Jeremy Bolick and Clay Keys:
As you're both quite vociferous in your support of AZU I'd like to clarify some issues.
AZU support publicly accessible registers of sex offenders in order for people to be able to identify the sex offenders in their community. My questions to you both are:
* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, have you actively informed those living in your street and nearby streets that you are convicted child sex offenders and that people should be wary of you?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?
The more unbalanced members of AZU advocate that paedophiles and child sex offenders should commit suicide. My questions to you both are:
* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, is this not extreme hypocrisy given that you are both convicted child sex offenders and yet neither of you have committed suicide?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?
AZU support a 'one strike' policy whereby all convicted sex offenders are permanently locked up following their first conviction. Further, they support mandatory civil confinement for any non-offenders with a paedophilic or hebephilic sexual orientation or anyone who supports them. My questions to you both are:
* Do you support AZU's position on this?
* If so, given that you have both already had your first strike (in Jeremy's case, three strikes that we know of) what steps have you taken to have yourselves forcibly confined?
* If you don't support AZU's position on this, why haven't you stated so publicly?
There are plenty more questions that I will have for you but this will do for now. Do I actually expect you to answer them? Of course not. I know you're both cowards who'll avoid any sort of accountability but still, someone needs to ask them.
My own belief is that you are both filthy hypocrites who support AZU's rhetoric as long as it doesn't actually get applied to you. I doubt very much you'll be able to truthfully answer my questions without your hypocrisy being exposed for all to see.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
A Belated Merry Christmas
Yes, I know it's a couple of days late but I'd like to wish a belated Merry Christmas to all my readers and contributors. Thanks for your support, comments and emails during 2009 and I look forward to continuing the discussion into 2010.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Deep Thoughts Pt8
-
I hope they get beat up-raped-dominated daily in prison for the rest of their lives.
How perverse. How disgusting.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Gay Paedophiles? Surely not...
You're not a 'male homosexual.' You are a pedophile. Period.
Clearly the statement by rookiee (a rather apt moniker) is ridiculous but this is the standard of logic one expects in the AZU comments. According to rookiee, one is either a paedophile or one is a homosexual; one seemingly can't be both. The problem with this is that the terms 'paedophile' and 'homosexual' refer to different types of orientation and are not mutually exclusive. Homosexual refers to one's gender orientation whereas paedophile refers to one's developmental orientation.
A person can be homosexual (attracted to same gender), heterosexual (attracted to opposite gender), bisexual (attracted to both genders) or asexual (not sexually attracted to either gender). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the gender a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the developmental stage they're most attracted to.
A person can be paedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephile (attracted to pubescent children), ephebophile (attracted to adolescents), teleiophile (attracted to adults) or gerontophile (attracted to the elderly). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the developmental stage a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the gender they're most attracted to.
Therefore, a male who is primarily attracted to prepubescent girls is a heterosexual paedophile whilst a male who is primarily attracted to pubescent boys is a homosexual hebephile etc. This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to think logically about the issue.
So why would rookiee make such a silly comment? Is he just ignorant or is there a hidden agenda in play? Is it limited to AZU or is there a wider agenda? This is an interesting subject as it is indeed wider than AZU and incorporates what is now generally referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as well. The agendas of the two groups are different but manifest themselves in similar language.
To understand the agenda of the LGBT lobby, one needs to be aware of the history of the early days of the homosexual political agenda. In the early 1970's the LGBT lobby was in its infancy and fighting an uphill battle against institutionalised discrimination and persecution. It was during this time that NAMBLA was formed and became active within the LGBT lobby. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's it became clear to the LGBT lobby that its association with NAMBLA was becoming a liability in its attempts to gain mainstream acceptance as the general public falsely associated homosexuals with child molesters. Increasingly NAMBLA was ostracised by the wider LGBT community. NAMBLA remained a member group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993 when they were excluded for political reasons. Today the gay lobby has been known to claim that adult men who are attracted to prepubescent boys are not true homosexuals (hmmm.. where have I heard that?) as they're really attracted to the boy's 'femininity' rather than the 'masculine' characteristics true homosexuals are attracted to. To anyone without a vested interest, the political agenda of the LGBT lobby is clear. By claiming that gay paedophiles are not truly homosexual, they are effectively arguing that there are no paedophiles in the gay community and, by extension, that paedophilia is a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon. How patently ridiculous. Of course, if one is to believe that a homosexual orientation is just as natural and legitimate as a heterosexual orientation, then it follows that their argument should apply equally to heterosexual paedophiles ie. adult males who are attracted to prepubescent girls aren't true heterosexuals. Again, how patently ridiculous. No, the reason for the LGBT lobby to claim paedophiles aren't true homosexuals is purely one of political expedience and completely illegitimate and corrupt.
