all it is is muddying the waters. And the waters can get pretty fucking muddy.

i'll just say that if you don't believe in god, none of the arguments mean shit and Joe is equally justified in his actions as Mother Theresa was.

Joepedo, did you ever stick your dick in this 2 1/2 year old girl?

Three and a half.

I'm confused as to wtf your arguing about

Me? Nothing - I'm sitting here in chemically-induced bliss playing with Danny.

What's Danny arguing about? I sure as hell don't know, and I'm not even sure he knows. I think whether or not he could kick my ass through TCP/IP was part of it, though...

and im not reading all that shit.

Well, you read some of it. Danny's the only one who - god knows for what fucking reason - thought she was two years old. Probably because he didn't read the first post he replied to. At all.

Either you got your nut on and are an evil asshole, or you didn't and are just weird.

Aha! That false dichotomy is where you're wrong!

I could've nailed her but been kind-hearted. In fact, I could've been gruff but kind-hearted, or kind-hearted with a gentle exterior to match. Or, for that matter, I could have nailed her and been rather evil, but very polite... or, I could have failed to have nailed her and been evil and polite, or an evil asshole, or a good asshole, or even good without the rough exterior that keeps people at bay...

All things are possible, brother. Embrace the incomprehensibly vast scope of the universe!

Did you just dodge being a Pedo in this?

Nope! :)

Anyway you interest me, tell me some real pedo shit so I can jack off.

Sure thing! (http://www.asstr.org/~Cartwright/body.html)

...wierdest thing is I found out later I actually know the guy...

JoePedo is so good, he could make Chris Hansen come to his house.

...and come, and come, and... ;)

Thanks.

stuff

I fucking love you. :D

Just out of interest, and purely for my own curiosity, I have a couple questions.

What plethora of combinations of chemical substances did you take to get you into the mental state to write both long posts and posts with a deep psychological and philosophical undertone?

Is, as your name suggests, your internet persona your real self?

And a couple miscellaneous less-deep questions?

Are you from germany, or is it just because you use tor that that google search you linked to was a .de domain?

How long did it take you to write each post in this thread?

What plethora of combinations of chemical substances did you take to get you into the mental state to write both long posts and posts with a deep psychological and philosophical undertone?

Short-term? About a gram of caffiene, a cup of strong-ass chocolate with all the accoutraments... and probably more caesomorphin than is good for me.

I just made a shitload of cheese. :)

Long-term? Well, the biggest influences were probably LSD, buddhists, and the illuminati.

Speaking of which...

You've laced every statement you've made with ambiguity

Oh, not every statement...

The gentleman wanted to slap down a "moral compass" that was, well... laced with ambiguity. The calibration line for a moral compass, however - an eye for an eye, not more or less - is actually about as unambiguous as it gets, and has the incidental side effect of condemning Danny-boy as being more-or-less absolutely, unequivably evil.

It's an unfortunate side effect of wanting to kill a few billion people you've never met. Pretty much as ethically reprehensible as it can possibly get, in fact. Didn't win Hitler any brownie points, either.

'n that, quite frankly, is where the illuminati come in. The englightenment-era authors, who were really, really big on the idea that the illumination of knowledge and practice in art, science, history, and philosophy was itself a betterment of humankind, were also pretty big on justice - especially when it came to having the audacity to pronounce it upon governments - and pretty much pwned on figuring out that an eye for an eye being the determining and dividing line between good and evil pretty much put the motherfucking smack down on fucktarded demagogues who just want to fucking kill people.

The quintessential works on the philosophy of justice is unsurprising, as the authors of the englightenment were pretty much characterized as legalist anarchists and aetheist religious philosophers, paradoxical but true as it is. Check out deism, for example - flat-out atheist theism... or for that matter, the declaration of independence - not only the legal theory of executing your rulers, but in fact a legal argument and foundation of anarchy from the moment they threw that word "inalienable" in there...

The LSD and the roving troves of buddhists, otoh, were pretty much responsible for that interconnectedness-of-all-beings and the universalist nature of action which comes from this, and the whole equanimity of all beings and unattached love for their inherent worth that was in there...

...but, to be honest... I was rather prone to random ramblings before any substances at all. You would've thought I was a wierd kid, but my writings wouldn't have been much of any different in the dawn of my life. ;)

Is, as your name suggests, your internet persona your real self?

Yeah, pretty much... 'least I think so, and the mother of my goddaughter thought so.

Are you from germany, or is it just because you use tor that that google search you linked to was a .de domain?

Probably the proxy, but we'll never know. ;)

How long did it take you to write each post in this thread?

'bout as long as it would take to say it out loud, at least not counting the time I spend staring off into space or playing video games in the middle of a post. I type at about the pace I speak.

I notice you've got a little fan base here of 13 year old boys that are excited by the concept of pedophilia because they haven't had the chance to touch some boobies of their own yet. My question to them boys is, you're aware of why pedophiles like to impress kids, aren't you? Think about it. Chill out and know that one day you'll get to fuck women and it is as good as you think.

I've cut out a lot of the incoherent rambling you go on and responded to the few points you've made.


Mostly, because I reckon it ties in to your need to be "important" and "a(n) hero" by singlehandedly "vanquishing" people who exist solely and entirely in your fucking head, ya know?


Well, for starters, I assume you're a real person.


Can you cite the case number, or are you just making this shit up?


Look up a supreme court case ruling. Educate yourself on the doctrine of precedent. Pedophilia is a crime.


Lol... I dunno, who's the one who has to make up imaginary people in their head so they can fantasize about "conquering" them to reinvent themselves as some sort of defender of truth and justice, again?

Wake me when you've got an answer to that one.

You don't read none too well, does ya?


...It's nice to know I'm debating with an intellectual.


I'm sure that's why you have to make up imaginary problems so you can imagine yourself solving them.


Good argument. Pedophilia is definitely an imaginary problem. That's why there's so much fuss about it.


Actually, I can drop a milligram of LSD and come out loving myself.

It judges far more harshly than any man, but unlike humans, it doesn't lie.


We've all done acid. The realisations you come to about yourself are introspective. They have nothing to with your fail to function in society.


Yes; people who have to make up imaginary problems to imagine themselves solving them with some sort of unrealistic invincible infalliability do tend to not be the people who have met and adressed the real challenges in day to day life, thanks for asking.


Damn, man, that's so deep... Who's to say I'm not just your imaginary problem? Does that mean that you don't adress your real challenges in day to day life, 'thanks for asking'.

Cut the bullshit. That argument is laced through your whole post and it's elementary and off-topic. We're talking about you being a pedophile. You're a real person. Try and stay focused.


Anyways... no. For starters, I put in the long, long hours and god-damned hard work on self-development and introspection to make sure I wasn't fucked up by being born in a god-damned brutal civil war. Happiness isn't something you hope luck deals you, it's something you damn well get off your ass and forge with your own hand.


By touching children? By that same token then, you won't be annoyed when a child grows up and comes back to kill you with 'his own hand' to forge his happiness, right? See how all your thoughts here revolve around you. What makes me happy matters, right? Like you even said, you're not that fucking important.


It's an upwards limit. Rather the maximal dividing line between good and evil, as well, which is one reason that you really shouldn't speak of a "moral compass" while proposing senseless violence without justification towards living beings, and all.


Violence towards pedophiles isn't senseless.


You really have no idea what the ads for "feed the children"-type charities revolve around, do you?


I've been to Africa and been part of the work. If you're trying to infer conspiracy theory here, you're wrong. Some people in the world do like to help children.


...whereas you're trying to construct a man of straw.


Right. By not agreeing with the actions of a pedophile, right? You get more intelligent with every line.


Mostly because the person you've wasted several messages railing against doesn't exist outside your own skull. You can't look outside yourself for a solution to a problem that starts and stops inside your own head.

When your eyes see a problem in the world physically immediately around you, look to the world around you for ways to adress this problem. When your mind sees a problem with the world you think is "out there" somewhere, look within your mind, for that is where the problem is contained.


You go over the same ground, again and again and again... You do exist. You're a pedophile. I disagree with the actions of pedophiles. That's real world shit. Cut the melodramatic horsecrap.


Here ya go, son. This is what heterosexuality looks like. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure5_2.htm)


Okay. Parents are usually the perpetrators. You're still a pedophile. That doesn't change anything about our debate.


Yes, actually, and unlike you I've heard it from people who have been in for childcrime, rather than just making it up in my head.

Turns out we run the food service cart and no one flicks us shit. Not that it matters much, because if I do go down on a drug beef, I'm going to be treated as a drug offender instead, no matter what my sexual orientation.


My aunty works for the federal police (Australia). I have two friends of the family that are screws in the prison. I have two mates who have had prison sentences; one recently released and one still serving.

From what I know of it, the pedophiles end up in the 'protection ward' after the screws let them get fucked a few times. Other people serving sentences have kids too and the thought of some loser chasing after their children will get under their skin. Maybe the American jails are nicer...


I like you, kid. You're hella fucking amusing, you're actually delerious, off-base and out of touch with reality enough to make an excellent springboard for soapboxing, and with you around, I don't feel any need to rely on a man of straw, 'cause you'll engage in the phail for me so I don't have to. Maybe it's just that I'm running my catecholamine endosynthesis rather efficiently and in the gram range right now, but this is seriously fun. You're like a completely blank canvas here for me to paint on.


Right, I'll 'phail' for you. Which is why you've posted such a lengthy response.


In the meantime, if you actually want to do something good in the world - or for that matter, simply not be evil - perhaps you should stop fantasizing about the harm you can do to some completely-mythologized "other," and start focusing on the service you can provide the very-real fellow human beings who are actually around you... if they're willing to accept it.

I studied an undergraduate degree in Anthropology and am studying a graduate degree in Law. I'm an active member of Amnesty International and regularly attend and help organise functions to advocate the protection of human rights. I've done volunteer work overseas in Malava (Western Kenya) and am going back there next November after university to continue.

You seem to have me pitched as some internet drone, hating on you to try and look popular. May I remind you that you're the one trying to impress your little fan base here. Get your shit together, get a real life, stop fucking up children and stop pretending to be intelligent.

Now, fuck off.

I notice you've got a little fan base here of 13 year old boys that are excited by the concept of pedophilia because they haven't had the chance to touch some boobies of their own yet. My question to them boys is, you're aware of why pedophiles like to impress kids, aren't you? Think about it. Chill out and know that one day you'll get to fuck women and it is as good as you think.


*16.
And I've probably done more to girls (my own age) than you've done in your whole fucking life ..
And I could care less about what someone does in their life, I simply find the guy's way of putting across points and the length of his posts quite interesting .. nothing to do with what he decides to do in his own life.


-kthxbai :)

And I could care less about what someone does in their life, I simply find the guy's way of putting across points and the length of his posts quite interesting .. nothing to do with what he decides to do in his own life.

Basis of judging people: Not what they do with their lives but rather the how they raise points and the length of said posts?

That's why you are, will remain, will associate and for ever associate with losers.

*tips hat to Danny JMC*

Basis of judging people: Not what they do with their lives but rather the how they raise points and the length of said posts?

The only way you can communicate on a forum is through posts, if I was meeting him in real life it may be a different story.

The only way you can communicate on a forum is through posts, if I was meeting him in real life it may be a different story.

Fair point. He does make interesting points and they are articulated very well. But he's still trying to justify pedophilia which is something I can't understand you'd look past, because pedophilia is the trait of a sick human.

I notice you've got a little fan base here of 13 year old boys

What can I say? Thirteen year old boys luuuuuv pedos! It's what made Athens great!!!

Of course, on a more realistic note, most of my friends and associates on &t... aren't actually thirteen. Which sort of ties back into your pathological need to make shit up about other people to try to bolster your own ego.

that are excited by the concept of pedophilia because they haven't had the chance to touch some boobies of their own yet.

"...which sort of ties into your pathological need to make shit up about other people to bolster your own ego."

My question to them boys is, you're aware of why pedophiles like to impress kids, aren't you?

Amusingly enough, this also falls under the same category... but since it's probably going to get tedious by the end of your message, we'll just leave the issue of your making shit up to bolster your own ego unstated...

I've cut out a lot of the incoherent rambling you go on and responded to the few points you've made.

No, you actually haven't responded to any of the salient points, and pretty much just proceeded to babble... but hey. It's just another blank canvas...

Well, for starters, I assume you're a real person.

No, you presume some imaginary shit you made up in your head is a real person, and decided to project it onto others. Apparently, so you could bolster your own ego.

Look up a supreme court case ruling. Educate yourself on the doctrine of precedent.

Riiiiiggght. Link me to the supreme court case I've been a defendant in, or you still just tried to make random bullshit up and are now trying to backpedal.

Pedophilia is a crime.

False (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion).

...It's nice to know I'm debating with an intellectual.

What - your reading comprehension did utterly fail you, and you are running around making up imaginary people in your head.

Good argument. Pedophilia is definitely an imaginary problem. That's why there's so much fuss about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Satans-Silence-Ritual-Making-American/dp/0465071813

:D Genius argument. Nice to know I'm dealing with such an intellectual as to think ad populam determines reality, lol...

We've all done acid. The realisations you come to about yourself are introspective.

We have a winner...

They have nothing to with your fail to function in society.

Which you made up, without evidence, in an attempt to feel that you're superior to someone. Also in an attempt to change the topic, incidentally.

Damn, man, that's so deep... Who's to say I'm not just your imaginary problem?

To a great degree, you are; all I have to do to avoid criminal hate groups is to turn off my computer and go outside.

Does that mean that you don't adress your real challenges in day to day life, 'thanks for asking'.

I'm sure as fuck not doing so when posting on a message board. Instead, I usually do it between postings.

...the difference, though, is that I really don't have to make up a man of straw to have something to "defeat" to bolster my little e-peen. That's a pretty big difference, and I suggest you do a little more acid. "Introspection's" sort of a pretty key concept there.

Cut the bullshit.

After you?

That argument is laced through your whole post and it's elementary and off-topic.

No, the fact that you know nothing about me and completely make shit up about people you don't know to feel better about your own self-worth, while possibly an elementary truth, is very, very much on-topic.

You were asked to cite case numbers on all these "innocent people I've harmed." You couldn't, and tried to get away with some bullshit about how "someone else had been on trial once!!"

Well, guess what, you stupid sack of shit. I'm not some third guy which you also haven't met. I'm also not some third guy you have met. You're tilting at completely imaginary people in your own head.

That's not a sign of mental health, dude. When you spend more time interacting with pretend people you made up than you do real people, something's wrong.

Period.

We're talking about you being a pedophile.

Great. I'm babyqueer.

/thread.

You're a real person.

Yup.

The person you just launched several posts on, however, is not.

Try and stay focused.

lolz irony.

By touching children?

Non sequiteur.

By that same token then, you won't be annoyed when a child grows up and comes back to kill you with 'his own hand' to forge his happiness, right?

Well, for starters - your making shit up aside - that really wouldn't work. A happiness dependent on others is not feasible, really; the underlying happiness or unhappiness would be unchanged by my hypothetical death, and any such person would be stuck with the underlying issues having wasted time which could have actually been spent adressing their own internal process rather than a convenient vessel unconnected to their own thoughts and emotions.

...but then again, I suppose if you could've figured that out, you wouldn't spend all your time in pseudomasturbatory fantasies about people you don't know.

See how all your thoughts here revolve around you.

Yes. And all your thoughts revolve around touching children, freak.

What makes me happy matters, right?

Yes, actually; the subjective happiness of every living being is important.

Of course, I find it fucking hilarious that you're trying to pull this autocentrism spin out of a charming portion of text where I inform you that the last bullshit you tried to make up is false and that I'm actually doing perfectly well. Of course the happiness of others is pretty unrelated to the question of whether or not I'm happy. It would've been silly of me to go babbling off-topic - like you're doing.

...but... hey. If we're ever chattering all about the psychological health and self-acceptance of, say, Tony Blair... I'll try not to make it all about me.

Like you even said, you're not that fucking important.

Yup! None of us on this earth are, 'n that's actually one of the greatest things there is. It leaves us free.

The only value on this earth are our own subjective experiences, and those matter - no matter how silly - because we experience them. Nothing is "important" or "unimportant" except people, who have the value of one unique, individual life.

