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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
It seams Stitches77 is at her worst when she is at her most angry. Get her upset and she gives the game away.
She certainly does. It's ironic the amount of time she spends accusing others of hiding their true agendas when she's the queen of obfuscation.
When the true AZU agenda and bigotry are exposed, you've got to ask yourself why child sex offenders like Jeremy Bolick and Tsand side with them. To voluntarily associate with people who want you dead really makes no sense to me.
Hmmm.... I actually agree with you. It doesn't really make sense to just hate on the group based on their sexual orientation. Then again, not many support their orientation anyway. It's one of them lose-lose situations because they can't act out of it and no one in the right way will support them.
I also agree that people need to judged by actions, not by attractions. Then again, you have the ability to stop a child from being molested by arresting someone with this attraction, would you do it? I mean, paedosexuals are pretty much the people that those this crime the most. It would be like thought crime and thinking ahead, but do you think that would be worth it when it comes to children? I guess I can understand their point to an extent because this crime rarely gets reported and it can happen so quietly. I also aware that there are innocent paedosexuals that haven't done a thing.
There should be a middle ground toward this. Keep in mind that I don't support pedophilia nor child molestation or nor child porn. I really care for the children that have been harmed as those people, but not all of wants to harm and they need treatment assume that they won't make a move.
"It seams Stitches77 is at her worst when she is at her most angry. Get her upset and she gives the game away."
That's partially why she rarely leaves the confines of AZU. See, at AZU she has other haters to support her and kiss her ass. She steps out, like she has done on a few public forums, and she gets slammed by everyone there, because it is obvious to so many people she's full of shit and just hate-filled. Like a few months ago when she commented on an article on The Economist, everyone slammed her comments, and she ran with her tail tucked between her legs.
All AZU members know HOW to do is make personal attacks. So far, it has backfired.
"I mean, paedosexuals are pretty much the people that those this crime the most. It would be like thought crime and thinking ahead, but do you think that would be worth it when it comes to children?"
Torchic Maniac - This a very seductive argument to a lot of people. Would it not be better to incarcerate all paedosexuals if it meant no children would ever be molested? The simple answer is no. The majority of paedophiles never molest a child and to suggest they should be incarcerated because of the actions of a minority is abhorrent.
A similar question would be whether it would be worth incarcerating all males as this would result in the elimination of virtually all rapes? Again, a resounding 'no' is the response.
We need to fight to maintain the values our society (and yours) claim to hold dear. It's appropriate to punish those who do wrong but it's an indictment on society to punish those who merely think wrong.
The simple answer is no. The majority of paedophiles never molest a child and to suggest they should be incarcerated because of the actions of a minority is abhorrent.
Well, think about it. No one really likes paedophilies. Imagine that you have a family with a few children and you have a neighbor that likes your children in a friend. Later, you learn that the neighbor is a paedosexual. Would you trust this person with children again? I am fully aware that my argument is seductive but the fact remains that people fear and hate paedosexuals because they have the exotic thoughts towards them and I could develop that urge to touch them. As much I don't like thoughtcrime at all, children are very vulnerable to those people. I know that not all of them are bad, but they are a risk still.
A similar question would be whether it would be worth incarcerating all males as this would result in the elimination of virtually all rapes? Again, a resounding 'no' is the response.
It's a similar yet different question between rape is the matter of failed or nonexistent consent. Communication problems or alcohol or drugs can influence the consent to make it look like it happened or the rapist might have some type of terrible ideology about women or men that cause the rape. That question is just too general. As for the children, they can't consent and they are not supposed to be sexual because they are developed and they won't understand it. There is no gray area in that.
Again, I believe that actions should be the judges, not thoughts, but those type of thoughts about children are dangerous. I wish there were some more research about paedosexuals to confirm that they won't just simply what their consuming thoughts tell them to do.
Post a Comment