So what of AZU? Whilst the LGBT agenda is one of self-serving political expedience, the AZU agenda is simply one of old fashioned, down 'n' dirty bigotry as I've previously exposed. As a part of achieving their agenda, they manipulate language in the grand traditions of newspeak. In a previous post I showed how Stitches77 is attempting to limit the definitions of what can be considered sexual intercourse. Similarly, here they try to limit the definitions of what can be considered homosexuality. Remember that the term 'homosexual' refers only to one's gender orientation and conveys no information about the developmental stage one is primarily attacted to, yet the AZU agenda is to limit its definition to adults attracted to same gender adults (ie. teleiophile homosexuals). But why would AZU be so concerned about homosexual paedosexuals being recognised as such? How does it harm their agenda? The answer is that it humanises them and we all know that it's much easier to discriminate and persecute a group that are dehumanised. Anti-Semites through the ages have known this and used it to their advantage. The quote below from Stitches77 (the spiritual, if not intellectual, leader of AZU) betrays their agenda:
I don't call filthy pedophiles who want to fuck children - human.
Stitches
I've previously demonstrated that AZU hate paedosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation; whether they harm a child or not is irrelevant in their warped thinking. Again in this quote, Stitches77 exposes that her hatred isn't limited to those who actually harm a child, but to anyone who is even attracted to a child.
So this brings me back to the original quote from rookiee and my question of whether he is just ignorant or if he's pushing an agenda. To be honest, I'm not sure. In rare moments of honesty, Stitches77 has exposed that she is consciously pushing an agenda of dehumanisation and subversion of language but it is entirely possible that rookiee is simply an ignorant bigot, unaware of the tactics Stitches77 exploits. In either case, it's important that such bigotry is exposed and combatted.
Paedosexuals are human. Paedosexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Fact. Anyone who would claim otherwise is pushing an agenda and should be treated with great caution and scepticism.
Clearly the statement by rookiee (a rather apt moniker) is ridiculous but this is the standard of logic one expects in the AZU comments. According to rookiee, one is either a paedophile or one is a homosexual; one seemingly can't be both. The problem with this is that the terms 'paedophile' and 'homosexual' refer to different types of orientation and are not mutually exclusive. Homosexual refers to one's gender orientation whereas paedophile refers to one's developmental orientation.
A person can be homosexual (attracted to same gender), heterosexual (attracted to opposite gender), bisexual (attracted to both genders) or asexual (not sexually attracted to either gender). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the gender a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the developmental stage they're most attracted to.
A person can be paedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), hebephile (attracted to pubescent children), ephebophile (attracted to adolescents), teleiophile (attracted to adults) or gerontophile (attracted to the elderly). Clearly, this describes nothing more than the developmental stage a person is sexually attracted to and conveys no information about the gender they're most attracted to.
Therefore, a male who is primarily attracted to prepubescent girls is a heterosexual paedophile whilst a male who is primarily attracted to pubescent boys is a homosexual hebephile etc. This is obvious to anyone who takes the time to think logically about the issue.
So why would rookiee make such a silly comment? Is he just ignorant or is there a hidden agenda in play? Is it limited to AZU or is there a wider agenda? This is an interesting subject as it is indeed wider than AZU and incorporates what is now generally referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby as well. The agendas of the two groups are different but manifest themselves in similar language.
To understand the agenda of the LGBT lobby, one needs to be aware of the history of the early days of the homosexual political agenda. In the early 1970's the LGBT lobby was in its infancy and fighting an uphill battle against institutionalised discrimination and persecution. It was during this time that NAMBLA was formed and became active within the LGBT lobby. Throughout the 1970's and into the 1980's it became clear to the LGBT lobby that its association with NAMBLA was becoming a liability in its attempts to gain mainstream acceptance as the general public falsely associated homosexuals with child molesters. Increasingly NAMBLA was ostracised by the wider LGBT community. NAMBLA remained a member group of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993 when they were excluded for political reasons. Today the gay lobby has been known to claim that adult men who are attracted to prepubescent boys are not true homosexuals (hmmm.. where have I heard that?) as they're really attracted to the boy's 'femininity' rather than the 'masculine' characteristics true homosexuals are attracted to. To anyone without a vested interest, the political agenda of the LGBT lobby is clear. By claiming that gay paedophiles are not truly homosexual, they are effectively arguing that there are no paedophiles in the gay community and, by extension, that paedophilia is a uniquely heterosexual phenomenon. How patently ridiculous. Of course, if one is to believe that a homosexual orientation is just as natural and legitimate as a heterosexual orientation, then it follows that their argument should apply equally to heterosexual paedophiles ie. adult males who are attracted to prepubescent girls aren't true heterosexuals. Again, how patently ridiculous. No, the reason for the LGBT lobby to claim paedophiles aren't true homosexuals is purely one of political expedience and completely illegitimate and corrupt.