Violence towards pedophiles isn't senseless.

lol... that's why I linked lex talionis. To make fun of an evil sack of shit like you.

I've been to Africa and been part of the work. If you're trying to infer conspiracy theory here, you're wrong. Some people in the world do like to help children.

...like UN peacekeepers.

However, you're still babbling off-topic. Have you worked in their advertising department? Hell - any advertising department? Right. Not relevant to the quip.

Try to bring some fucking mosquito netting next time, dude. "Pretend hero" isn't as cool when real human lives are cast by the wayside.

Right. By not agreeing with the actions of a pedophile, right? You get more intelligent with every line.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Let's look at that one again, shall we?

...whereas you're trying to construct a man of straw.

Right. By not agreeing with the actions of a pedophile, right?

Can you actually provide evidence of any of these alleged "actions," or are you making shit up again?

You do know what a man of straw is, right?

Good. Nice to see I'm dealing with such an intellectual.


You go over the same ground, again and again and again...

Probably because you're a fucking idiot.

You do exist.

lol...

Amusingly enough, you can't prove that.

Back to the point, however... yes. I exist. The person you're trying to talk to doesn't exist, because you live your entire life in a fucking fantasy land.

See the difference?

You're a pedophile.

...and the boys in the 'hood are always hard...

I disagree with the actions of pedophiles. That's real world shit.

Oh, it's "real world shit?" lol... great.

Then you'll have no problems accomplishing one little thing : name one action I have undertaken in the real world that does not involve posting on &totse.

What? What's that, Lassie? You can't? Because you live in a delusional fucking fantasy world while reality passes you by?? Awww... poor baby....

But, maybe I spoke too soon, and you'll be able to post a photograph of me buying coffee at the corner store this morning or something. I'm guessing not, because you're a 5150 emotionally-damaged fucktard who's retreated into a god-damned fantasy land, but... that is just a guess!

Okay. Parents are usually the perpetrators.

Ahh, the noble honor of the heterosexual...

You're still a pedophile. That doesn't change anything about our debate.

True, but you're still the class-culpable child rapist, and I am not.

Which is epic entertainment.

My aunty works for the federal police (Australia). I have two friends of the family that are screws in the prison. I have two mates who have had prison sentences; one recently released and one still serving.

From what I know of it, the pedophiles end up in the 'protection ward' after the screws let them get fucked a few times. Other people serving sentences have kids too and the thought of some loser chasing after their children will get under their skin. Maybe the American jails are nicer...

Not all the reports I field regularly are from the USA, and your fantasy land is irrelevant.

Right, I'll 'phail' for you.

Well, it's kind of you to be consistent.

Which is why you've posted such a lengthy response.

A completely-blank canvas is a beautiful thing.

I studied an undergraduate degree in Anthropology and am studying a graduate degree in Law.

I consider this improbable on account of the fact that...

1. You're a fucking moron, and...

2. You know nothing of even the most basic premises of law.

I'm an active member of Amnesty International

lolz irony.

and regularly attend and help organise functions to advocate the protection of human rights.

:D You could actively get somewhere if you'd just look within yourself.

I've done volunteer work overseas in Malava (Western Kenya) and am going back there next November after university to continue.

Mosquito.

Nets.

You seem to have me pitched as some internet drone, hating on you to try and look popular.

Not at all - I've pitched you as some sort of mentally-damaged fucktard living in a fantasy land which you project on innocent passers-by.

Currently, that still stands.

May I remind you that you're the one trying to impress your little fan base here.

Not particularly.

Get your shit together

Doin' pretty well.

get a real life

:D

stop fucking up children

See, this is where I point back to the fact that your perverse sexual fantasies are all in your head, Danny.

and stop pretending to be intelligent.

Oh, don't worry... I only pretend when I'm alone in a lab.

I don't give a shit about people for one simple reason; I learned at an early age that the laws of nature hold no prejudice. They simply are.

Maybe if you'd had an epiphany like that, you wouldn't have had to withdraw into a fantasy world.

Now, fuck off.

lol...

After you. :D

Just as a little heads-up, though... you're not going to save face on this one, so give that up as a goal. You have a perfectly-pretend caricature in your mind. You decided to project that on some random passerby to justify your senseless and violent impulses. You're stuck with the problem that you know nothing at all about this person or anything they have and haven't done. 'n you're going to be called out on the floor on that fact for mostly reasons of process and history. This has all happened before, it will all happen again, and it's not one of the more pro-social things humans have ever done.

Nor one of the healthiest.

When you someday figure out that a hero doesn't need a villian, you - and human history - will be a bit happier. Until then - to be rudely blunt - I'll just continue to play with the least-evolved members of the human species until either they gtfo the thermodynamic metastable state of their psychological unhealth (hint : two minutes' on a caricature is a panacea, but it will never fix your underlying problems)...

...or, until I come down and get bored of trying to uplift my fellow human. Now, again...

- describe to me all the actions which I, not some other person, have undertaken outside &totse, or...

- the imaginary people in your head are coming to get you!

The only one who can bring you health and happiness is yourself.

Basis of judging people: Not what they do with their lives but rather the how they raise points and the length of said posts?

That's why you are, will remain, will associate and for ever associate with losers.

*tips hat to Danny JMC*

Cheers man.

Shit
Ohh, i want to try too.

Tell me more about that fantasy land you speak so much about, and add the part where you know so much about what goes on in another human's mind.

The problem i see here, is that you dont want to address the real topic, and instead, for your own entertainment, you try to somehow change it in to something it is really not. Which only shows the kind of life style you live.

Now we all know that Joe is smart, right? But here you disappointed me. You kept on talking about some bullshit fantasy world. Side note, what’s wrong with fantasies, its just as pure as any other thought. And why do you try so hard to persuade us that you don’t have any?


Instead I want to hear some chemical solution that makes sex with kids ok. Frankly I think he is not a pedo, but a person that has too much time on his hands (not a pun at you, rather i think its a good thing) and likes to argue.

To finish this off, respect to Danny, Joe try harder next time.

Edit. Got to stay on topic man.

I don’t know how you could date someone unless they catch your eye, now if she caught my eye, that means I like what I see, and I like perfection. 8/10 or better.
I say quality over quantity when it comes to dating, boys.

Once again joe I refuse to read all of the shit you guys typed. Maybe you already answered this, but you probably didn't.

Did you ever get your rocks off on this 3 and a HALF year old girl? Could she identify your dick in a police line up of cocks?

I expect you will reply to this with a giant block of text, none of which will give an actual answer. Its a yes or no question.

So what say you, yay or nay?

Ohh, i want to try too.

Sure, what the hell!

Tell me more about that fantasy land you speak so much about

With pleasure!!

and add the part where you know so much about what goes on in another human's mind.

Well, it's pretty simple!

If a person...

1. Chooses to make statements at length about the character of my actions, and...

2. Actually has no idea what any of my actions are

...then...

The only conclusion is that they are fantasizing about my actions. ;)

Of course, there are several other ways for me to "know so much" about what goes on in another person's mind. Chemical observation, for instance. In this case, though, I didn't bother to speak of any of them, and instead kept it... elementary deduction, my dear watson.

The problem i see here, is that you dont want to address the real topic

...which, as I recall, was about how some guy was going to "kick my ass over the internet."

and instead, for your own entertainment

Yeah. Pretty much.

you try to somehow change it in to something it is really not.

Nah.

The minute someone claims to know all about me, the topic really is "it's all in your head, you delusional motherfucker." Honest.

It'd be like if I claimed to know the tattoo on your chest sucked without having a picture thread in &totse to reference. Really, I have no idea what your chest looks like, and would have to just be making shit up.

'n - speaking of wild guesses and making shit up - if I just started going off about how the southern cross on your chest was really fucking lame, you'd probably reply with something involving the notion that I was ragingly delusional, too. Mostly because it doesn't have shit to do with the real world.

Which only shows the kind of life style you live.

...covered up by dark clouds? Dealing with these suckers but they only seem to bark loud?

Now we all know that Joe is smart, right?

Eh, debatable. ;)

You kept on talking about some bullshit fantasy world.

Nah. That was Danny. I was the one shouting "It's all in your head, motherfucker" and suggesting that perhaps he should start posting links to the case numbers on all the shit he was pulling out his ass...

Naturally, he couldn't, because, well... it was all in his head. Sad life, really, being plagued and tormented by figments of your own imagination.

Side note, what’s wrong with fantasies

In Danny's case?

Oh... danger to self or others, inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and the little side matter of extreme dysphoria caused by constantly being tormented by all the different people who are only in his head...

In short, "discomfort and inability to function."

its just as pure as any other thought.

Well, they can be... if you understand the reasons why... where they come from, how they came to be, and the like.

Kinda funny; it's actually an axiom of psychology that a neurotic delusional architecture is always compensating for its inverse. The root essence of violence (whose fantasies, for some reason, always end in triumph, imagine that) is an attempt at power over others, whose root nucleus is "power."

It just so happens that the opposite of "power" is "powerlessness." 'n a synonym for power - the ability to produce a desired effect - is competence.

Now, root axioms are a little less certain than elementary deduction; they require one to believe psychology exists, for one thing. Nonetheless, it certainly posits some interesting questions about this person's life, doesn't it?

And why do you try so hard to persuade us that you don’t have any?

Don't think I have.

In fact, there's a post back there somewhere (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10683018&postcount=16) that specifically mentions spending time daydreaming about, well, slightly younger women.

They may be more boring than you like, but hey, that's not my fault...

Instead I want to hear some chemical solution that makes sex with kids ok.

ROHYPNOL FTMFW!!!!!!

On a more serious note... oxytocin. Look it up. You may not like it, but a mixture of vigorous orgasms and positive skin-to-skin contact is actually vital in ensuring an emotionally and physically healthy child...

Now, I'm sure some militant antipaederotic argumentator in denial, who actually did look it up, will point out that "they don't have to happen at the same time!!!" Hell, they'll probably even propose some ultrapuritan crap like making the child give themselves the damned orgasms or something...

Well, technically, that is true. They don't quite have to happen at exactly the same time... but how much time have you got in a day, man?!?!? You have to kill two birds with one stone, or you'll never get a chance to sleep!

Nature solved this problem by making breastfeeding into a process which chemically induces a sexual arousal which is jacked through the roof. God or Darwin - or both - are wise, and yes, you can look that up, too.

She just don't sleep like a baby unless she's a bouncing baby girl, ya know?

Frankly I think he is not a pedo, but a person that has too much time on his hands (not a pun at you, rather i think its a good thing) and likes to argue.

:D

You're half right. ;)

To finish this off, respect to Danny, Joe try harder next time.

Well, hell... I was hoping he was dumb enough to continue to actually try to project his fantasies on reality. You'd be surprised what some of these brain-damaged mongoloids come up with, and there's nothing moar full of lulz than some idiot shouting "YOU'RE GARY GLITTER'S SECRET IDENTITY" and actually believing the shit.

Instead... he quit while he was... umm... less behind. Which takes away a bit of my lulz, but it's probably for the best.

Guess it teaches me about the long game. Ah, well. I've still got a lot of posts to catch up on. Including one still thanks to Danny, in which I discuss, well... mind, molecules, and what real moral dilemnas look like. ;)

I don’t know how you could date someone unless they catch your eye.

Epic interjection. The pedos thank you for the understanding and support you have written. ;)

Did you ever get your rocks off on this 3 and a HALF year old girl? Could she identify your dick in a police line up of cocks?

I expect you will reply to this with a giant block of text, none of which will give an actual answer. Its a yes or no question.

So what say you, yay or nay?

"Please try to keep all conversations theoretical in nature."

- &totse rules. ;)

That question answered, I think I'll throw in a giant block of text, none of which will give an actual answer, and observe that the importance of the equanimity and coequal validity of all living things has much farther-reaching implications to the broader thread than was noted in their brief prior mention.

...but, I haven't finished retyping the post that died in the browser crash, so... 'cest la vie.

Blessed are we who have had a smaller hand to guide us, for the light shines upon us all...

;) Plur.

zomg he fucked teh kid lolololol :o

I might just add that I don't think you're stupid, JoePedo, but I think your arguments are idiotic. Furthermore, you know it. You know that being a pedophile is wrong but you have to justify it because it's who you are. Seriously though, stop defending it. Just accept that it's a sick trait in humans. There's no argument that makes pedophilia justifiable. Quit.

Secondly, notice how nobody thinks your argument is strong?

Me and scovegner agreed that he pretty much ran rings around you, but then again we're just 15 year olds.

Would I be wrong in saying that maybe the reason nobody wants to agree with Joe is because it's kind of scary that a paedophile can actually articulate a point? Of course if he was normal and liked girls his age, then we'd all agree with him because it would make it easier to sleep at night.

'Hypothetically' I was just looking for a yay or nay joe, and you might as well have just said 'yay' because your lack of an answer essentially provides one.

I'm not gonna jump on the bandwagon and contribute to this name calling/flame war (which is basically: Pedos = bad vs Joe who likes to type a lot and clearly gets a kick out of riling everyone up).

If you type 3 pages of response to this, rest assured, I wont read it. But do you really see nothing wrong in doing 'stuff' to a 3 1/2 year old? (no matter how fucking mature they are)

If you think the answer is yes then I just feel bad for you. I know you're a pretty smart guy from all the science shit you post (which makes your pedo ways even more frightening) but I find it hard to believe that someone with your natural intelligence can't see the faulty logic in your reasoning. The only explanation I can come up with is that you were a really 'mature' kid yourself, if you get what I'm implying there. Either that or some other incident had a strong effect on you.

Personally I don't really give a shit what you do. Seduce 3 year olds, lynch niggers, put babies in a blender, I don't give a fuck. Do whatever you want. So long as it doesn't directly affect me.

Just don't delude yourself into thinking there is nothing wrong with it. Your personal bias is preventing you from seeing the truth. Take it from an outside perspective, you are tricking your own mind to believe what you want to.

Like I said, I don't care what you do. But don't think its perfectly fine just because you can blind yourself with a maze of circular logic.

Me and scovegner agreed that he pretty much ran rings around you, but then again we're just 15 year olds.

Would I be wrong in saying that maybe the reason nobody wants to agree with Joe is because it's kind of scary that a paedophile can actually articulate a point? Of course if he was normal and liked girls his age, then we'd all agree with him because it would make it easier to sleep at night.

Putting all flamewars, biases and beefs aside for a moment, imagine yourself with a few more years around the mid-twenties region. Just say you meet a girl that's your perfect match and you have children. You watch your child just come out of nappies, learn language and start to experience the world.

Then an older bloke comes along and fucks your two year old kid.

How would you feel?

This isn't a stab at you and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just genuinely curious about what you would do and how you would react to it. Would you accept it?

Putting all flamewars, biases and beefs aside for a moment, imagine yourself with a few more years around the mid-twenties region. Just say you meet a girl that's your perfect match and you have children. You watch your child just come out of nappies, learn language and start to experience the world.

Then an older bloke comes along and fucks your two year old kid.

How would you feel?

This isn't a stab at you and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just genuinely curious about what you would do and how you would react to it. Would you accept it?

I'd be pissed and probably kill the guy that did it. I don't think any of us (including Joe) tried to "justify" anything. It was merely an explanation.

Personally I don't really give a shit what you do. Seduce 3 year olds, lynch niggers, put babies in a blender, I don't give a fuck. Do whatever you want. So long as it doesn't directly affect me.


I agree with the rest of your post but this line strikes me as odd.

If everyone had this mentality then all the racists, baby-killers and pedophiles would remain on the street and could fuck your children up. Wouldn't you regret letting these guys get away with it until they fuck your child?

The extension to that is; you don't feel empathy for other parents who have to deal with their kid getting fucked up? What if it was yours?

I'd be pissed and probably kill the guy that did it. I don't think any of us (including Joe) tried to "justify" anything. It was merely an explanation.

If you'd kill a guy that would do it, why do you support Joe? It doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that it's only significant if it happens to you?

I agree with the rest of your post but this line strikes me as odd.

If everyone had this mentality then all the racists, baby-killers and pedophiles would remain on the street and could fuck your children up. Wouldn't you regret letting these guys get away with it until they fuck your child?

The extension to that is; you don't feel empathy for other parents who have to deal with their kid getting fucked up? What if it was yours?

