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.
Logue Hater | | 12.07.09 - 4:57 pm | LINK

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.

Deep Thoughts Pt5

Quote from Logue Hater

I imagine a search of Derek's hard drive would turn up some things that would put him in prison.

Enjoy your disability (and freedom), Derek. While it lasts.
Logue Hater | 04.16.09 - 5:13 am | #


Yes Logue Hater, we all know what sort of imagination you have. This is your second time being featured in Deep Thoughts after being the inaugural scumbag in the series for your unforgivable pleasure derived from fantasies of Derek being raped.

So you know Derek has things on his hard drive that would put him in prison? Of course not. It's all in your warped imagination.

You are one seriously sick individual.

Deep Thoughts Pt3

Quote from Jeremy/Static:

"Furthermore, the only people I've called "pedo" is Nigel (I dare you to prove me wrong), Jack (again, prove me wrong)..."

Ahhh, the old 'prove me wrong' argument. We hear this all the time in the sceptic community; usually from religious types who state there is a God without providing any evidence and then demand we prove them wrong. Of course we can't do this. But the thing is, we don't need to as the onus of proof is on them to prove their claim is true... just as the onus of proof is on Jeremy to prove his claim to be true. He knows he can't do this and therefore doesn't even try. After all, the best 'evidence' he's managed to uncover is my use of a non-AZU approved word. He hangs his entire argument on the use of a single word!! I understand that my contempt for him and his half a dozen cronies irritates them but that is evidence of nothing but my ability to see through their self-indulgent bullshit. It proves nothing about my sexual predilections. And to think he's the one SC points to as some sort of bastion of logic. I point and laugh derisively.

What is really quite entertaining to me is that one such as he would try and label me a paedo (yes, that's how those who use proper English spell it). I certainly wouldn't call him one as I have no idea of whether he is or not. What I do know is that he's a sex offender who targets kids and, as such, isn't the sort of person I feel any compulsion to justify myself to.

What Have We Come To?

Is this picture child pornography? Apparently it may be as a library in the West Australian city of Perth decided it shouldn't be included in an arts exhibition in case people were offended by it. 

How did we come to the ludicrous stage where such an innocent picture could be banned for being potentially offensive? Going from media reports, it would appear the hysteria whipped up last year over the work of internationally renowned artist Bill Henson is the catalyst. Henson included topless photos of an early teen girl as part of an art exhibition and the resulting media storm has made people extremely nervous of displaying artworks that any politically correct crackpot could claim to be child pornography. 

Personally I see nothing sexual or pornographic about this picture and think it's a great shame that a warped bunch of do-gooders have distorted something innocent and wholesome into something that can be banned for being offensive. Shame on you.

The 'Romeo & Juliet' Con

In sexual offense terms, the reference to 'Romeo & Juliet' is made when the two participants are relatively close together in age. Usually it refers to a circumstance in which one particpant is underage whilst the other is over; but it can also refer to a circumstance where both participants are underage.

This is an interesting (and controversial) subject. I personally don't agree with Romeo & Juliet laws. To me it's a cop out. It's a con. Someone is either capable of consenting to sexual activity or they're not. The age of the person to whom they're giving consent is completely irrelevant. Presently in my country the age at which people can legally give consent is 16 in most states. This means that up to, and including, the age of 15 years and 364 days they are not considered legally capable of making the decision to give consent to sexual activity... period. (I'm yet to grasp what magically happens at midnight on the night a person turns 16 but that's a topic for another day.) The age of the person they want to have sexual activity with shouldn't be taken into consideration at all. The possible consequences of sexual activity (which is what they supposedly are not intelligent enough to comprehend) are the same whether they're active with someone who is 14 or 40. I'm yet to hear anyone give a rational or convincing refutation to this fact. I appreciate there are arguments that there's a power differential when an older person is involved but, again, that's a separate issue as I'm very aware of the power peer pressure holds over people of all ages.

So why do I consider this concept to be a con and a cop out? Well, it's clear that if we need to relieve people of a certain age from the burden of choosing what to do with their bodies, this must be uniform and without exceptions. There's no grey area. They're either capable of making choices of a sexual nature or they're not. What's interesting is that there are people on both sides of the fence in favour of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws. So what's their motivation?

For those who champion age of consent laws there's a big upside to these laws. Enforcing age of consent laws when the 'sex offenders' are other young people would be a massive PR disaster. So, to avoid having such a PR problem they're willing to sell out the very people they claim need protection. This not only makes them hypocrites but completely destroys their credibility. In the vacuous language of AZU, they would be known as 'enablers'.

For those who oppose age of consent laws it introduces a grey area that can be exploited. It opens a line of logic that underage people are actually capable of choosing whether or not they want to be sexually active. It is effectively the thin end of the proverbial wedge.

As I said earlier, the concept of 'Romeo & Juliet' laws is a con and a cop out. Our law makers have decided at what age a person is capable of choosing to engage in sexual activity and everyone should be treated equally under the law... regardless of age. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

Deep Thoughts Pt2

Quote from Violet Leaves:

"Jacks (sic) 'cause' for pedophiles, sex offenders and their free speech rights is such a mystery...

~**Violet Leaves**~ | Homepage | 11.06.08 - 10:16 am | # "

What VL doesn't explain is how my 'cause' for the free speech rights of her and her friends fits into her conspiracy theory.

{link to comments}

Licensed To Hug

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/2008/06/licensed_to_hug.html

This is a Civitas Blog entry from a couple of months ago. It's about a paper released by a Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent in the UK investigating the current state of paranoia regarding child molesters and the effect it's having on intergenerational relationships. Some of the stories related to the author are very sad and highlight how social engineering often comes with unintended negative consequences.

One story that I found particularly poignant is that of a 2 year old girl who drowned in a pond. It transpired that a man had seen her wandering the streets as he was driving his car but didn't stop to ensure she was safe as he was fearful of being accused of attempting to abduct her. In this case, the climate of fear and suspicion that is so prevalent today led directly to the death of a child when, had things been different, she would likely have been picked up by the man and returned home or to a police station. I must admit that I doubt I'd have stopped either. The stigma of being labelled a paedosexual is one that can ruin your life and far too big a risk to undertake lightly.

I found this to be a very interesting article and would encourage those who visit the Voice of Reason to take the time to read it and, if you feel inclined, to make comment.