So what of AZU? Whilst the LGBT agenda is one of self-serving political expedience, the AZU agenda is simply one of old fashioned, down 'n' dirty bigotry as I've previously exposed. As a part of achieving their agenda, they manipulate language in the grand traditions of newspeak. In a previous post I showed how Stitches77 is attempting to limit the definitions of what can be considered sexual intercourse. Similarly, here they try to limit the definitions of what can be considered homosexuality. Remember that the term 'homosexual' refers only to one's gender orientation and conveys no information about the developmental stage one is primarily attacted to, yet the AZU agenda is to limit its definition to adults attracted to same gender adults (ie. teleiophile homosexuals). But why would AZU be so concerned about homosexual paedosexuals being recognised as such? How does it harm their agenda? The answer is that it humanises them and we all know that it's much easier to discriminate and persecute a group that are dehumanised. Anti-Semites through the ages have known this and used it to their advantage. The quote below from Stitches77 (the spiritual, if not intellectual, leader of AZU) betrays their agenda:
I don't call filthy pedophiles who want to fuck children - human.
Stitches
I've previously demonstrated that AZU hate paedosexuals purely because of their sexual orientation; whether they harm a child or not is irrelevant in their warped thinking. Again in this quote, Stitches77 exposes that her hatred isn't limited to those who actually harm a child, but to anyone who is even attracted to a child.
So this brings me back to the original quote from rookiee and my question of whether he is just ignorant or if he's pushing an agenda. To be honest, I'm not sure. In rare moments of honesty, Stitches77 has exposed that she is consciously pushing an agenda of dehumanisation and subversion of language but it is entirely possible that rookiee is simply an ignorant bigot, unaware of the tactics Stitches77 exploits. In either case, it's important that such bigotry is exposed and combatted.
Paedosexuals are human. Paedosexuals can be homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. Fact. Anyone who would claim otherwise is pushing an agenda and should be treated with great caution and scepticism.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Voice of Hate
"The goal of therapy for pedophiles is never their emotional well-being."
Who gives a flying fuck about the well being of these freaks? Castrate them, kill them, lock them up for life. All are good options. Fuck their well being.
Remember that she's not referring to child molesters but anyone with the paedosexual orientation. She wants castration, murder and incarceration to be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty. This is bigotry as irrational and insidious as any other.
Remember we must judge actions, not attractions.
Who gives a flying fuck about the well being of these freaks? Castrate them, kill them, lock them up for life. All are good options. Fuck their well being.
Remember that she's not referring to child molesters but anyone with the paedosexual orientation. She wants castration, murder and incarceration to be applied to the innocent as well as the guilty. This is bigotry as irrational and insidious as any other.
Remember we must judge actions, not attractions.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Deep Thoughts Pt7
Tyciol reminds me of Kevin who recently said Phillip Garrido "had sex" with Jaycee Dugard.
No he didn't. He did not have sex with her. He raped her. Period.
Stitches
Someone needs to explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse to Stitches77. There's a number of ways in which someone can be raped, and forced sex is one of those. It may be forced and it may not involve affection or love and it's definitely abhorrent but it's still sex regardless of what the thought police may instruct us to believe.
No he didn't. He did not have sex with her. He raped her. Period.
Stitches
Someone needs to explain the mechanics of sexual intercourse to Stitches77. There's a number of ways in which someone can be raped, and forced sex is one of those. It may be forced and it may not involve affection or love and it's definitely abhorrent but it's still sex regardless of what the thought police may instruct us to believe.
Judge Actions, Not Attractions
I'm worried about these pedophiles. Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?
Cake | 12.02.09 - 4:47 pm | LINK
"Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?"
Why does that matter?
Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 12.02.09 - 5:57 pm | LINK
Well this says everything about the true agenda of AZU. They pretend to be concerned about the well being of children but this slip by Stitches77 proves that this isn't their main concern. It shows clearly that their overriding motivation is bigotry and paedophobia. They're far more concerned with a person's sexual orientation than their actions. They don't care whether someone is a child molester or not. They don't care whether someone collects child pornography or not. All they care about is someones underlying orientation. In the same way a homophobe hates homosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to the same gender, these people hate paedosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to children.
Someone reading the AZU blog for the first time may well assume they're using the term 'paedophile' in the same way as the media ie. as a synonym for child molester. As most of us hate the sexual molestation of children, we'd tend to agree with what they have to say. It's only when you realise this isn't the case that you come to understand what these people are really like. When they call for all paedosexuals to be gaoled or exterminated, they don't mean just paedosexuals who've broken the law by downloading child pornography or by abusing a child. They advocate the extermination or permanent incarceration of anyone who has this orientation, regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. When they talk about doing the 'paedo stomp', they're wanting to stomp people because of their orientation, not because they've committed any crime.