Right now theres like 100,000 million kids in africa with aids. Thousands starve everyday. Thousands are murdered everyday. Guaranteed theres several genocides going on right now. Do you care about them? Are you doing anything about it? No.
Tragedy is just part of life, theres nothing I can do to stop it.
Aside from that I don't really like humanity, we are a cancer to the earth and are the most self centered, violent, and destructive species on the planet.
I don't believe in god, free will, or morals. To me a random human baby is equivalent to a rock. They are both composed of atoms.
I don't really even believe in time. I think everything that will happen has already happened, and we are just experiencing it for some crazy scientific reason.

I feel bad when people I care about suffer, but besides that, I could give 2 shits and a fuck about all the other people on the planet I will never meet.

E: If I could press a button that would stop joe from being a pedo, I would press it. But there is no such button, and I don't see how caring makes a difference. At the end of the day, joe will still be a pedo, and this will annoy/anger you, where as I don't really care. Nothing will change, but I am relaxed, whereas you are not. Thats the only difference I can see. Who knows though, maybe I'm not making sense, I have been up all night doing speed.

If you'd kill a guy that would do it, why do you support Joe? It doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that it's only significant if it happens to you?

Chichi is still young, and its easy to impress the young with anarchy and destraction of norms, which were put my society(this is not to say that Joe's argument was not impressive, and I have to add, pointless). But Joe had no real point that Chichi could be proud of, this is what I want to say. And Chichi, you are a fag, aren't you? That's not normal either.


Now Joe, could Chichi's homosexuality be a result of, let's say, touchi feeli games with his(who was is it Chichi, that abused you?), and that Chichi blocked out of his memory? I say it very well could be.

Chichi is still young, and its easy to impress the young with anarchy and destraction of norms, which were put my society(this is not to say that Joe's argument was not impressive, and I have to add, pointless). But Joe had no real point that Chichi could be proud of, this is what I want to say. And Chichi, you are a fag, aren't you? That's not normal either.


Now Joe, could Chichi's homosexuality be a result of, let's say, touchi feeli games with his(who was is it Chichi, that abused you?), and that Chichi blocked out of his memory? I say it very well could be.

I'm not a homosexual, and I wasn't sexually abused.


I'd like to point out that I find JoePedo to be disgusting. I was reading his posts when I was eating breakfast and I had to stop. He disgusts me, I do not look up to him and I'm not part of his "fanbase".

All I'm saying is that I at least admire how he hasn't tried to escape from himself. He's undergone personal growth. See, the paedophilia is just his "medium" for knowledge and soul searching or whatever. Take away the attraction to children, and he's still a smart fucking guy who understands himself. I wish I had that degree of introspection.

If you'd kill a guy that would do it, why do you support Joe? It doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that it's only significant if it happens to you?

Forget totally about the topic for one second, how bad it is, how 'evil' joe is ..
And if you do that then you shall see that he really did 'win' the argument, have you noticed that he never once said that he did it, and not once did he try to say his own actions were right when you first replied to him .. you pulled all that shit out your arse ..

I'll finish this later .. gotta go now ..

Forget totally about the topic for one second, how bad it is, how 'evil' joe is ..
And if you do that then you shall see that he really did 'win' the argument, have you noticed that he never once said that he did it, and not once did he try to say his own actions were right when you first replied to him .. you pulled all that shit out your arse ..

I'll finish this later .. gotta go now ..

My argument is and always will be that pedophilia is wrong. Joe dodges the fact that he did it because he wouldn't admit to something like that online. It doesn't matter if he thinks his own actions are right or wrong. They are wrong.

Putting Joe aside, my whole argument centres around pedophila being wrong. Does anyone disagree with that?

Putting Joe aside, my whole argument centres around pedophila being wrong. Does anyone disagree with that?

No, not even Joe disagrees with you. I think if you just said that in the first place you would have saved me a whole lot of thread derailment.

I'm not a homosexual, and I wasn't sexually abused.


I'd like to point out that I find JoePedo to be disgusting. I was reading his posts when I was eating breakfast and I had to stop. He disgusts me, I do not look up to him and I'm not part of his "fanbase".

All I'm saying is that I at least admire how he hasn't tried to escape from himself. He's undergone personal growth. See, the paedophilia is just his "medium" for knowledge and soul searching or whatever. Take away the attraction to children, and he's still a smart fucking guy who understands himself. I wish I had that degree of introspection.

Your bi, and since guys can’t be bi (in my head, and i wont bother to explain), that means you are a homosexual:). Now the fact that you were physically abused as a child, and you remember it, does not mean that you were not sexually abused, because in a lot of cases, and i mean a lot, a child will block those memories, and add bi curiosity to make my point even stronger.

And you admire his personal grows, the grows toward pedophilia? If he chose to be a monk and left the world because of his "sickness", that I would admire, but not him preaching that pedophilia is fine, or maybe that’s just me...

http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/picard-facepalm.jpg

No, not even Joe disagrees with you. I think if you just said that in the first place you would have saved me a whole lot of thread derailment.

What the fuck did you think I was arguing about?

EDIT: Yeah, my bad on fucking your thread up.

What the fuck did you think I was arguing about?

EDIT: Yeah, my bad on fucking your thread up.

S'ok.

Through these pages and pages of arguement, here is what I have extracted.


Pedophilia is wrong, and yes it is disgusting, but it is a phsycological disorder, Joe is sick, with no want of getting better. I do not beleive there is a way to fix these people, someday, he may get caught and arrested, and put into jail, where there will be many many angry large men.


Basically, you can't control your chemical imbalances, everyone has urges, I'm not at all justifying it, I find it utterly disgusting and the thought of anyone ever touching my future children upsets me to no end, but I do not beleive he can be helped, much like a serial killer.

Secondly, notice how nobody thinks your argument is strong? I didn't quit while I was, 'less behind'; I got sick of arguing with an idiot.

Notice how everything you've "argued" revolves around "what I do," and yet you can't provide one shred of evidence for any action I've taken, or that you know anything about me? Notice how that points to this whole fantasy drama beginning and ending entirely in your fucking head??

Furthermore, you know it. You know that being a pedophile is wrong but you have to justify it because it's who you are.

Well, you're half right; I am aware that the moral impetus of the genetic imperative is to ride and die for my race, so children born like me have less of a burden of work in killing off bigots like you which stand in the way of human lives for no other reason than the fact that you like to hurt people to satisfy some gaping emotional void in your character.

The first half of your sentence, however, is fairly fucking nonsensical. You should also type the phrase "argument by assertion" into a search engine sometime. You might learn something.

But do you really see nothing wrong in doing 'stuff' to a 3 1/2 year old?

Well, that's not a simple yes or no question, for one reason; the right to judge the value of events in the life of a given three year old belongs to that individual, and no one else. Ergo, the answers "yes" and "no" will both be present, as likely will other answers.

You're right, though; self-ownership of one's own life and one's own experience is independent of "maturity," or any other external approval.

I know you're a pretty smart guy from all the science shit you post (which makes your pedo ways even more frightening) but I find it hard to believe that someone with your natural intelligence can't see the faulty logic in your reasoning.

There's an even more frightening answer; I could be right.

After all, Danny hasn't even managed to come up with anything more salient than "you're a fag," maybe with some appeal to violence and threats. That's... not much of a logical foundation...

...but... hey. You're in luck. There's this thing called "propositional calculus;" it's formal logic expressed in variables.

You could always put it there. Variables don't lie. ;)

If everyone had this mentality then all the racists, baby-killers and pedophiles would remain on the street and could fuck your children up. Wouldn't you regret letting these guys get away with it until they fuck your child?

...or adherents to antipaederotic hate groups. I find it fucking hilarious that you're all so convinced that you're going to only pop out heterosexual babies in that fantasyland you've got in your skull.

And Chichi, you are a fag, aren't you? That's not normal either.

Now Joe, could Chichi's homosexuality be a result of, let's say, touchi feeli games with his(who was is it Chichi, that abused you?), and that Chichi blocked out of his memory?

Well, no actually; the "orientational seduction" models have been debunked as utter horseshit decades ago...

...but thanks for showing your true colors. ;) It really helps clarify the issue, and lets the many tribes focus on the true enemy - heterosupremacist authoritarian bias.

Thanks. :)

dodges the fact that he did it

Case numbers, or you're making shit up... ;)

I notice you play "pretend" alot.

What the fuck did you think I was arguing about?

I honestly don't think you even know. Stimulus, response. No thought, no clarity.

Putting Joe aside, my whole argument centres around pedophila being wrong. Does anyone disagree with that?

~raises hand~

chichi has some fucking low standards then....

I have no idea if you're trying to make a crack at his bisexuality or his not joining the two minutes' hate.... I'll assume it's the latter, in part because I was debating chuckling at this when arquin pulled the same...

As far as I can tell, this charming little shitfest has been divided into three camps. I don't have the right to dictate another's subjective experience, so this is just an estimate, but it's the best guess I see at the moment...

- people who hate "pedophiles," and have very little neural tissue left.

- people who, for whatever reason - culturally-influenced moral assumption, aesthetic, framesetting, and the like - tend to not be fond of thinking of sexual activities involving children, and...

- me. Who is thoroughly enjoying the lulz, mind you. Not to mention, doing what I've been trained to do - exploiting the enemies of my people as the grotesque caricature of a human being they are. It's easy, it happens naturally.

Now, the thing I find hilarious in this is that group two has pretty much made a flat-out declaration along the lines of "I just flat-out try to ignore his sexual orientation and judge him for the person he is."

Alright, by itself, that's not all that hilarious... but then we have group one, desperate for group two to not exist, cheerfully harassing them and accusing them of "low standards" and having "faulty basis for judging people" and the like... for judging on the content of character rather than an arbitrary label - a label which, as Danny's pretty well established, they don't even actually have any idea what it means, they just know "it's a bad thing to call someone."

I... find this fucking hilarious. Calling people "shallow" for judging people as individuals rather than on the basis of some confused name-calling is... rather freaking ludicrous, in the "fall down on the floor and start laughing" sort of ludicrosity. I mean, sure, it sort of defines the pathology inherent in group one - forward-projection of fantasy blocking out the real world - but it's still knee-slapping hilarious to listen to people go around preaching about how they dream that "one day, a person will not be judged by the content of their character... but by the arbitrariness of a random label."

Definate lulz. Almost up there with Danny's "if u taek ppl as teh ppl teh iz ur baby will be raepd!!" speech (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10693950&postcount=89), which is a god-damned lollercaust.

'n that's actually why I love these multipage shitstorms. Sure, they don't really do much to adress the real work of ensuring that the children of my race born today won't have to go through this shit, but the surrealist acrobatics of the mentally ill throwing a tantrum are always a riot of hilarity. It's just one of the little perks which can make a day all better before stepping back to the real world...

Oh, lawd... I like where this thread is heading. I think it's going to the path of win... or at least, epic lulz... :)

Anything relating to this is to be posted here, obviously. You know well enough NOT to derail threads.

Wow.. what did I miss?

Things...

So...many...memes...

I like your style JoePedo, except the paedophilia... I do not approve...

Unfortunately for you, Vladimir Nabokov was not a pedophile. Not even close. And despite what you've heard, Lolita is a novel about love.

And for the record, since I doubt more than a few people in here have actually read it, the girl comes on to Humbert Humbert. She initiates the sex, not him.

I'm always fairly interested in these threads but every time I try to read one my attention span gives up far before my interest thus rendering the attempt massively useless.

tl;dr

Notice how everything you've "argued" revolves around "what I do," and yet you can't provide one shred of evidence for any action I've taken, or that you know anything about me? Notice how that points to this whole fantasy drama beginning and ending entirely in your fucking head??


One shred of evidence.

My argument is and always will be that pedophilia is wrong. Does anyone disagree with that?


~raises hand~


I'm not even going to bother to explain again why pedophilia is sick. You're deluding yourself if you think it isn't and you haven't produced anything to justify it. Not that you will.

Go on now, rant about racewar or my "delusional fantasy's" or some other off-topic shit. I'm sure it will hold up in a court room.

I was going to post, but Danny has said everything I wanted to say. Behind you 100% there

Right now theres like 100,000 million kids in africa with aids. Thousands starve everyday. Thousands are murdered everyday. Guaranteed theres several genocides going on right now. Do you care about them? Are you doing anything about it? No.
Tragedy is just part of life, theres nothing I can do to stop it.
Aside from that I don't really like humanity, we are a cancer to the earth and are the most self centered, violent, and destructive species on the planet.
I don't believe in god, free will, or morals. To me a random human baby is equivalent to a rock. They are both composed of atoms.
I don't really even believe in time. I think everything that will happen has already happened, and we are just experiencing it for some crazy scientific reason.

I feel bad when people I care about suffer, but besides that, I could give 2 shits and a fuck about all the other people on the planet I will never meet.

E: If I could press a button that would stop joe from being a pedo, I would press it. But there is no such button, and I don't see how caring makes a difference. At the end of the day, joe will still be a pedo, and this will annoy/anger you, where as I don't really care. Nothing will change, but I am relaxed, whereas you are not. Thats the only difference I can see. Who knows though, maybe I'm not making sense, I have been up all night doing speed.

I understand where you're coming from. Ignorance is bliss.

To answer your question though, I studied an undergraduate in Anthropology and am studying a graduate degree in Law and yeah, I've been to Malava in western Kenya to do volunteer work with the people. I'm an active member of Amnesty International, against the violation of human rights and plan on going into Human Rights law when I graduate.

Based on that rationale, it doesn't bother me if people don't understand or decide not to take action against humanitarian issues, but they shouldn't ever try and convince other people that it isn't worth it.

I'm not religious either but I do like people.

I understand where you're coming from. Ignorance is bliss.

To answer your question though, I studied an undergraduate in Anthropology and am studying a graduate degree in Law and yeah, I've been to Malava in western Kenya to do volunteer work with the people. I'm an active member of Amnesty International, against the violation of human rights and plan on going into Human Rights law when I graduate.

Based on that rationale, it doesn't bother me if people don't understand or decide not to take action against humanitarian issues, but they shouldn't ever try and convince other people that it isn't worth it.

I'm not religious either but I do like people.

Come on now lawyer-in-training. You can do better than that.

'Bad shit happens' is not a justification for other, unrelated bad shit to continue happening. This type of argument is weak.

First off, genocide is not pedophilia. They're unrelated issues.

Secondly, the above poster was saying that 'there is genocide and it's bad, and there's pedophilia and it's bad. Since I can't do shit, both are ok.

This doesn't prove either to be morally correct, nor does it prove that it's ok to do nothing. It simply shows that an individual cannot stop genocide or prevent wars, etc. It is neither a justification nor a defense of either pedophilia or genocide.

The final problem is that just because one person usually can't stop such problems (without being a head of state or someone who wields significant influence in the matter) does not mean that no one should avoid trying to stop such problems from occurring. It also does not justify a position in favor of such actions, nor does it justify a neutral position on the issues.

Why? Because if you deem something to be wrong, you must stand against it, no matter how little of an effect you may have on the outcome. If you don't, you're a part of the problem you already admitted exists.

Yes. We figured that out when you misused your moderative authority to deface the thread.

Come on now lawyer-in-training. You can do better than that.

Considering that he thinks it's a perfectly normal process of law to lock people up for "being a fag" rather than any specific action, the chances of him having put in even a preliminary layperson's study of the foundations of law are about... "jack shit."

First off, genocide is not pedophilia. They're unrelated issues.

While the former is true... you should really study what's going on in the western world. ;)

Wow.. what did I miss?

An epic shitstorm which lulz fall out of like candy from a beat-up white van...

And for the record, since I doubt more than a few people in here have actually read it...

Guilty as charged. I can't get through more than a few paragraphs without getting rather sick, so I skipped the p.o.s., to be honest...

One shred of evidence.

Evidence of inaction - in this case, failing to hate in the precise fashion which you demand in butthurt tantrum that everyone else hate just the same as you - is not even close to being evidence of any specific action.

You're just full of epic fail. I have to wonder... do you actually posess these mental deficiencies, or is it just an affectation?

I'm not even going to bother to explain again why pedophilia is sick.

"Again?" You didn't bother the first time, unless "I'll kick your ass over the intarwebz" is your excuse for a reasoned and well thought-out proposal.

