Post directed at Michael Melsheimer
However, I said I was going to neutralize you and that's exactly what I'm going to do.
If you are "ticked pink" by me and dismiss me as 'your best enemy', I can only say that's your misfortune for not taking me seriously. You will, after all, never be able to say that I didn't give you fair warning.
Stitches
I hate to burst your bubble SC but the only people who take you seriously are the half dozen in your little gang. The rest of us just laugh at you. You think we visit your blog because we take it at all seriously? You're deluding yourself. We visit it purely for the comedy value. Yes, I know it's cruel to laugh at the mentally challenged but you set yourself up so well that I can't help but point and laugh derisively at your glorious ineptitude.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Jezza.. Where Are You???
Well, as you can see by the Jeremy clock in the left hand toolbar, the 150 day mark has come and gone since I laid down the challenge to Mr Static to either put up or shut up. I knew he couldn't back up the crap he'd been dribbling because it's.. well.. a load of crap, but I really didn't expect him to shut up. Still, since I put the spotlight on Jeremy, he's gone missing in action. I don't know the cause of his disappearance. It may be that my challenge humiliated him and he's licking his wounds. It may be that he's holed up in his bedroom scouring the internet to try and find some non-existent 'evidence' against me. It may be that he's been caught sexually offending against children again and is currently incarcerated. It may be that he's woken up to the real agenda of the idiots he's been associating with and has wisely run a mile in the opposite direction. Whatever the reason for his disappearance, my invitation for him to prove his baseless allegations still stands.
Tick tock Jeremy.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Deep Thoughts Pt6
I hope he gets butt raped repeatedly without any ice cream or "powder" to relax.
This comment says it all really. They may pretend to hate rape but we all know they really get off on the thought of it. No one who truly hates rape could feel pleasure at the thought of another person being raped. No one who truly hates rape could be capable of the perversion of actively hoping for someone else to be raped. Violent Leaves' own words betray the desires of her heart and the depravity of her soul.
What a truly sick individual.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
A Small Mind Exposed
I read with extreme disdain the attack on Ben Radford by the intellectual midgets at AZU. For those who have been living under a rock, Ben is the editor of The Skeptical Enquirer and a well respected member of the skeptical community. He has a degree in Psychology and a great many publications to his name. Basically, in intellectual terms, he is as Gulliver to the Lilliputians of AZU. So, for someone as terminally dim as SC to describe him as a "...shallow thinking fool..." is simply outrageous.SC should get down on her well worn knees, beg his forgiveness and plead to be allowed to sit at his feet and learn what it is to use reason and logic. She should beg him to show her how to reach for the stars rather than continuing to wallow in the muck. For so long she has surrounded herself with sycophants and retards that her own ego has exploded out of control. She seems to have convinced herself by avoiding answering direct questions through a combination of ad homenim attacks and censorship of comments that she's smart. She's not. Not even a little bit.
Interesting Study
I came across press reports of this study a couple of weeks ago and thought it sounded interesting. I won't say too much about it as it's pretty self-explanatory but I'll just post the conclusion summary and the link to the study:
Of course I'd never advocate any illegal activity and I'm certainly not advocating the collecting of child pornography. What I am saying is that this study clearly repudiates the unsubstantiated opinions of the posters on some other blogs. As someone who is always open to the evidence, I'll be interested to see if they can produce any academic studies that support their position or if they'll just launch into another series of vacuous ad hominem attacks.
Consuming child pornography alone is not a risk factor for committing hands-on sex offenses – at least not for those subjects who had never committed a hands-on sex offense. The majority of the investigated consumers had no previous convictions for hands-on sex offenses. For those offenders, the prognosis for hands-on sex offenses, as well as for recidivism with child pornography, is favorable.As is often quoted on the Vigilant Antis site, Sarah Tofte pointed out that at least 75% of convicted sex offenders don't reoffend again within at least 15 years. This new study has now found evidence that the viewing of child pornography doesn't lead non-abusers to start sexually abusing children.
LINK TO STUDY
Of course I'd never advocate any illegal activity and I'm certainly not advocating the collecting of child pornography. What I am saying is that this study clearly repudiates the unsubstantiated opinions of the posters on some other blogs. As someone who is always open to the evidence, I'll be interested to see if they can produce any academic studies that support their position or if they'll just launch into another series of vacuous ad hominem attacks.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
A Very Sad Case
LINK TO NEWS STORY
Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.
So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.
So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.
This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.
Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.
So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.
So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.
This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