Let me be crystal clear: these people are of the same calibre as a racist, a homophobe, an anti-semite or anyone else who hates a minority based purely on a physical or emotional characteristic over which they have no control. The standard AZU response to this comparison is to immediately jump on the defensive and try to obfuscate the issue by making irrelevant counter-arguments. They'll say that homosexual relationships between consenting adults are not illegal or immoral whereas sexual relationships between adults and children are so therefore the comparison between them and homophobes is false. Naturally, any intelligent person recognises this argument as the red herring it is. No one is denying that it's factually correct, but it bears no relevance to the original accusation. The only way it would be of any relevance is if every paedosexual was engaging in a sexual relationship with a child which is clearly not the case. No, to hate people based on their sexual orientation makes you a bigot, regardless of which orientation it is that you hate.
There are further parallels to the bigots of the past. When white folk took up the civil rights cause, they were derisively referred to as 'nigger lovers'. When environmentalists opposed the logging of ancient forests, they were derisively referred to as 'tree huggers'. Now when people oppose paedophobia, we get derisively referred to as 'enablers'. It's all part of a campaign to denigrate and belittle anyone courageous enough to challenge the status quo.
I'm not saying the AZU bigots aren't concerned for children's safety as I'm sure they are. I'm also concerned for children's safety and want to see child molestors gaoled for appropriate terms. What I don't do is use this concern to attempt to justify bigotry. I don't exploit the abuse of children in order to further an agenda. I don't choose to hate a minority group simply because I don't share their attraction.
In short, I judge actions, not attractions.
Cake | 12.02.09 - 4:47 pm | LINK
"Has it been confirmed that every member on those sites have abused children before?"
Why does that matter?
Stitches
Stitches77 | Homepage | 12.02.09 - 5:57 pm | LINK
Well this says everything about the true agenda of AZU. They pretend to be concerned about the well being of children but this slip by Stitches77 proves that this isn't their main concern. It shows clearly that their overriding motivation is bigotry and paedophobia. They're far more concerned with a person's sexual orientation than their actions. They don't care whether someone is a child molester or not. They don't care whether someone collects child pornography or not. All they care about is someones underlying orientation. In the same way a homophobe hates homosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to the same gender, these people hate paedosexuals for no greater reason than they happen to be attracted to children.
Someone reading the AZU blog for the first time may well assume they're using the term 'paedophile' in the same way as the media ie. as a synonym for child molester. As most of us hate the sexual molestation of children, we'd tend to agree with what they have to say. It's only when you realise this isn't the case that you come to understand what these people are really like. When they call for all paedosexuals to be gaoled or exterminated, they don't mean just paedosexuals who've broken the law by downloading child pornography or by abusing a child. They advocate the extermination or permanent incarceration of anyone who has this orientation, regardless of whether they've committed a crime or not. When they talk about doing the 'paedo stomp', they're wanting to stomp people because of their orientation, not because they've committed any crime.
Let me be crystal clear: these people are of the same calibre as a racist, a homophobe, an anti-semite or anyone else who hates a minority based purely on a physical or emotional characteristic over which they have no control. The standard AZU response to this comparison is to immediately jump on the defensive and try to obfuscate the issue by making irrelevant counter-arguments. They'll say that homosexual relationships between consenting adults are not illegal or immoral whereas sexual relationships between adults and children are so therefore the comparison between them and homophobes is false. Naturally, any intelligent person recognises this argument as the red herring it is. No one is denying that it's factually correct, but it bears no relevance to the original accusation. The only way it would be of any relevance is if every paedosexual was engaging in a sexual relationship with a child which is clearly not the case. No, to hate people based on their sexual orientation makes you a bigot, regardless of which orientation it is that you hate.
There are further parallels to the bigots of the past. When white folk took up the civil rights cause, they were derisively referred to as 'nigger lovers'. When environmentalists opposed the logging of ancient forests, they were derisively referred to as 'tree huggers'. Now when people oppose paedophobia, we get derisively referred to as 'enablers'. It's all part of a campaign to denigrate and belittle anyone courageous enough to challenge the status quo.
I'm not saying the AZU bigots aren't concerned for children's safety as I'm sure they are. I'm also concerned for children's safety and want to see child molestors gaoled for appropriate terms. What I don't do is use this concern to attempt to justify bigotry. I don't exploit the abuse of children in order to further an agenda. I don't choose to hate a minority group simply because I don't share their attraction.
In short, I judge actions, not attractions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