For that matter, it's actually impossible for you to ever do so. In part because "sick" is a content-free perjorative which can have no meaning, though you've got a shitload of other obstacles if you clear that one.

You're deluding yourself if you think it isn't...

Remember that bit where I suggested you type "argument by assertion" into a search engine?

Try it sometime. You could learn alot about yourself.

...and you haven't produced anything to justify it.

:D Quite deliberately... and one of the reasons I laughed my fucking ass off when wires tried to deface the thread. :)

Best of all... I don't need to. ;) The inherent coequal validity of all living beings is the default case. Pedophilia doesn't need justification; it simply is. :)

Go on now, rant about racewar...

Silly boy, your reading comprehension is about as skilled as your formal logic, isn't it?

The presence of a racewar is not consequential to the application of the clarification of lex talionis in the analysis of the warring sides, nor was it claimed to be. It's an observation of fact and an explanation of the genetic imperative when one is born in such a situation.

'n I more than enjoy my duties.

or my "delusional fantasy's" or some other off-topic shit.

No, the fact that your postings revolve around a fantasy world that exists only in your head and does not exist outside of it is actually pretty fucking on-topic to the job of laughing at everything you've posted so far.

I'm sure it will hold up in a court room.

Actually, "the prosecutor has no cause for evidence of any illegal action" does hold up in a courtroom much, much better than "your honor, he's a faggot!!"

Then again... if you'd actually studied law rather than trying to make-believe on the internet, you'd probably know that already.

I like your style JoePedo, except the paedophilia... I do not approve...

Thanks! :)

I have to ask, though...

So...many...memes...

Wires borked the links when she vandalized the thread. Which post were you referring to?

Anyways... go ahead and just insert the meme-jokes. God knows it's not going to detract from the quality of the conversation in this shitfest, lol...

You really should read it. It's actually beautifully written, with a ridiculous number of obscure allusions. It's probably one of the best-written books I've ever read, and I've read a lot.

On another note, I think my biggest problem with this thread is that it seems really pointless to attack you. I think pedophilia is disgusting, but despite my feelings on the matter, I know nothing about you. As I far as I know you've never posted anything incriminating, i.e. stories (confessions) of you actually molesting children. For all I know you're just a creative writer having fun.

I am, however, completely against pedophilia. I cannot see any justification for it whatsoever, whether it be ethical, moral, or anything else. I find it repulsive, and I am glad there are people in the world working to prevent it, and prosecute pedophiles whenever and wherever possible.

My issue, then, cannot really be with you. I don't know your situation. I can hope you aren't who you claim to be, but there's nothing I can do to actually stop you. Arguing in a forum would get me nowhere.

What people should do, instead, is work to stop pedophiles when they suspect something is up. If people find things morally or ethically wrong, then they should work to prevent those things from happening, or seek justice through proper legal channels if it's possible.

In this particular situation, there's nothing that can be done. You haven't admitted committing any crimes, and no one can stop you from posting. This situation, then, seems to be a stalemate.

Wires borked the links when she vandalized the thread. Which post were you referring to?

Mostly just classics.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10686326&postcount=9

Mostly just classics.

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10686326&postcount=9

Oh, I got scared that someone hacked my account for a sec.

Mostly just classics.

:) Oh, yeah... that one. I'll admit, I was definately in a, umm... perky... mood when I strung that one together, lol.

Thanks for the link. ;)

You really should read it. It's actually beautifully written, with a ridiculous number of obscure allusions. It's probably one of the best-written books I've ever read, and I've read a lot.

~shudder~

Yeah... I'll give him credit that he did an excellent job at false-flagging the set identifiers; he's got a pretty good grasp of our knowledge (though outside individual names, a shitty-ass grasp of our history which would probably get his ass beat if he tried to pass).

...but... I really can't get over the fact that it's nothing more than so much cheap victorian pulp, a poorly-written, dime-novel trash morality play as was common in the victorian tabloids of the era.

To be sure, it's not the first time "official deciders" of "teh classics" have made such an error, and mostly from the same era; great expectations was a soap opera written for the lower classes, for instance, and it rather shows in the plotline. I'm honestly wondering if future generations will throw out Lawn Dogs or Boys Don't Cry or Sundays and Cybele in favor of To Catch a Predator and Days of our Lives, the determination of "literature" being thrown to the peanut gallery of an age...

Then again, being in an unusual position, I knew it was trash from the moment "I know, perhaps I'll just feign interest in her mother" entered the equation. Still, if you think it's literature, you might honestly want to read some of the other pulp morality of the age before you finish making up your mind.

Just to swing on a tangent...

I am, however, completely against pedophilia. I cannot see any justification for it whatsoever, whether it be ethical, moral, or anything else.

:)

Actually, there are a number of ethical philosophies which lend their support to the paederotic, and even their free expression; utilitarian ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) is a model which actively sanctions all instances in which the happiness of the involved parties is increased, and as prior mentioned, the foundational doctrine of justice, lex talionis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_talionis), likewise gives its blessings to all cases of positive outcome or honorably conducted.

Since lex talionis is at the heart of the non-agression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) underpinning both libertarian and anarchist philosophy, support for the paederotic and the equality of the free expression of themselves and their partners is an explicit foundation of both libertarian and anarchist ethics, albeit a coincidental and accidental one. 'n continuing that vein, a teleological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_ethics)-based philosophy posited on the premise of free-willed self-determination would support a wide array of all free-willed expression for the paederotic and their partners; similarly, a teleology predicated upon the welfare and happiness of the children of a village/state/nation/etc could readily derive both the teleology of free will as the default case as well as the teleology of the maximization of recourse, the necessity of including all willing parties - parents, friends, lovers, neighbors, et alli - to maximize the number of possible nodes which a child might turn to for assistance in directing the furtherance of their own perception of their welfare.

A teleology of the happiness and welfare of the children in a society might also skip the philosophy and posit the emotional harm of forcible seperation through violence from one's loved ones, at that - a conclusion also derived through the nonagression principle and several other ethical philosophies, including the utilitarian.

The deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics) school of ethical philosophy, however, pretty much sanctions all well-intentioned acts; crazy as it is, this is basically the only school of ethical thought which would allow "but I luvz tehmz" to stand as an ethical justification to forcible rape.

Excluding the extreme implications which could be cast upon deontology - perhaps, for instance, by considering a disregard of expressed wishes as a bar to "good intentions" by a teleology of self-determination in the pursuit of happiness, which would rule out rape fairly well - and even with the man of straw removed from the equation, deontology creates several interesting paradoxes. It not only sactions any acts in a paederotic relationship done with the intentions of increasing the happiness or welfare of the other party, but furthermore, while it pretty much bars Danny and Wires from ever being anything but "absolute evil" (senseless malice and hatred not being listed under the "good intentions" category), it would sanction someone more well-intentioned inflicting violence on the hypothetical pedophile in question even while it gave its blessing to said 'pedophile.'

As you might imagine, the vague "intention" of deontology is considered by some to be an incomprehensible mire into which one is better not to wade - but as it sanctions all acts done in love and respect with the intent of the benefit of human beings, it sanctions both pedophiles and their freedom.

In legal philosophy... the universal declaration of human rights (http://un.org/Overview/rights.html), one of the foundational documents in human rights legislation, rather explicitly promotes the equality of pedophiles as well as supporting their equal freedom for themselves and their partners; to take article 1 alone, "equal in dignity" is enough to serve as an unconditional endorsement of pedophiles, while both "equal in rights" and "born free" are an unconditional endorsement of both their freedoms and their partners' freedoms. Similarly, the 'non-distinction' clause of article 2, the equality clause of article 7, the right to remedy in violation in article 8, the full equality in article 10, and the like are full-throated endorsements of equality in freedom of action of both the paederotic and their partners, while the "right to life" of article 3, the recognition as a person before law of article 6, the prohibition on arbitrary detention in article 9, and the like are a total and uncompromising support of pedophilia and pedophiles, though not themselves declaring support for their equality in freedom or at law. (though the "liberty" in article three does guarantee this, as do the equality irrespective of status clauses).

Similarly to the above, the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide (http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/genocide.htm) provides a rather unyielding endorsement of pedophilia, though not of paederotic freedom or equality at law. Ironically, between the nationalist-seperatist movements existant, the continuity of history, and the heritability studies of Langevin and the like, we actually manage to constitute a national, racial, and ethnic group simultaneously out of the "national, racial, ethnic, or religious group" of article II.

Since we're talking about endorsement, I believe you will find most english-speaking governments, but far more rarely any others, in complete violation of counts (a)-(e) of article II; Danny's public incitement towards murder on the sole basis of actual or percieved status would count as a violation of III(c) and possibly III(b), though I doubt he's as qualified to stand trial under III(a) and III(d) as he would like to pretend. Most people living under a criminally-operating government are guilty of III(e), which as far as I can tell is just there to allow people in my position to get really fucking trigger happy and get away with murdering anyone we want. Not that this is a bad thing...

So really, you cannot say "no moral philosophy justifies pedophilia" - in fact, damn near every moral philosophy condemns the mass-murder of several billion people with no greater justification than actual or percieved status. Existance... really doesn't need justification.

Concurrently, you cannot say "there is no moral philosophy which justifies the coequal freedoms of the paederotic and their partners" - you can only say "I do not subscribe to any such philosophy."

And that is perfectly fine.


On another note, I think my biggest problem with this thread is that it seems really pointless to attack you. I think pedophilia is disgusting, but despite my feelings on the matter, I know nothing about you.

...and that, my good sir, is what makes you more basically sane than your prior compatriots, and frankly, lets you avoid falling into the traps which Danny and others managed to lay for themselves. ;)

For some reason, you'd be surprised how few people there are who have opinions on actual or percieved status other than their own, who are willing to admit "I know nothing about you" upon encountering the thought-terminating cliche. I was actually pretty serious when I mentioned the forward-projection of fantasy obscuring reality in the mentally ill, and I would like to very much commend you for avoiding the one large, glaringly-obvious, and yet astoundingly common pitfall.

It's a mark of honor. Congrats on figuring your way out of the trap.

'misuse' - lol. Don't fuck up other peoples threads, I don't care how long winded and obnoxious you are about it, it doesn't make a difference.

Ps - you are a sick fuck.

Ps - you are a sick fuck.

Exactly.

You don't think pedophilia is wrong. That's just a fucked up view. For that reason, Fanglekai, I think it is worth personally attacking someone.

This thread is going nowhere.

'misuse' - lol. Don't fuck up other peoples threads

I didn't, actually; that was Danny (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10684843&postcount=2), as is a matter of public record.

Ps - you are a sick fuck.

Awwww... not everyone is exactly like you? How do you sleep at night - with the locus ceruleanis ripping through the nucleus accumbens in a Ca++ cascade, killing off your capacity for happiness with every waking moment, depleting the striatia negra, choking back the VTA, and everytime the amygdala fires the locus cerulianis into the hippocampus, it all comes back, a violent and authoritarian father, a detached mother who didn't want this burden and just tried to get away, to retreat, to disclaim her part in it all, and the corticoid release of the hypothalamus searing away at the hippocampus, until the world becomes more and more simple, until everything becomes more black and white, more divided into "us" and "them," as the nucleus accumbens dies off and the dopamine is starved from the ventral tegentum, and every time the locus cerulianis dumps into the hippocampus, the hippocampus fires into the amygdala, telling it to light up the locus cerulianis into the hippocampus, and it all comes back...

I don't envy you. You don't have my condonement, but you sure as fuck have my pity.

You don't think X. That's just a fucked up view. For that reason, Fanglekai, I think it is worth personally attacking someone.

"Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung#Maxims

...err, I mean...

http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html

;) lol...

The funny thing is... since your methodology is not nearly as new, or progressive, or unprecedented as you seem to think it is... the responses are also well established from historical study and field experimentation in applied methodology...

Sort of makes the outcome certain. 'n in case you're wondering, your team has never won, and has always had whatever name it was operating under become synonymous with "the contemptible depths of evil" in the light of history.

This thread is going nowhere.

Glad you've figured that out; it only took, what, seventy posts for you to finally figure out that you can't actually violently assault someone over TCP/IP?

Without violence, your methodology has nothing. Sucks to be you. Best of luck finding actual mental health and happiness...

Glad you've figured that out; it only took, what, seventy posts for you to finally figure out that you can't actually violently assault someone over TCP/IP?


Why do you keep saying that? I never made mention of beating you down over the internet. Not even once. Oh no, hang on, you're, "Projecting your fantasies onto someone else!"

Idiot.

So really, you cannot say "no moral philosophy justifies pedophilia" - in fact, damn near every moral philosophy condemns the mass-murder of several billion people with no greater justification than actual or percieved status. Existance... really doesn't need justification.

Concurrently, you cannot say "there is no moral philosophy which justifies the coequal freedoms of the paederotic and their partners" - you can only say "I do not subscribe to any such philosophy."

And that is perfectly fine.



While you may be right about moral theories not condemning paedophilia, moral theories can be used to justify practically anything.

Joe, you don't really seem like the kind of pedo that people imagine. This confuses and...arouses me.

I didn't, actually; that was Danny (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10684843&postcount=2), as is a matter of public record.



Awwww... not everyone is exactly like you? How do you sleep at night - with the locus ceruleanis ripping through the nucleus accumbens in a Ca++ cascade, killing off your capacity for happiness with every waking moment, depleting the striatia negra, choking back the VTA, and everytime the amygdala fires the locus cerulianis into the hippocampus, it all comes back, a violent and authoritarian father, a detached mother who didn't want this burden and just tried to get away, to retreat, to disclaim her part in it all, and the corticoid release of the hypothalamus searing away at the hippocampus, until the world becomes more and more simple, until everything becomes more black and white, more divided into "us" and "them," as the nucleus accumbens dies off and the dopamine is starved from the ventral tegentum, and every time the locus cerulianis dumps into the hippocampus, the hippocampus fires into the amygdala, telling it to light up the locus cerulianis into the hippocampus, and it all comes back...

I don't envy you. You don't have my condonement, but you sure as fuck have my pity.

joepedo is verbose, long-winded and never gets to the fucking point

No matter how much you twist this issue into something that it isn't, Joe, pedophilia is wrong.

At first I thought you were trying to rile everyone up. You actually believe that it isn't, which makes it so much more disturbing. I hope one day you slip up and get fucked, Joe.

Well, no actually; the "orientational seduction" models have been debunked as utter horseshit decades ago...

...but thanks for showing your true colors. ;) It really helps clarify the issue, and lets the many tribes focus on the true enemy - heterosupremacist authoritarian bias.

Thanks. :)




Whoa wow, wait a fucking second.
I listen to "love line", and i believe everything, and i mean everything Dr. Drew says.


Now you are not arguing with a person with no medical degree(yet) on the topic of sexual confusion and child abuse, you are arguing with Dr. Drew.

Could you really argue with Dr. Drew? ;)

joepedo is verbose, long-winded and never gets to the fucking point

lol... in that post, for those with ADD, the tl;dr is the first and last sentences.

Why do you keep saying that? I never made mention of beating you down over the internet. Not even once.

Nor did I say you did in that post, but it still doesn't change the fact that that sort of monkeyfucks the suppression of political dissent through physical violence - doesn't it?

No matter how much you twist this issue into something that it isn't...

Aww... so now you're trying to change your story to where you aren't supporting the assault of people who dissent against violence towards and/or internment or liquidation of several billion people for no other reason than their percieved status of birth??

You actually believe that it isn't, which makes it so much more disturbing.

Oh.

I guess not.

I hope one day you slip up and get fucked, Joe.

Yeah.

Damn those hard, hard potsmoking charges.

...lol.

While you may be right about moral theories not condemning paedophilia, moral theories can be used to justify practically anything.

Well... true. Outside of a teleology of genocide as its own end, though, not a damned thing is going to be backing up Danny anytime soon - which is sort of the difference between "almost anything" and "anything."

Probably more to the point, though... it's a beautiful fact of reason that a theory can be constructed which leads to anything, but each leaves its methodology in its wake. Nonagression beyond "eye for an eye" vengance is a pretty freaking simple principle to understand, whether or not one follows it... and while, say, fangelakai could probably muster up a charming moral derivation against transgenerational sexual acts which was both internally consistent and in active violation of the limitation of agression to the bounds of lex talionis, perhaps by the teleology of "preservation of culture X at all costs," it would be readable as a simple "if a then b."

