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.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
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.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Voice Of Reason - A New Direction
As anyone who's read this blog for a while would know, I started it with the naive premise that all sides of the debate would relish a neutral ground in which to post comments, ideas and opinions without one side or the other censoring them or, worse still, editing them to create a false impression of what was actually said. Sadly, I've discovered that a certain group of individuals don't want to be involved in an even handed debate or discussion but are only prepared to comment on their own small blog in order to control, edit and manipulate comments.
For this reason, my blog hasn't succeeded in its original goals and has gradually changed direction from being a forum for rational debate to being more of a commentary of the misrepresetations and illogical fallacies of a group of misguided individuals. I've therefore decided to recognise this change of direction and formalise it.
The new direction of this blog is to comment on the issues and expose falsehoods and illogical prejudices wherever they may occur. Of course, I still welcome comments and thoughts from anyone who wishes to contribute and hope that at some stage both sides of the debate will become mature and confident enough to contribute to a forum over which they're not able to have control and manipulate the comments of those with whom they disagree.
For this reason, my blog hasn't succeeded in its original goals and has gradually changed direction from being a forum for rational debate to being more of a commentary of the misrepresetations and illogical fallacies of a group of misguided individuals. I've therefore decided to recognise this change of direction and formalise it.
The new direction of this blog is to comment on the issues and expose falsehoods and illogical prejudices wherever they may occur. Of course, I still welcome comments and thoughts from anyone who wishes to contribute and hope that at some stage both sides of the debate will become mature and confident enough to contribute to a forum over which they're not able to have control and manipulate the comments of those with whom they disagree.
Friday, November 20, 2009
250 Days and Counting...
Yep, the 250 day mark of the Jeremy Bolick challenge has passed and we're still no closer to a resolution.
For those not in the know, Jeremy is a man who has been convicted of multiple child sex offenses and possession of child pornography. Ironically, given his history, he is also someone who labelled me as a paedosexual. I challenged him to provide proof of this and, to date, his best attempt has been nothing short of pathetic.
As I commented at the time of his response to my challenge, picking a random Australian (my nationality) from the GirlChat archives and attributing his comments to me really doesn't cut the mustard. Seriously, I'd have expected Jeremy to have at least made up an IP address and then claimed that both my posts on this blog and the GirlChat posts came from the same computer. He hasn't even done this. He's just posted the GirlChat Aussie's posts and claimed they were written by me: no evidence and no proof are apparently perfectly acceptable in Jeremy's world. As a side note; given the comments of support from his cronies at AZU, apparently they don't place any importance on evidence or proof either.
Come on Jeremy, we both know what's really got you hot and bothered. You're trying to ingratiate yourself with the AZU fundamentalists whilst having a dirty, perverted past. It frustrates and angers you no end that you're a convicted child sex offender and I'm not so you want to do anything possible to drag me down to your level. Well, it won't work. The reason you've resorted to baseless non-proof tactics is you know your original claim is a lie.
Sorry Jeremy... yet again your best attempts turn out to be epic fails.
For those not in the know, Jeremy is a man who has been convicted of multiple child sex offenses and possession of child pornography. Ironically, given his history, he is also someone who labelled me as a paedosexual. I challenged him to provide proof of this and, to date, his best attempt has been nothing short of pathetic.
As I commented at the time of his response to my challenge, picking a random Australian (my nationality) from the GirlChat archives and attributing his comments to me really doesn't cut the mustard. Seriously, I'd have expected Jeremy to have at least made up an IP address and then claimed that both my posts on this blog and the GirlChat posts came from the same computer. He hasn't even done this. He's just posted the GirlChat Aussie's posts and claimed they were written by me: no evidence and no proof are apparently perfectly acceptable in Jeremy's world. As a side note; given the comments of support from his cronies at AZU, apparently they don't place any importance on evidence or proof either.
Come on Jeremy, we both know what's really got you hot and bothered. You're trying to ingratiate yourself with the AZU fundamentalists whilst having a dirty, perverted past. It frustrates and angers you no end that you're a convicted child sex offender and I'm not so you want to do anything possible to drag me down to your level. Well, it won't work. The reason you've resorted to baseless non-proof tactics is you know your original claim is a lie.
Sorry Jeremy... yet again your best attempts turn out to be epic fails.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Dennis Ferguson - Interview
For those not in the know, Dennis Ferguson is a man who was convicted of child molestation in the late 1980s. Since his conviction, he has steadfastly maintained his innocence. This refusal to admit to a crime he claims not to have committed led to his exclusion from sex offender treatment programmes in prison and thus also excluded him from the possibility of early parole. He served his full 14 year sentence and was eventually released from prison to an awaiting media frenzy. Since his release he's been hounded from house to house as successive communities have been whipped into a frenzy. None of us will ever know for sure if he really did commit that vile crime or if he was indeed wrongly convicted as he claims. He's been exposed to massive media coverage yet few of us really know much about him besides the one dimensional caricature the media present. For this reason it was interesting to watch the progamme devoted to him on Four Corners tonight. He doesn't present well but that's largely to do with his physical characteristics and the facial expressions that come with his blindness.
My gut feeling is that he is indeed guilty of molesting those poor kids and deserved the sentence he received. Still, he's now paid his debt and should be able to get on with his life without being constantly hounded and harassed by the unwashed masses - in particular the media whore Sean Killgallon who he's been driven to apply for an Apprehended Violence Order against. Check out the interview and story and make up your own mind.
LINK TO FOUR CORNERS SITE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
