Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[mak2]

careful or you will be labelled by the crazies.

I just don't care. I just find the craziness on at least a couple of levels on this forum interesting. I was just asking if it is Q realted.

 

[toobfreak]

Thats the point. It would be limited under this rule.

Huh?

 

[toobfreak]

careful or you will be labelled by the crazies.

Tommy, normal people occupying 90% of the world are not Crazies. You need to get out more to realize you are Captain of the crazy ship.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I havent been promoting it. I have said that it might be a useful tool in age appropriate settings.
Its aimed at teenagers and young adults. That seems fine to me.
You see this is where your witch burning persona takes over. You lack basic integrity and twist anything that is said to fit your diseased mind.
You accused me of supporting rape gangs but have never provided any evidence. you are just low grade trash.
View attachment 754222

Well, you see, when you taunt and gloat when people who oppose the gang rape of children are jailed, attack anybody who points out that Pakistani men were selecting young British girls, and then continue to attack and smear anybody who objects in even the tiniest way to these horrific events, any protestations you might make that your undeniable pattern of behavior does not represent your actual views is not believable.


You had easily a dozen such threads with each one following the same pattern -- the opening taunts and smug dismissal, the apologia for the actions involved, the condensation shown any who oppose these rapes and your constant attack against those who sympathized with the victims.

It's what you do that counts. It's not the stories you tell others about what you have done.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Huh?

They can't call you a Pedo.

 

[BlueGin]

They can't call you a Pedo.

They ain’t suppose to invoke family either…but they do. And get away with it.

 

[toobfreak]

They can't call you a Pedo.

That's the point, THEY DID. See post #102.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No big deal folks.
Just call it priming a child for trans etc.
Perfectly within the rules.

If you had told me 20 years ago that I would be sitting here today at a website with a policy of defending the indefensible, I would have thought you crazy.


Back then, anybody who showed up at a web site promoting literature aimed at children with graphic depictions of children performing fellatio, they would have been banned by the time they hit their last keystroke.

Here it is defended and enabled, and they actually target people who don't go for that shit.

 

[Road Runner]

Its offensive. and can have consequences.

Oh boohoo what's the worst that can happen if you don't file a police report on somebody you can't prove is an actual literal pedophile?

In all my years on the internet in hunting, sports and political forum, this is the most shocking thread I have ever seen.

I know, the censorship is truly shocking.

 

[toobfreak]

If you had told me 20 years ago that I would be sitting here today at a website with a policy of defending the indefensible, I would have thought you crazy.

20 years ago, you didn't have people sitting on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court claiming they couldn't say what a woman was.

Then getting the seat anyway.

And she WAS a woman!

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lolita is still in many school libraries. Is that ok? If not why aren't you rallying about it?

It is not ok. I'm not rallying about it, because I don't have time to rally about everything I disagree with.

What is the value of that book to a school child? It is about a middle aged man - the narrator - who describes marrying a woman who disgusts him so that he can be close to her fourteen year old daughter who he eventually statutory rapes.

Is whether that is acceptable for him to do that a debatable question? Are there two or more sides to that question? Good topic for an opinion essay with the prompt: Is it a good idea for a fourteen year old girl to have sex with her stepfather? What motivation could a middle aged school administrator have to provide such a book to high school and middle school kids?

No, I don't want it "banned." I just don't see the need for limited library space to be filled with a novel like that, when so many others are more appropriate. Let kids read it on their own, or wait until college when I'm sure their professors will be very fond of it.

Hollywhack sure loves it. They've made two major movie versions of it. I look for a third in which the child actress is actually nude and touches the old dude on camera. Maybe in the European version, and the producer will complain about having to "censor" his work for those American prudes.

Jeremy Irons did an interview about starring in it. He complained that his co-star and love interest in the movie, Dominique Swain, only recognized him from his voicing Uncle Scar in The Lion King, not from his other "important" film work. Well, yeah dude. You played in a movie where you rape a kid. Of course the kid actress playing the kid you rape in the movie is not going to remember you from The French Lieutenant's Woman. She wasn't even born then.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They ain’t suppose to invoke family either…but they do. And get away with it.

Sometimes I wonder if they think people are just too stupid to notice?

I can just imagine them in their supersecret mod room plotting their next step.

 

[BlueGin]

Sometimes I wonder if they think people are just too stupid to notice?

I can just imagine them in their supersecret mod room plotting their next step.

Much of which consists of figuring out among themselves how to manipulate words and actions to define the outcome they want.

 

[toobfreak]

Lolita is still in many school libraries. Is that ok?

Probably not. That's not a story that any grade school kid needs to be reading, except maybe juniors and seniors in high-school maybe.

That book was never in any school library I went to.

The school should ask if this is something their parents would want them to read? Or ask the parents. I can say with certainty that my parents would NOT want me reading that in grade school.

Somewhere along the line, schools got it in their heads that they are there to do more than just teach reading, writing and arithmetic, to now usurping the role of the parent in teaching them moral character, social and political views, even sexual identity.

---and failing at it badly.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Sometimes I wonder if they think people are just too stupid to notice?

I can just imagine them in their supersecret mod room plotting their next step.

Next step, banning meat!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I just don't care. I just find the craziness on at least a couple of levels on this forum interesting. I was just asking if it is Q realted.

Its on the Q spectrum.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is nothing you can say to convince me that @Coyote intends to support grooming or any other sex crime or what should be sex crime. I just don't think she is that kind of person.

Her actions (and those of the other mods) speak more loudly than any words.

There is no rational basis to deny their willful intent to protect child abusers. They've made it as obvious as they possibly can.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We aren't protecting anyone. Context is the key, always has been. You wouldn't go around calling someone a thief without being able to explain why, right? Why call someone a child groomer without reason? Foxfyre (and others) have already tried to tell people what we are asking:


The first statements are what we allow. The second ones are not.

 

[miketx]

It's a wonder that some learn how to breathe...

It's a part of the autonomic nervous system.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Foxfyre must look pretty silly with all that boot polish smeared on her lips and her face.