This allows the philosopher or reader to ponder to themselves - do they want to preserve culture X as the operating culture of a given locality? Do they want to promote freedom and equality of all independent of status? Do they want to maximize the welfare of their community's children? Their community's parents? Their community's industral-ownership class?

Once they figure out what they value, they can face the implications of that, no matter how uncomfortable. Incidentally, the welfare of children and parents tends to argue for the integration of the paederotic as coequal or semiequal partners in society, maximizing the number of people who can be turned to for help and the avaliability of childcare, respectively, while the welfare of the industrial-ownership class argues against - mandatory procreative affectional affiliation (and the resultant mass of kids to take care of) combined with scarcity of support in child care tends to mandate cheap labor and an indebted slave class...

...but I'm digressing. I doubt fangelakai could form an argument against pedophilia per se that he was comfortable with, though, as that just amounts to the continued existance of a couple billion people, as opposed to their deaths.

As relates back to the topic, like I said - once they figure out what they value, they can discover the derivations of said values. 'n conversely, if one observes that "these ethical philosophies come to conclusion x," then one can take that and look to how it was derived.

That is their value - not as absolute universals, but as discrete statements. Not everyone believes "murder is wrong" - several ethical philosophies are rather fond of murder, for instance, albeit in varying cases - but everyone of minimum intellectual function can conclude that "if murder is wrong, then murdering bob is wrong."

Discrete, quantified statements. ;) The road there is the message...

Joe, you don't really seem like the kind of pedo that people imagine.

This might just be because the people who control your TV aren't exactly nice or friendly voices in any way, shape or form...

...and, of course, there's also the issue of the government-affiliated thug caste; if one of the broadcast stations were to violate party rule by saying "hey, maybe people are just people, not labels," they'd have someone like Danny throwing a brick through their studio window and coming to their house with "whatever instrument was nearby."

Luckily, the processes are pretty well historically documented. But... yeah. I'm not what you imagine in part because the people who told you what to imagine aren't very nice people. Sucks like that.

Truth be told, if I ever did find "a pedophile like on TV," I'd probably be at risk to smack them upside the head. In fact, I think I've already done so at least metaphorically, courtesy of kenshiro...

~sigh~

The youth of my people need better role models to live up to on their TV.

This confuses and...arouses me.

Awww... <3 Thanks. ;)

Believe it or not, the latter half of that is not that uncommon... females often have paederotic elements in their fantasy, in which they are usually the younger partner. Males, on the other hand, tend to have their fantasies revolve around from the shared boundary between the paederotic and epheberotic, into the early epheberotic, and usually involve straight shota 'n some hot teacher or babysitter or somesuch, at about the same frequency... ;)

The reasons, I don't know all of 'em... but I'm glad the thought of a friendly pedo could turn your crank. ;)

Lawd knows, the more cranks turning in the world, the better. Thanks... ;)

Discrete, quantified statements. ;) The road there is the message...



Gotcha.

This might just be because the people who control your TV aren't exactly nice or friendly voices in any way, shape or form...

...and, of course, there's also the issue of the government-affiliated thug caste; if one of the broadcast stations were to violate party rule by saying "hey, maybe people are just people, not labels," they'd have someone like Danny throwing a brick through their studio window and coming to their house with "whatever instrument was nearby."

Luckily, the processes are pretty well historically documented. But... yeah. I'm not what you imagine in part because the people who told you what to imagine aren't very nice people. Sucks like that.

Truth be told, if I ever did find "a pedophile like on TV," I'd probably be at risk to smack them upside the head. In fact, I think I've already done so at least metaphorically, courtesy of kenshiro...

~sigh~

The youth of my people need better role models to live up to on their TV.


I don't watch TV, but it doesn't so much matter the medium as the message and the way in penetrates into every part of culture just because it is on TV. Pretty much no one likes pedophiles, so they demonise them as much as they want. I can sort of see how people are inclined to act like this, just because of how things have been presented to them.


Awww... <3 Thanks. ;)

Believe it or not, the latter half of that is not that uncommon... females often have paederotic elements in their fantasy, in which they are usually the younger partner. Males, on the other hand, tend to have their fantasies revolve around from the shared boundary between the paederotic and epheberotic, into the early epheberotic, and usually involve straight shota 'n some hot teacher or babysitter or somesuch, at about the same frequency... ;)

The reasons, I don't know all of 'em... but I'm glad the thought of a friendly pedo could turn your crank. ;)

Lawd knows, the more cranks turning in the world, the better. Thanks... ;)

I'm a guy. In case you didn't know.

Maybe I'm being won over by "the dark side," but I guess that feeling comes with the territory of not agreeing with the raging masses. I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary and feel in some way distant from the flock, or superior. If anything I'd much rather fit in, but I find your argument (however longwinded and tangential) quite compelling.

*hits submit and awaits flames*

Out of interest Joe, what is your stance on pedophilic relationships where the other party does not offer any form of consent ; aka 'child rape'?

I'm a guy. In case you didn't know.

Ahso desu!!!

~makes little note in psychology and demographic distribution notepad~

;)

Maybe I'm being won over by "the dark side," but I guess that feeling comes with the territory of not agreeing with the raging masses.

lol...

...courtesy of the first young girl who decided that I should be her masturbation aide and partner, I definately know the feeling... where the intersection of "hmm, I'm sure I'm perfectly comfortable to form thought independently and maturely regardless of the 'appropriateness' of the conclusion" and "OMG WTF WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON" intersect with great conflict.

It was a traumatic time in my life. I already had my beliefs, and they were basically the same as they are today, but... that doesn't make it any easier, lol... personally, as... erm, "fascinating"... as it was, I was sort of terrified and almost wanted it all to go away and us to go back to being "really, really close best friends" just for the easiness of not having to think about it.

~sigh~

...one of these days, I'll figure out the hardware behind that, too...

I'm not disagreeing just to be contrary and feel in some way distant from the flock, or superior. If anything I'd much rather fit in

heh. It would be easier, or at least it would make life easier.

I find your argument (however longwinded and tangential) quite compelling.

At the risk of being arrogant - that's because it's the stronger argument! lol...

Just to keep it... like... waaaay too real for prudence 'n such... the scary thing is, while I have infinite faith that any of my arguments stand in their own merits, I don't even know if it's the strongest argument. As you've probably seen, vigorous opponents don't tend to come up with much more than "it's a freak!!!" and thickly-unveiled appeals to force.

While there are reasons for this - profound personal devotion to hating others involving specific mental pathologies (http://cognitive-psychology.suite101.com/article.cfm/right_wing_authoritarianism) - I'm stuck with the fact of a tenet from logic; that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 'n thus, the fact that no adversarial position has had anything worthwhile to say in the last many, many years, far from inspiring confidence, instead inspires in me a dismal terror that the only thing that makes my beliefs the foremost right is the great, yawning vacum of intelligence which is actually inherent to bias; while I teased wires slightly with the details of some of what is actually going on in her head on a 24/7 basis (and was serious about the sympathy), one part of the recurrent pathology I failed to include was the full-fledged ablation of the frontal lobes...

I know I'll always have faith in the equal validity of subjective perspective of living beings. I know I'll always believe that free will is at least remarkably damned close to the highest value, and that the succeeding of the free-willed pursuit of each being's fullest happiness is the only way to measure an individual interaction and occurrence. 'n I know I'll believe, always, in the status-independence of the validity of human life...

...but surprisingly, the fact that the opposing team is, quite literally, brain-damaged, having literally almost half their brain tissue ablated, just makes me fear terribly that some rare, intelligent being would actually have something to say.

It almost certainly wouldn't change anything in the "polar" sense of the term, because the world isn't black and white like that - one of the reasons I don't consider sexuality or anything else good and evil, but only individual instances which can be judged in the happiness and will of all parties involved - but I sometimes wonder if there isn't more input that could be considered if it weren't for the mindlessly-driven nature of discourse to date...

~sigh~

Until then, I have the input of my partners, and usually their families, siblings, neighbors, and local store clerks. 'n since I'm usually a firm believer in "more honestly-intentioned people to turn to for recourse = better outcomes" (or usually, more people = better chance of at least one honestly intentioned person, but the more honestly intentioned people, the more points of view towards a common cause)... I'll just have to let entire districts of cities suffice.

But... yeah. I occasionally have moments of wondering "is humanity missing something just because the people who yell at me are all idiots?" lol... 'n to be fair, a lot of the solutions for integration have come from the community around me... both cultural integration and the humanitarian failsafe concerns... so, at least there's been some third- and fourth-party input.

I don't watch TV, but it doesn't so much matter the medium as the message and the way in penetrates into every part of culture just because it is on TV.

Yeah. That's a good point, and now that you mention it, I'm kind of wondering how to jam the use of the general populace as TV-rebroadcast stations...

Mostly for other purpouses. Sadly enough, the liquidation of a fuckload of the earth's populace (http://www.helping-people.info/articles/normal_men.html) is only one of many problems in this society...

Pretty much no one likes pedophiles, so they demonise them as much as they want.

Actually... believe it or not, to find someone who goes beyond just "default answer when asked," you're looking in one of four places : the US South, the peninsula of Ontario/greater Toronto area, the UK, and Australia. While you can find rare (and so far, always heavily aligned with specific groups) cells west of the missisipi in the US in the south, for the most part... it's those four.

I suppose theoretically the UK and OZ break down by neighborhood, perhaps. I just don't know the details.

...but if you're ever bored sometime, if you find someone who's reeeaally getting into their hatred of "those sexual deviant peoples"... check where they come from. Betcha it's one of the four more often than not. ;)

If you look hard enough, there's also a little nazi advance force in west AZ/NM pressing into SoCal. It's a little rarer to find actual members outside a hunt for any adversarial party in those regions, in my experience; they've been negligable in a general perusal of internet commentary...

I can sort of see how people are inclined to act like this, just because of how things have been presented to them.

Yeah, it's fairly understandable. If someone walked up to me and said "Robert here just raped your girlfriend, how do you feel?," I'd probably have a pretty biased view against Robert in that question.

*hits submit and awaits flames*

:) Yup. I'm guessing it'll happen...

I mentioned the sturmabteilung for a reason; for some reason, especially when the position is either grossly unjust or hiding something, some political topics just develop a thug caste which makes it its hobby to violently attack any political nonadherence to the party line. 'n as far as "hiding something," there's actually a "heterosexual culpability" post, no offense, towards the start of this thread which covers a few aspects of this - like overt and explicit decriminalization of intrafamilial rape - which don't get a lot of press coverage.

Personally, I've discovered a charming little test I use to determine the ethics - primarily in the sense of "intellectual ethics" - of a political proposal.

Ever notice how close to no one objects to the notion that murder is at least usually wrong?

Ever notice how no one really hates murderers as a class?

While my theory is one of cognitive dissonance - the elevation in hatred is directly proportional to the degree to which they don't even believe their own shit - the practice is more concrete. For several hundred years, murder has been defined by the courts as "the most aggregious of crimes" - the US supreme court has referenced this repeatedly in capital punishment rulings - and so, when the hatred of the moment exceeds its usual nonhatred of, say, the average murderer... we may not know what is up, but we have reason to suspect that something is up.

Other people may have different opinions on this litmus test, take it as you will. I for one found it an interesting yardstick by which to measure a politically-associated claim, 'n it's pretty interesting to just take it back through history and see how other events measure up as well.

Nonetheless...

longwinded and tangential

Definately. I'll end it here, having been well prevented by this thread from getting as much as I'd hoped done with my day. :)

Plur...

What the fuck do you think?

Well, there's the easy form of that answer, and the hard form...

The easy form, which was somewhat hinted at in my wishing to fuck my girlfriend had been dealt a better life (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10683018&postcount=16), is pretty simple. I'm against it. Quite a lot.

In my weaker moments, I'm either enraged or saddened by it. In my more dosed-out moments, I actually mostly feel sorry for the rapist, as I would strongly feel that having the sort of ethical, spiritual, and personal development that would lead to one raping people would actually be a lot more unpleasant than being sexually assaulted, but still recognize that this does not alter even in minutiae the importance of preventing such when immediately possible. In a philosophical sense, my primary value is the happiness of all living beings - which argues pretty strongly against rape - and my primary moral is the respect of free will to allow each living being to seek their own happiness unhindered - and rape, well... is literally the definitional opposite of not impinging a living being's free will.

On a personal note, the vast majority of people I've loved have been, well, a young child, which sort of gives me a generalized personal investment in the happiness of at least several of them. On a "raw pervert" level, holding the natural self-directed sexual indulgence, exploration, and practice of young girls in an almost utopic and/or religious reverence makes it almost all the more painful to think of it as a vehicle to cause harm to a living human being. On a cultural note, young girls are the leading category of human beings which tend not to hate one because one happens to admit that they're astoundingly beautiful, which leads to a greater social empathy for the-people-that-aren't-trying-to-kill-me.

'n on a genetic level, 'pedophilia' is basically neurochemically identical to being injected with MDMA every time one can successfully serve the happiness of a young child. As much of a freak as that makes me, really, it.... certainly provides a bias on the subject.

The complex form of that question would be the question of "what should we do about it?" That one, I don't know all the details. I oppose the government inflicting the death penalty for reasons of gross and evidenced politicized misuse, but might not be above imposing it myself in certain cases. While I'm a firm believer in limiting a government to not more than retributive justice - whether drug laws, sex laws, or other cultural dictates - I usually prefer restorative justice, and ideally in the end, the abolition of justice for the creation of an enlightened society - unrealistic perhaps but no reason not to keep an eventual goal in mind... and yet, I cannot immediately think of a full and restorative-justice outcome.

I know that anything nonvolitional has to be stopped. I know that a child - or anyone - has a right to feel safe. I know that the child has a right to be loved, to be valued unconditionally, to be allowed to explore their feelings and have their feelings accepted and valued, whether or not they fit with a script, whether or not they even agree with each other, whether or not they're conflicting and confusing and tempestuous, they simply are, and have the right to be acknowledged, accepted, and explored unconditionally and without judgement.

'n I know that in addition to the right to be safe, the child has a right to be happy.

...but the details? The one, final answer to solve everything? I'm not sure I have that... I know I can sort of muddle through by listening to the child with regard to what s/he wants, and I know that s/he has a right to an environment which is safe and accepting and supportive of the now-much-greater struggle of figuring herself and her emotions out... but I'm not sure I have all the answers.

tl;dr. I'm against rape. Except statuatory.

In an effort for you to stop going off on long-winded nothing rants, I'm just going to rely on scholarly reasons as to why pedophilia is wrong. I'm studying for exams and don't have time to paraphrase. Read them.


http://www.books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5LohmJRW2DwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=Effects+of+sexual+relations+on+children&ots=OKqmVGgvS0&sig=jJcwHxuyxfjZjqYf-eQQagNuag4#PPA55,M1
Page 55.

http://www.books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CXTCUdJLwKcC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA181&dq=Effects+of+sexual+relations+on+children&ots=ia53PpAIAr&sig=pI8fqSmN1gkJyT6bVslAmTnTaF8#PRA1-PA181,M1
Page 60 and 181.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3VWPMP7-7&_user=972264&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000049659&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=972264&md5=3c06a216213e4dc8c20afd5a037957cb


Now if you have a good reason as to why all these scholars in the field are wrong, let me know. Answer these problems. Don't start some philosophical off-topic rant. Tell me; why isn't pedophilia wrong when it causes this damage to children?

What the fuck is going on in here?

I don't give a fuck about what pseudo-intellectual wank you just vomited up. That was COMPLETE bollocks

Compelling argument.

I say again, what the fuck is going on in here?

Crazy suggestion, try reading the thread.

I did. I'm still lost.
What was the thread that provoked this one?

JoePedo isn't really a pedophile, he's just doing it for the lulz
http://jj.am/gallery/d/57254-1/Trolls.jpg

I think Joe is probably a great pedophile. Don't admit to too much, keep cool and possibly even get people to like you. Shaming a victim probably usually works well, but it hasn't worked with Danny. Why? Because Danny isn't a 4 year old child. It doesn't amaze me either, that two people who have defended Joe for making a "good" argument are teens. As a teen your frontal lobes have not fully developed and your ability to make smart rational decisions is just not always there. The statement that someone made about not caring what happens as long as it doesn't effect them is a prime example of this.

Call me close minded but anyone who rapes a child or sexually assaults them in any manner deserves to be in the jails we built for them. It doesn't matter whether the offender was abused as a child or not, at some point the cycle must be broken.

Pedophilia (before puberty) is a clear defect in biologically reproduction habits. From a pure biological stand point we are designed to reproduce and reproduce as much as possible just like any other animal. As with many mammals, humans have characteristics that start to develop when we are able to bare offspring. Female for example begin to receive their periods and grow breast. These changes in the female body signify that she is ready to breed.

The statement above doesn't encourage having sex with a minor once they hit puberty, but instead screams that engaging in sexual acts with a child never has a reason. Don't go after teens either, it just isn't right. It is what a predator does and it is taking advantage of someone that you can manipulate.

So you hate gays too?

So you hate gays too?

I never said I hate gays or pedophiles. I actually have no problem with homosexuals and currently have multiple homosexual friends. I do believe that many homosexuals have a genetic flaw which tells them to like the same sex (others may have been molested as children, such is the case with a friend of mine), but a genetic trait that is abnormal does not lead me to hate a group. I guess my biggest difference between homosexuals and pedophiles is that one involves a minor who by the authority of the law is unable to consent to sexual activities and one involves adults.

People always complain about pedophiles, then when some hot 35 year old female teacher has sex with one of her students, everyone says the same stupid joke, "har har har, probably just made the kid all the more popular." Disgusting, she's a criminal and she should be imprisoned for life. Yeah, I dated a teacher in high school and it didn't make me any more popular. And some of you say, well that's because you were home schooled. True, but that just means statistically, I'm smarter than most of you....and I had game.

Good post, ShoeBong.


In an effort for you to stop going off on long-winded nothing rants, I'm just going to rely on scholarly reasons as to why pedophilia is wrong. I'm studying for exams and don't have time to paraphrase. Read them.


http://www.books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5LohmJRW2DwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA55&dq=Effects+of+sexual+relations+on+children&ots=OKqmVGgvS0&sig=jJcwHxuyxfjZjqYf-eQQagNuag4#PPA55,M1
Page 55.

http://www.books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CXTCUdJLwKcC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA181&dq=Effects+of+sexual+relations+on+children&ots=ia53PpAIAr&sig=pI8fqSmN1gkJyT6bVslAmTnTaF8#PRA1-PA181,M1
Page 60 and 181.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3VWPMP7-7&_user=972264&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000049659&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=972264&md5=3c06a216213e4dc8c20afd5a037957cb


Now if you have a good reason as to why all these scholars in the field are wrong, let me know. Answer these problems. Don't start some philosophical off-topic rant. Tell me; why isn't pedophilia wrong when it causes this damage to children?


Joe, I'm waiting for your response. Where'd you go?

snip

I was going to enter the battle. but I'll let you kick ass (and bookmark more links you post for my arguments)

EDIT: my debate I did earlier. Thanks man for the Rind Study and "Is pedophilia a mental disorder" info. shit, you gave me a LOT of the arguments and infp

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=140283&page=2

Good post, ShoeBong.





Joe, I'm waiting for your response. Where'd you go?

The pedo cave?

Good post, ShoeBong.

Joe, I'm waiting for your response. Where'd you go?


one of those links doesn't work

also this link you posted
http://www.books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CXTCUdJLwKcC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA181&dq=Effects+of+sexual+relations+on+children&ots=ia53PpAIAr&sig=pI8fqSmN1gkJyT6bVslAmTnTaF8#PRA1-PA182,M1

mentions it's hard to separate the actual sexual acts vs. the surrounding family environment (e.g. your parents beating your ass as well)


and for
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-3VWPMP7-7&_user=972264&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000049659&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=972264&md5=3c06a216213e4dc8c20afd5a037957cb


, though there was a trend for sexual abuse to be particularly associated to sexual problems, emotional abuse to low self-esteem, and physical abuse to marital breakdown. Abuse of all types was more frequent in those from disturbed and disrupted family backgrounds.


See that it tends to be all three types of abuse

also the rind study counters that.

ALSO note that professionals can be manipulated as well. they aren't as objective as you think. See their reaction to the Kinsey Studies.

In an effort for you to stop going off on long-winded nothing rants

Not gonna happen, dude. Even if this thread petered out, someone would just ask a question about chemistry in another forum.

I'm just going to rely on scholarly reasons as to why pedophilia is wrong.

Well, you'd have to get a fucking education before you could do that.

Read them.

Unfortunately, someone using the same proxy raept google books before I got there. Not that it matters a whole bunch...

Now if you have a good reason as to why all these scholars in the field are wrong, let me know.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_variables.shtml

I'd have hoped that this much was rather obvious, in fact.

Tell me; why isn't pedophilia wrong when it causes this damage to children?

Well, for starters, your statement is fucking nonsensical.

Tell me; why aren't transgenerational sexual relations wrong when it causes this damage to children?

Better. 's sort of like running around talking about "having dark skin" in a discussion on urban homocides. It's not wrong in the most firm condemnatory case because it's just a premise of existance, moron.

Now that the quote's been fixed... I don't suppose it's occurred to you that "when" is sort of the key fucking word in your little sentence? I mean, if you were prone to reading, you would've probably noticed that the only legitimate points you have, I adressed pages ago, long before you tried to raise them... but noooo, reading would be too much for you, I suppose.

~sigh~

Just as a hint, as long as you put desired outcome over process, you're always going to fail. Funny thing is, that's true whether or not you're right. Admittedly, here, you've set yourself up to where you couldn't actually be right, no matter the fuck what, just because of the way you defined your position, but that doesn't change the fact that your basic problems - besides extreme reading difficulties - revolve around the scientific method. Putting "desired results of experiment" before the methodology behind open experimentation will always wreck your shit.

Now, in the interim...

http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/workers/25/30

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip/effectsofrape.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_rape_and_aftermath

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/11/1338

Read these and tell me how you can justify the foul sickness of heterosexual sex, m'kay?

^^^^
you do seem to phrase your arguments in a way that many people have a hard time understanding. Maybe you can phrase it in a different way and he can see your arguments better and there wouldn't be as much confusion.

~shudder~

Yeah... I'll give him credit that he did an excellent job at false-flagging the set identifiers; he's got a pretty good grasp of our knowledge (though outside individual names, a shitty-ass grasp of our history which would probably get his ass beat if he tried to pass).

...but... I really can't get over the fact that it's nothing more than so much cheap victorian pulp, a poorly-written, dime-novel trash morality play as was common in the victorian tabloids of the era.

To be sure, it's not the first time "official deciders" of "teh classics" have made such an error, and mostly from the same era; great expectations was a soap opera written for the lower classes, for instance, and it rather shows in the plotline. I'm honestly wondering if future generations will throw out Lawn Dogs or Boys Don't Cry or Sundays and Cybele in favor of To Catch a Predator and Days of our Lives, the determination of "literature" being thrown to the peanut gallery of an age...

Then again, being in an unusual position, I knew it was trash from the moment "I know, perhaps I'll just feign interest in her mother" entered the equation. Still, if you think it's literature, you might honestly want to read some of the other pulp morality of the age before you finish making up your mind.

Just to swing on a tangent...
---
...and that, my good sir, is what makes you more basically sane than your prior compatriots, and frankly, lets you avoid falling into the traps which Danny and others managed to lay for themselves. ;)

For some reason, you'd be surprised how few people there are who have opinions on actual or percieved status other than their own, who are willing to admit "I know nothing about you" upon encountering the thought-terminating cliche. I was actually pretty serious when I mentioned the forward-projection of fantasy obscuring reality in the mentally ill, and I would like to very much commend you for avoiding the one large, glaringly-obvious, and yet astoundingly common pitfall.

It's a mark of honor. Congrats on figuring your way out of the trap.

Unfortunately I really don't have time to respond to your lengthy ethical arguments. A quick point I'd like to make is that utilitarianism deals with ethics involving all pertinent parties to a particular act. Since pedophilia involves many people, including the child, all of their situations pre and post act must be considered. Since the child's situation is certainly not improved, then the act is not ethically justified.

As far as Lolita goes, again Nabokov wasn't a pedophile nor was he pretending to be one. He created a fictional character who tells his own story in the novel. The novel is written from the perspective of this character. He lies, changes names, changes details, and basically distorts his own testimony. The book is a testimony and his love story. He's writing it for a judge or something, I can't remember off the top of my head his exact reason, but in any case he's editing what he's writing.

The point being that it's not meant to reflect either pedophile psychology or pedophile history. Hilariously enough, there's a preface written by a fictional doctor person who claims the story should serve as a moral lesson against pedophilia. Nabokov wrote it for lulz, and lulzy it was when people used that preface as a justification for the novel's "true" purpose of denouncing pedophilia. The novel never was about pedophilia, though.

You think it's Victorian trash, I imagine, because you tried to read it as a morality novel when in fact it's a satire. Nabokov said, "Parody is a game; satire is a lesson." The novel is a lesson and a game, not a morality novel. The fact that you missed this shows you really should try reading the whole work before passing judgment on it. I certainly did not read it as a morality novel, because that's simply not what it is. It pretends to be a morality novel only in light of the false preface. The rest of the novel is "Humbert Humbert's" love story. Of course, that's not his real name, either. He changed names and details, like I mentioned earlier.

And lastly, I don't really think it should be a mark of honor or anything to avoid pointless arguments on the internet where, even if one wins, "it's like winning the special olympics: you're still retarded." I really don't have the time to provide a decent ethical argument other than the fact that it hurts children who cannot choose for themselves because they lack proper reasoning. Society as a whole rejects the act, and thus it became law. I really don't know how you could possibly argue that children have proper reasoning, but I'm sure you'd come up with something.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in arguing the point. I said what I wanted to say. I avoided the obvious trap because it was just that - obvious.

Joe, I'm waiting for your response. Where'd you go?

Ascuse me if I can't stay logged in 24/7 for your amusement...

Personally, I'm going with the "pedo cave" explanation of malkog. We have a whole secret underground complex beneath the McMartin facility, you know...

I say again, what the fuck is going on in here?

Well, Danny tried to start a flamefest which was preconstructed to make him lose, lol. You can see his original post as #2 of this thread.

Originally, he was trying to launch his "u r a fag i kill uz lol" in response to...

http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10683018&postcount=16

...this. Which was in response to SLL's "how the fuck did that happen" question with regards to a little note in my response to Chichi's OP...

Now you are not arguing with a person with no medical degree(yet) on the topic of sexual confusion and child abuse, you are arguing with Dr. Drew.

Could you really argue with Dr. Drew?

Actually, if you check BLTC - I argue with qualified medical personell while having no qualifications of my own all the time, lol...

It's honestly almost a "mark of membership" for LT. Of course, usually we spend more time bitching about industrial pharma than the end practicioners themselves, but... hey. It's all good, amirite? lol... ;)

And some of you say, well that's because you were home schooled.

Fucking. Win.

I think Joe is probably a great pedophile.

Thank you, brother, but no - I am just an ordinary, humble member of a great people.

Shaming a victim probably usually works well, but it hasn't worked with Danny. Why?

Probably because I'm not ashamed, have no reason to be, and no bully can make me so.

It doesn't amaze me either, that two people who have defended Joe for making a "good" argument are teens.

...and the rest, presumably, are not.

As a teen your frontal lobes have not fully developed and your ability to make smart rational decisions is just not always there.

This BS is actually rather easy to debunk, however... there's a more interesting response...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus

Go ahead, if you're man enough. ;)

The statement that someone made about not caring what happens as long as it doesn't effect them is a prime example of this.

Funny you should bring this up, seeing as it was Danny's man of straw against a noncomplicit dissenter and a total non sequiteur...

...but yeah, I'll grant you that it's a great example of nonreason!

Call me close minded but anyone who rapes a child or sexually assaults them in any manner deserves to be in the jails we built for them.

Cool. I think I wrote a post to that effect a while back...

It doesn't matter whether the offender was abused as a child or not...

...as this is a straw man of your own introduction...

...at some point the cycle must be broken.

A "cycle" which is a work of fiction. See Freund's etiological studies, among others.

Pedophilia (before puberty) is a clear defect in biologically reproduction habits. From a pure biological stand point we are designed to reproduce and reproduce as much as possible just like any other animal.

That.... is an utter fictionalization of the Darwinian hypotheosis.

The purpouse of natural selection is not to reproduce, but rather, to maximize the number of parties with shared genetic material who themselves reproduce.

In the simplest of forms, mass reproduction coupled with the total devouring of one's young, for instance, would not win the game of genetic selection - no matter how vigorously it reproduced. In the more normative case, it's actually perfectly feasible that a party with fewer young and a greater investment in the survival and welfare of each offspring might well outcompete a party with a greater reproductive rate and lesser investment...

...and, drawing from nature, some of the most profoundly pedophilic models are found in the... family, I believe, though it might be an order... hymenoptera. Among ants and honeybees, generally, over 99% of the colony never bothers to engage in reproductive activity at all, instead devoting their lives to the well-being and care of young they themselves never birthed at all.

No one can deny that it's worked pretty damn well.

Returning to the human equation... prior to the megalopolis, pretty much every human one would have encountered would have shared a fairly large portion of one's genetic material. Everything was a pretty small villiage/encampment/cave/etc, and any taboos on incest couldn't have begun to try to prevent such, only at best to keep it as distant as the small local population size would allow.

Chalk up the probable brood sizes before the advent of birth control, divide the labor among two people, and it becomes pretty obvious very, very fast that having a large number of people around who dote on the neighboring children without having any of their own was downright neccesary to the survival and welfare of the population.

The only thing that's certain, though, is that it worked quite well... otherwise it wouldn't be here. Existance itself is proof that it is superior under the guidelines of genetic selection.

also the rind study counters that.

Well, to be technical, you're a bit inspecific with your pronouns there. ;) Rind and others counter Danny's assertions, but observe, explore, and quantify the existance of confounding variables you noted...

utilitarianism deals with ethics involving all pertinent parties to a particular act.

True!

Since {intergenerational sexual relations} involves many people, including the child, all of their situations pre and post act must be considered.

Well, I'd counter that, barring orgies, intergenerational sexual relations usually involves about two people, one of which is the child.

I will, however, grant that in almost all situations, the child's view is the primary decider, and in all situations, it is of signifigant importance.

In fact, all the arguments in support of some instances of paederotic relations rely on the supremacy of the child's view and outcome.

Just as a side note, "pedophilia" itself only involves one person - the "pedophile." It is merely the premise of existance for a few billion people, and it doesn't neccisarily involve a damned other person whether the continue to merely exist or not.

Since the child's situation is certainly not improved

I'd say that's pretty unestablished.

In fact, both Eckenrode's '93 work and Ney's '94 study rather heavily suggest that being in an erotically expressed committed relationship serves as a base of support which, as an isolated variable, can provide support and resillience in dealing with a home life which is abusive - whether physically abusive, emotionally abusive, or rife with neglect. Those engaged in a sexual relationship consistently performed better on scales of happiness, adjustment, and mental health than those with identical violence in the home who were not in a sexual relationship with a person outside the family. Similarly, Fishman's studies found that boys engaged in a transgenerational sexual relationship in their childhood consistently performed identically to "chaste" controls in measures of adjustment, accomplishment and happiness, and that the overwhelming majority reported their experience as ranging from neutral to positive in its impact.

So, I'd say that "never" is pretty well unestablished, and in fact, the evidence heavily tends to contradict it. Conversely, I don't think I've heard anyone claim that all instances are such an a priori good that circumstance and effect should be ignored... simply that all things positive are a good thing, and others are not.

I really don't know how you could possibly argue that children have proper reasoning, but I'm sure you'd come up with something.

It's actually remarkably easy - all one has to do is to hold a deep ethical loathing for disregarding the view of a stakeholder with regards to their own damned life.

It's the same as objecting to rape, and describes about the same act.

you do seem to phrase your arguments in a way that many people have a hard time understanding. Maybe you can phrase it in a different way and he can see your arguments better and there wouldn't be as much confusion.

Unfortunately, chances are that I'm no more able to alter my communication style drastically than you are able to mimic social conformity in offline life, for better or for worse. Beginning to read from about one year of age means that I don't even have a shared basis of communication for those for whom reading was never something they were interested in doing.

On the bright side, this does seperate the respondents into "people who read" and "people who don't," which is actually signifigantly useful for me. On the downside, I don't even really have a shared language with those who spent their time talking shit in illiterate and neglected mobs in their childhood, and am as unlikely to ever find one as they are to suddenly develop an interest in the scientific method. C'est la vie.


my debate I did earlier. Thanks man for the Rind Study and "Is pedophilia a mental disorder" info. shit, you gave me a LOT of the arguments and infp

lol... thanks, but I honestly think you might have been talking to someone else, there. ;)

I actually seldom mention Rind, and usually go for all the other works in the field... no particular reason, just that I figure that someone's probably going to mention Rind to them later, lol...

...so, you were probably talking to one of the other dissenters to the human rights crisis, honestly. But, umm... thanks! ;)

lol I feel bad for anyone that actually read this entire thread.

I'm going to do it tomorrow ao I can get more info for the link I posted above. apparently I'm "Side-stepping" the experience gap Memphet'ran keeps pulling up. I keep thinking I am doing that. Eh.


Well, to be technical, you're a bit inspecific with your pronouns there. Rind and others counter Danny's assertions, but observe, explore, and quantify the existance of confounding variables you noted...


oops. okay. :P


Unfortunately, chances are that I'm no more able to alter my communication style drastically than you are able to mimic social conformity in offline life, for better or for worse.

hmm. Understandable. Sometimes I can fit in (and sometimes do it because im afraid of looking weird...sometimes),, depending on situations and whatnot but there is something different about me :P

Beginning to read from about one year of age means that I don't even have a shared basis of communication for those for whom reading was never something they were interested in doing.


lol. Smart-ass *_*

On the downside, I don't even really have a shared language with those who spent their time talking shit in illiterate and neglected mobs in their childhood,

hmm. what do you mean by the "neglected" part of neglected mobs?

and am as unlikely to ever find one as they are to suddenly develop an interest in the scientific method. C'est la vie.

you're doing it now :P
lol... thanks, but I honestly think you might have been talking to someone else, there.


shit. I thought you mentioned it on TOTSE last year and pointed out the Us congress' reaction to it. Must be some guy who mentioned it in onionspace then.


I actually seldom mention Rind, and usually go for all the other works in the field... no particular reason, just that I figure that someone's probably going to mention Rind to them later, lol...

...so, you were probably talking to one of the other dissenters to the human rights crisis, honestly. But, umm... thanks!

I take it that was someone else on the core onion then....speaking of that, had to lol @ you debating those guys who were doing the DoS attacks then. Too bad the talks are down now. well there's that new 'masked' thing but eh...

know any similar hidden services and whatnot on the various hidden internet? just started looking through I2P. seems a lot of the sites are down.

I really need sleep, so I can't really argue anything in depth at the moment. I wanted to bring up the fact that rhetoric, as described by Isocrates, is problematic because untrue/invalid (not logically sound)/boldfaced lies/or anything really can be used to sway public opinion. The art of rhetoric is the art of public persuasion, not the art of arguing to establish truths, which is the aim of dialectic. Your answers to my arguments really didn't serve to answer the points I posited. Instead, you seem to use what I and others say to further your own arguments. That's the nature of the game, though.

The one thing I'll argue before I go sleep is that you agreed that under utilitarian philosophy that all parties concerned in a particular act must be considered. I argue that this includes the parents of a child, in the case of intergenerational sexual relations, as you call it. I base this on the fact that children do not have the reasoning capability to understand their situations to the degree that they can choose for themselves whether or not sex is in their best interest. They cannot reason as adults do, thus having sexual relations with adults equates to adults taking advantage of them. That's the first argument.

The second is if one looks at the consequences of "intergenerational sexual relations" one will see that the results are not in the best interests of the child. Psychological scarring or any other psychological problems are evidence enough that it is not in their best interest. Since parents are legally and ethically charged to care for children until they reach adulthood, parents are parties involved in the matter, and thus are included in the scope of the utilitarian view. You cannot preclude parents because they are legally and ethically bound to care for their charges. If you try to circumvent this, you'd have to argue why it would be better from a utilitarian viewpoint for parents to not care for their children until they reach adulthood. You might try to argue this point, and you should if you want to win the argument, but I really don't see how you can argue the point from an ethical standpoint.

Conclusion: Based upon the first argument that children are not equipped to consent to sexual relations with adults and the second argument that children are under the care of parents who ethically must take care of said children until they reach adulthood, I conclude that from a utilitarian viewpoint it is not in the child's best interest, nor in the interest of the parents who are in charge of the child, for said 'intergenerational sexual relations' to occur. Therefore, pedophilia is wrong, despite the desires of the would-be pedophile, because utilitarian philosophy requires that the greatest good be perpetuated for the greatest number of parties involved in a particular act. In this case, the greatest good of the child and the parents for the well-being of the child outweighs the desires of the pedophile.

That's all I have for now.

Where's the would-be lawyer? He should be making these kind of arguments. It's also too bad that Rust isn't here. He's a far, far better debater than I could ever hope to be. Someone should invite him to join in. I'd love to see how he'd argue his case. He's probably in the "My God..." forum, if anyone cares to invite him. He'd no doubt find the holes in my own argument as well as the holes in the arguments of Joepedo.

Where's the would-be lawyer? He should be making these kind of arguments. It's also too bad that Rust isn't here. He's a far, far better debater than I could ever hope to be. Someone should invite him to join in. I'd love to see how he'd argue his case. He's probably in the "My God..." forum, if anyone cares to invite him. He'd no doubt find the holes in my own argument as well as the holes in the arguments of Joepedo.

JoePedo has debated both Rust and Red Raven in the past. I forgot the result and the links are long-dead

hey joe, I'm not here to try to fight with you like most. In fact I often come on this forum just to see what you have to say about chemistry and pretty much everything else. I have more respect for you than most posters on totse, yet I am not a pedo and simply cant understand the whole concept.

now assuming we lived in a world with no social stigma or penalties for fucking a 3.5 year old

why would you do it?

what is sexy about little kids?

they have no asses, no tits, they can't even talk well let alone talk dirty, I can't think of a single reason to fuck a 3.5 year old even if it were legal and not frowned upon.

so I ask you with all your knowledge

what is sexually attractive about children?

Wtf are you assholes rambling about ?!

JoePedo's always been cool in my book , fuck all the kiddies you want.

I am not a pedo and simply cant understand the whole concept.

Pretty understandable. I have moments where I'm completely fucking boggled by heterosexuality, m'self - it's pretty natural that we have difficulty understanding in the first-person anything which is fairly alien to our natures.

now assuming we lived in a world with no social stigma or penalties for fucking a 3.5 year old...

Well, to be honest, you're making a couple assumptions, here, which might not neccisarily be guaranteed. Someone who believed in both the immorality of nonmarital relations and the immorality of child marriage would be fucked... or, not-fucked, as the case may be.

Since by dumb luck you happened to be right, though, it's sort of inconsequential for the brief moment... only important if you talk to the next pedo 'n get it wrong. ;)

why would you do it?

...just to fuck with the original poster on some thread, once (I can't remember why, but the original post was asking for it), I wrote a short "pr0n story with a twist" that mojo was rather fond of which basically answers that question...

...to fulfill a loved one's wishes, to see them satisfied, happy, and completely wiped-out exhausted all at once, to be their sharing the day to day aspects of life together without regard or prejudice, to curl her toes with vigour and bring her enjoyment beyond compare, to giggle at our ineptitude, to cuddle afterwards, and maybe to have a little fun along the way. ;)

what is sexy about little kids?

Oh, lawd, too much to count.

A lot of it is the differences in skeletal structure, proportion, and fat distribution, but there's a lot of other things, too. ;)

they have no asses, no tits

Well, they have no tits - and to me, that's a bonus. Frankly, if you lay your sexual desire for them aside for the moment, they're really rather goofy-looking things.

"No asses" isn't exactly true, though, and in fact the younger half of the spectrum sort of defines the "bubble butt" that's so amazingly cute.

A well-formed ass is entirely a product of muscular development - with the exception of the presence of a little baby fat in the right places - rather than any secondary sexual characteristic, so to a great degree, it's rather independent of age.

they can't even talk well

wow... you're reeeeeaaally thinking of the young set, aren't you?

It's true that between the ages of about three and six months, the aqquisition of the language will be mostly simple, and generally consist of either a noun or a verb. However, not only is this often applied quite well to complex concepts, and used quite flexibly for rich and nuanced conveyance (one author notes her daughter, at a few months of age, using the sign for "milk" in combination with its emphatic nature among the few signs she knew to offer up some rather insightful commentary about the aims of a well-endowed woman who selected a low-cut blouse and a push-up bra... much to the uproarious amusement of her family, and the difficulty created by trying not to burst out laughing)...

...after about six months, though, complex communication and literacy have generally pretty much developed, often beyond the "adult" capacities of much of the population. Wagner and Llwellyn are only a few of those who have observed that children are by nature scientists, hell-bent on exploring the world, and that intelligence is conditioned out of people rather than instilled in them from outside...

Of course, neglect will push these numbers back by a bit... but they're still the normative developmental curve.

let alone talk dirty

lol... you'd be surprised.

...well... actually, maybe you wouldn't. Think back to your own gradeschool life and - assuming you were a vaguely heterosexual boy - your discussions with your peers regarding who would really like to nail whom.

Of course, I'd rather have someone keep it real than to try to "talk dirty" to try to turn me on. People are far more interesting than porn scripts, IMO... but that doesn't mean I've never exactly been led to blush.

I can't think of a single reason to fuck a 3.5 year old even if it were legal and not frowned upon.

Umm... she asked you to?

what is sexually attractive about children?

Well, there's the absence of breasts, for starters. Look at the chest : men, women, boys, girls. One of these things is definately "not like the others" and "doesn't belong," and if you want someone with oppositely-gendered bits between their legs who has the morphology of being of the same species... well... if "oppositely-gendered" means "female" in one's world, you're damn well diaper dipping.

Furthermore, the effects of estrogen on the labia minora are pretty much indistinguishable from a really bad case of genital warts. 'n if evil, evil fascist nazi moderators like ketch weren't so hell-bent on censoring the perfectly righteous posting of crotch-shots of the preadolescent, as the internet was designed to facilitate, there's even a medical site out there where I could inflict a side-by-side comparison, at that...

...damn you ketch! Can't you see that forcing diseased shock CP down unwilling people's throats is never wrong?!?!?!?

...anyways...

...as for the more important, salient features... You're all a bunch of pedophiles. I'm just secure enough to admit it. (http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/kindchenschema/kindchenschema.htm)

...but a lot of non-pedos will readily admit that several children are attractive, even if they don't themselves swing that way (and the above link suggests it's a bit more pervasive than people like to think - quit staring at her chest and you'll be exclusively dating preteens too).

...well, they're right. Many children are attractive. Which is why the beauty industry revolves around trying to make grown women look like children. I just happen to accept that I swing that way...

apparently I'm "Side-stepping" the experience gap Memphet'ran keeps pulling up. I keep thinking I am doing that. Eh.

lol... that one's so easy...

- circular logic. Whereas experience is a factor to experiencing things, rather than age, the presumed (often, falsely) absence of experience cannot be a bar to the aqquisition of experience without creating a fraudulent self-reinforcing circular reasoning with no basis outside itself.

Ironically, to be blunt, "no basis outside itself" is often actually the goal...

...and secondly...

- this actually argues for adult-child sexual relations. People learn from people who have more experience than themselves in a subject, rather than people who do not have any experience.

While I hate that second one because (1) it presupposes a faulty premise; the average eight year old has exactly eight years' more experience with their own body and their own sexual tendancies than anybody else, and more importantly (2) it implies and perpetuates a chronoheirarchical pedagogy in direct contrast to the inherent equality and validity of living beings regardless of status... it is the direct implication of their arguments, sadly.

oops. okay. :P

Pronouns : tricky things. ;)

hmm. what do you mean by the "neglected" part of neglected mobs?

That peer-based intergenerational relations tends to have an intellectually, culturally, and emotionally integrative influece, whereas even the moderate neglect pervasive in this society tends to not only fail to provide feedback for the normalization of process but also tends to correlate with chronic understimulation.

Oye. It's so nice to be talking to someone who isn't a proponent of hate. I don't even have to point out that a paragraph had nothing to do with sex when it honestly has nothing to do with sex.

Personally, I think it's sad when people are more chronically and situationally-inappropriately obsessed with sex with children than, say, a raging pedophile - don't you? ;)

shit. I thought you mentioned it on TOTSE last year and pointed out the Us congress' reaction to it.

Oh. Well, if I was talking about bookburning, then it's entirely possible.

I take it that was someone else on the core onion then....speaking of that, had to lol @ you debating those guys who were doing the DoS attacks then. Too bad the talks are down now. well there's that new 'masked' thing but eh...

Funny thing is, at least half of the people that sound like me, weren't me. ;)

know any similar hidden services and whatnot on the various hidden internet? just started looking through I2P. seems a lot of the sites are down.

Core per se? No...

SnapBBS has &totse, though - although it's empty... 'n there's rock.onion, but it's long dead.

Hmm. Well, there's hiddenhosting. Could always make one.

The art of rhetoric is the art of public persuasion, not the art of arguing to establish truths, which is the aim of dialectic.

True...

...but at least some truths - such as the non-homogenity of outcomes - were pretty well established. ;)

You cannot preclude parents because they are legally and ethically bound to care for their charges. If you try to circumvent this, you'd have to argue why it would be better from a utilitarian viewpoint for parents to not care for their children until they reach adulthood... I really don't see how you can argue the point from an ethical standpoint.

That's actually as easy as contrasting the teleology of self-determination against the presence of intrafamilial violence, honestly.

Really freaking easy, and for the strong case, you might want to look to ASFAR or NYRA - or for that matter, the various childrens' protective services' organizations, which have been in the buisness of disestablishing parental autonomy as a virtue in its own right in favor of humanitarian concerns.

For the weaker instance - let's call it "the reformist case" - there are a number of possible solutions which leave the system fundamentally inaltered while attempting to pluralize caretakership to maximize the well-being of the child; from a plurality of caretakers, to allowing the child free choice among the possible caretakers, to full-fledged communal child-rearing.

'n these often have strong arguments.

However, while I do adhere to self-determination and equality of rights irregardless of status...

I argue that this includes the parents of a child

...I think I'd rather simply acknowledge that there are points of view which are internally self-consistent which believe this. While I do - and will - believe in the right of full equality and self-determination for all, it's probably a little more constructive to acknowledge a plurality of view regardless of the ethos of it...

Besides... whatever I believe, recognizing the parents as a stakeholder alongside, but seperate from, the child in question more accurately describes the history of my love life to date, whatever the philosophical implications...

The second is if one looks at the consequences of "intergenerational sexual relations" one will see that the results are not in the best interests of the child. Psychological scarring or any other psychological problems are evidence enough that it is not in their best interest.

Oh, tisk. Did you not actually read the post?

I could easily claim that since the majority of outcomes includes an increase in healthy psychological adjustment, that all cases are a positive good and must be pursued, with nothing more than the same all-or-nothing thinking that you seem to be in love with, when applied to the actual data.

However, while it might be fun for the lulz, I have no intellectual interest in the equally ludicrous claim. While the majority of cases are evidenced to positively promote the well-being of the child, each individual case is its own merits, and not some third "proxy case." Despite a majority of positive outcome, there is no homogenity - and all claims to a homogenous "universal case" are patently and inherently false.

Now... just to make this easy, I'll condense the obvious into bullet points...

- you cannot claim parents as a stakeholder and then deny them input into the individual case.

- you cannot claim the child as a stakeholder and then deny them input into the individual case.

...'n honestly, I think that's sort of the sum of it.

...fucking pedo.

this has probably been suggested but i think joe pedo might just be trap to catch real pedo's... what better way to get the ip's, email addresses of real pedo's than to have a convincing 1 posting on a public bbs, i bet real perverts have contacted him.

i doubt a real pedo would be advertising the fact.

And he's quite active on pedobaiting.org ..

I personally know people in my neighborhood that rape preteen girls. Needless to say I'm not above being a vigilante for a righteous cause. No jury in the world will convict me.

To be honest, I do think that pedophilia is wrong. Pedophilia itself, not necessarily the people perpetrating it. For the most part pedophiles had a rough childhood or have some other kind of mental illness. A lot of them go into pedophilia as the result of some sort of abuse in their past.

People who do piss me off are those guys who specifically go out to fuck some young girl because its the fun thing to do, those who go out saying
"Oh yeah, I'm going to go pop some young girls pussy for fun."
should get fucked up. You know them, those college kids who go out looking for those low self-esteem in order to take advantage of them. That's just fucked up to me.

That's why our system of punishment for pedophilia related crimes isn't exactly all that great. We really need to take into account the person, not just their deeds. The guy who goes out and rapes an 11 year old girl because he got sexually abused and beat as a kid should get a lighter prison sentence than that who does it for fun. Simples as that.

Do me a favor, Joe. Don't go ripping into my intelligence just because I take a position different from yours. I know this is the internet, but if you attack the person it makes you seem like you don't have a valid counter-point. Like the Republican strategy for the election:

"OMG Barack Hussein Obama! He must be a terrorist!"

And look how that ended up...

JoePedo, you are making some good points as is Danny MC. The only reason it appears that you're winning this intellectual argument is that you are far more eloquent and witty. Unfortunately, that does not automatically make you right.

I do support pedophilia only in about 13 and up but not rape. but i still support joe because he is intelligent and... We creatures of the night must know our brothers...

JoePedo, you are making some good points as is Danny MC. The only reason it appears that you're winning this intellectual argument is that you are far more eloquent and witty. Unfortunately, that does not automatically make you right.

WTF is eloquent and witty about peadophiles......stop feeding the troll.

Do you people seriously believe this guy is a pedophile, let alone "raped" a three and a half year old girl? He hasn't admitted it happened, and it's obviously because it didn't happen. He's just doing this for something to talk about...you people get too worked up over nothing

He said, in a really subtle ambiguous way, that he had consensual sex with her.

lern 2 read

....fucking pedo.

He said, in a really subtle ambiguous way, that he had consensual sex with her.

lern 2 read

he never actually said it, faggot. he's just creating e-drama. and how is it consensual with a 3.5 year old?

Well, joepedo is pretty fucking awesome, I must say. Although, as for this issue, as most issues, I hate both sides of the argument, and want to cleanse you all with chemical fire.

he never actually said it, faggot. he's just creating e-drama. and how is it consensual with a 3.5 year old?

Consensual IN THE SENSE that though it will haunt her later in life, she wanted it.

Cheers for the erotica site.

I can some what understand what Joe's saying as well, but that's cos I'm high too and can understand his fancy words.

I just wanna say something as well about the comments saying it "fucks people up". Ever considered that the difference in power only comes into play if coercion and manipulation are involved? If you think that younger people can't participate or benefit from pleasurable sexual experiences then YOU are the one living in la-la land. Aside from the fact that a lot of kids can make responsible decisions, it shouldn't matter. The adult can make responsible decisions for both of them, and if the adult chooses to take advantage of the situation and abuse, "molest", coerce, force, manipulate, or hurt a child then the adult should be punished, but NONE of these things are inherent in sexual activity. Explain to me what's so "adult" about sex that younger people can't possibly understand? Enlighten me as to how an orgasm is a horrible, nasty thing unless you're a certain age. The little victim-mentality that people force on children when it comes to sex is what fucks them up, not the sexual activity itself.

Why is joepedo so cool to all of totse? He's a guy, probably fat, probably balding, that makes alot of tl;dr posts on totse about drugs and touching kids. You guys talk to him like he's God.

Cause he's like a fucking pedo-shaman.

because he knows a shitload of things and is nice about that to people. And TOTSE's history regarding HPAC and underground shit of various things...(he's involved in the chem forums and knows some hacking things, among other stuff)

I personally know people in my neighborhood that rape preteen girls..

details :?

I just wanna say something as well about the comments saying it "fucks people up". Ever considered that the difference in power only comes into play if coercion and manipulation are involved? If you think that younger people can't participate or benefit from pleasurable sexual experiences then YOU are the one living in la-la land..

just pull out Kinsey's studies (and others) regarding Child Sexuality to take up "they dont benefit it"

And use the Rind Study to take out their "it fucks them up"

just search "pedo" on my del.icio.us account for links

http://delicious.com/Warsie

what better way to get the ip's, email addresses of real pedo's than to have a convincing 1 posting on a public bbs, i bet real perverts have contacted him.

Ironically, most of my few off-board contacts have been more-conservative-than-center... I've had the chance to know of a lot more pedos on &t than most people can recognize, though, mostly because I have a better model than, well, lies told to incite hatred... so what's invisible to everyone else is an overt declaration to me and people who are trolling too hard and failing, while I'm sure someone else thinks "omg itz truez," pretty much confirm that they are not ped.

I personally know people in my neighborhood that rape preteen girls.

o.O

...if you're not just a member of a hate group and are actually able to use language intelligably... please, please fuck them up.

Do me a favor, Joe. Don't go ripping into my intelligence just because I take a position different from yours.

Oh, no worries... aside from a few circumstances (half of which is "I'm in a pissy mood and feel like it," lol, but not always)... generally speaking, I only do that when someone tries to blab on at length about "informed consent" - and there, it's pertinent to the topic, as to date zero percent of the people who have mentioned such a thing have been qualified to engage in it... which is always good for lulz.

WTF is eloquent and witty about peadophiles......

æ, nigger, æ...

Amusingly enough, your post illustrates pretty well the extreme cognitive distortions inherent in a pro-bias movement, starting with (though not limited to) constant gross overgeneralization of stimulus which strains credulity.

There are about six billion people on the planet, of which about two billion are pæderotic. While I might not be a candidate, it's pretty fucking guaranteed by raw numbers that there are several witty, eloquent 'pædophiles'... and several unwitty and uneloquent ones, not to mention the vast masses who are just, well... pardon the phrase... "your average-joe pædo." ;)

The root lesson to be learned here is that, no matter how it might help one create a scapegoat as a catharitic transference to one's other problems, it's actually completely freakin' impossible for a few billion people to be exactly the same. 'n believe it or not, that's an important lesson to learn.

We creatures of the night must know our brothers...

:D Epic. Srs...



I hate both sides of the argument, and want to cleanse you all with chemical fire.

^^ this man has wisdom. Serious.

Aside from the fact that a lot of kids can make responsible decisions...

As a related topic... have you ever thought about how frightening it would be if these people actually produced children? If they continue their absolutist dehumanization, lack of empathy, unilateral disestablishment, and utter contempt for 'children,' they're seriously going to fuck someone up.

makes alot of tl;dr posts on totse about drugs and touching kids.

I think you just answered your own question.

TOTSE's history regarding HPAC

Request acronymyl decompression?

He hasn't admitted it happened, and it's obviously because it didn't happen.

Holy crap, it only took 115 posts.

I tip my hat to you, sir.

I really really hop Danny MC is ripping his hair in frustration right now. I really do.

Like..... How Joe really really wants his neighbors 10 year old daughter. Seriously :D

Joepedo always makes me wish I was 6 again. :(

Hey joe, just out of curiosity, how old would you go?

To answer your question though, I studied an undergraduate in Anthropology

I'm confused here, you say you studied "an undergraduate in anthropology", so does it mean you studied a person who are undergoing "undergraduate studies in anthropology" or what ??

Sorry if that was answered somewhere else in this thread....didn't read further before replying...intriguing....

and am studying a graduate degree in Law and yeah,

You mean you're in the process of getting a degree in law, rite ?

I've been to Malava in western Kenya to do volunteer work with the people. I'm an active member of Amnesty International, against the violation of human rights and plan on going into Human Rights law when I graduate.

Human rights, interesting....but come to think of it, you kno,..this so-called human rights is just like fashion trends, they're contemporary.......and are unequal all over the world....so how exactly are you going to really decide how and where to say that a "violation of human rights" has occurred ??

And in your opinion, is this pedophilia a violation of human rights ???

Just curious...

Woo lets abuse one of the few people who actually know anything useful on the entire internet.....

JoePedo only wants little kids for his "experiments" :)

Ironically, most of my few off-board contacts have been more-conservative-than-center... I've had the chance to know of a lot more pedos on &t than most people can recognize, though, mostly because I have a better model than, well, lies told to incite hatred... so what's invisible to everyone else is an overt declaration to me and people who are trolling too hard and failing, while I'm sure someone else thinks "omg itz truez," pretty much confirm that they are not ped.

you wouldnt admit to being a paedobaiter anyway of course. i doubt the average pedo has your level of knowledge on this, drugs etc, you must have had pretty advanced training from somewhere n that to me adds weight to why i think you are not what you purport to be.

serious question joepedo, as a child did you have sexual contact with an adult(s)?

serious question joepedo, as a child did you have sexual contact with an adult(s)?

Actually... no.

I'm pretty sure the dude who lived down the street when his college was on break was into little boys, but he never copped a feel while we were wrestling or anything.

Joepedo always makes me wish I was 6 again.

Awww... <3 That's so sweet.

:D Thanks.

Hey joe, just out of curiosity, how old would you go?

Oye... that's a complex question.

The general stock answer I give is along the lines of "oh, about eleven to thirteen." It's pretty approximate, though, because, well... numbers are numbers and body type is body type, but more-or-less...

...but there was one time I saw a girl who looked to be about fifteen, and fairly well developed, who struck me as attractive. It sort of screwed with my head, much as a guy who generally identified as straight and pretty much was would be freaked out when they realized that they actually wanted to bone that man at the gym... but, it happened.

Ironically, it sort of happened again, and I was sort of surprised - literally, a flash of shock and amazement - to discover that I was actually attracted to a woman in her early-mid twenties, for whatever reason I cannot fathom... until I finally obeyed the cardinal male rule, stopped looking at her eyes and face, started looking at her tits... and realized she was, like, ten. Maybe even a little younger, if we're going by the tits. Scared me for a second though, because she really did look older in just about every way not attached to her chest... probably not every way, or I wouldn't have had this crisis, but every way I could consciously detect, and convincing enough to surprise me.

'n on top of that, I've actually got a whopping total of one older woman whom I would actually give a few instances of pity sex or favor sex if she asked - not very many, or I just can't do this, but a few over the course of a lifetime. She's my best friend, and I've known her since, like, forever... 'n, well, the fact that she rocks that much... yeah. Wouldn't feel comfortable, but wouldn't quite feel I'd done the wrong thing just on account of how much I love her for her personality, y'know?

Complicating things even more, she might even get a freebie if she's uncomfortably pregnant and sprawled out at an odd angle in sweatpants and a ratty, oversized t-shirt. I have no freakin' idea why, but it's sort of attractive... not "omg i have 2 get with that!" attractive, but... still kinda cute. One of my problems with heterosexuality, at least when it comes to me engaging in it, is that while I've loved a shitload of women, I actually have a problem connecting with the female form as human. Boys, girls, and men have about the same general form, while women are shaped... different. And they have different... growths, too. Since I'm not zooerotic, and I'm not really homosexual, that leaves me... right where I am, admiring the ladies of the DFC variety. You'd think that adding an extreme swollen uterus would just make this nonrecognition-as-physically human worse, and that leaving it extremely dressed-down and with oddly-splayed breasts wouldn't do much to add to it, but for some reason, it was kinda... cute. Not my thing, but cute. Maybe the enlarged uterus obscured the u-shaped hourglass and hid the oddly-dislocated hips, maybe something else. I don't know, but it looked more... human. 'n kinda admirably cute, tied into the whole "you look like shit and I love you for it" way... which I'm actually kind of a sucker for normally.

Wierd. I can't explain it.

...and to top things off, I really cannot imagine even thinking about leaving someone I've been with consistently just because their bodies have spent some of that time changing, no matter how hard I try, even if we only had a few short years together. Dunno why. I guess it's sort of like the difference between walking every step on the road to old, wrinkly, and finally dead with someone, as opposed to looking forward to hopping in the truck and driving over to the nursing home to hook up on some of that adult-diaper action. Wierd. I would've honestly expected the opposite, really, but I'm stuck with what I find. Even if I'm ashamed of it 'cause if I think about it too much it fucks with my sense of identity...

...so... it's a complex question... but the standard answer is "about somewhere into double digits and before the teens," or something.

Joe, how old are you man?

Umm... uhh... ~looks around for the partyvan~

Fairly young, actually. While I'm a bit older than I used to be, I still fit in the "young legal adult" category when the phone-survey people ask me to answer the question... somewhere.

I nominate JoePedo to be President of Totse.

o.O

...if you're not just a member of a hate group and are actually able to use language intelligably... please, please fuck them up.

And if you are sincerely an admirer of imagery and not a fan of child penetration, I'll do it in your honor.

Anyone wanna summarize this fucking beast of a thread so I can just jump in? Purty plz with little azn bois on top?

sooo joepedo your a pedophile in the same way a man could be considered a necrophiliac because he has sex with women who act or pretend dead?

just want to clarify.
i think you are one of the posters on bltc and LT and an asset to &t in general.

Wait , so Joe Pedo is Max Hardcore?

Epic.

Joe, you might wanna start making sense from time to time..

I know what you're talking about, but I seriously doubt anyone else does. You've laced every statement you've made with ambiguity, and I assume you're just pulling it right out of your brain and letting it ride out on here.

I kind of understand it, but your opponent here is talking about concrete issues (i.e fucking small children) and you are talking about civil wars, types of arguments, eye for and eye and shit. I get it, but at the end of the day all it is is muddying the waters. And the waters can get pretty fucking muddy.

i'll just say that if you don't believe in god, none of the arguments mean shit and Joe is equally justified in his actions as Mother Theresa was.
This. Ok......basically what I got from that is:

1. Joe is likely not a pedo.

2. Danny could be a homosexual trying to distract himself through homophobia.

3. Danny is imagining that Joe is a pedo.

4. Joe could be homosexual, but probably not.

And a bunch of other stuff I am too high to type out right now.

Good night.

I read most of this thread, and then got bored of seeing the same shit over and over again, and decided to post.

I think that the biggest issue that is really muddying up this discussion, is sex. JoePedo makes a good point, whether it was intentional or not, that societies view of sex and sexuality is fucked right up. Although I don't agree with pedophilia, I think the bigger tragedy is how people's strong stance, opinions, and judgments, are the things that affect the children involved in pedophilia in the most negative way.

I've been victimized by these asshole do gooders when I was younger, and it fucked my life right up. I wasn't molested as a child, that I know of anyways, but innocent exploration of sexuality ended on a very harsh note because of the same kind of people here that are arguing with JoePedo. None of you guys ever realize that the biggest hurdle the people you are calling victims face, is facing you. You trumpet so loudly that pedophilia fucks up children so bad, you don't even realize it's that opinion that is what's actually fucking children up.

Some of my girlfriends were victims of sexual abuse as children, and they are quite literally the nicest most wonderful people I've ever met. They are actually very well adjusted, and the only thing that really gets them down in life, is that they have to keep all the things that have happened to them, to themselves, out of fear of being judged as being messed up.

The reality of this world is that pedophilia laws are nearly unenforceable. All of the hate, despise, and witch hunting of these people, has done little to nothing in the ways of stopping it. However, there is an unfortunate side-effect; It has isolated the children that have been involved in these acts. One of the worst things to call these children, is victims. This word makes them feel different.

My point would be this. Maybe instead of worrying about labeling things as wrong, and trying to change something that seems to be part of humanity for all of history; Maybe, just maybe, we should try to make the children not feel like victims, and unintentionally fuck them up. Really, if you want to stop pedophilia, watch your kids and keep them away from people like JoePedo, and those unenforceable laws will be pointless.

My conclusion, JoePedo is only as messed up for his beliefs, as those who are so against them that they'll destroy people's lives just to feel right. It's a fucked up world, lol.

I have to agree with what ease said. I've thought of the same shit before, and realized that if I was molested before (Which I wasn't) and people around didn't make a big deal out of it, I would end up fine. But if people kept saying how it was a sick act, something that should never happen because it messes children up, then my childish brain would think it must grow up to be messed up.

I mean come on, if I got a hand job or something from a hot teacher in 3rd grade, and nobody cared, of course it wouldn't mess me up, how would it when it's just a good feeling that doesn't hurt me in any way?