Pupils to learn about paedophiles in primary school lessons with classes starting for children aged just four years old amid internet safety fears

phildidge wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:yay...I did it....

condensed an entire page of sarcasm and dripping with derision....

into one word.....

Well I have lost all faith in you having a rational view

You are now more that a selfish nationalist wanmnbe

Tha means you are like me a mongrel

Victorismyhero wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Well I have lost all faith in you having a rational view

You are now more that a selfish nationalist wanmnbe

Tha means you are like me a mongrel

I'm glad you admit it....



me? I'm Norman through and through

phildidge wrote:Just remember Victor

You backed idiocy here with smelly

That is your choice

His view was to compare homosexuality7

The fact he used you, makes you a complete fucking dick

Night

Victorismyhero wrote:you mean i dont understand YOUR idea of respect.....

just like you clearly dont understand the written word properly.

it means to you what YOU want it to mean, rather than what it actually does....just so you can have a look at didge moment

Victorismyhero wrote:

phildidge wrote:Just remember Victor

You backed idiocy here with smelly

That is your choice

His view was to compare homosexuality7

The fact he used you, makes you a complete fucking dick

Night

no YOU imagined something that wasnt, making yourself look a right pillock....
he DIDNT hold the two comparable, but the means being used from one to legitimize another.....
the fact you cant understand that shows a limited ability to comprehend plain written english....and an inability to follow others arguments....

it aint me thats a dick......

smelly-bandit wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:sentences for these offences are falling in length

posession of images of even cat A are now beginning to carry only non custodial or suspended sentences....This signals that "the establishment" at least views these offences now as less serious......

couple that with these "lessons" on peadophillia

look at history

how many things that were one illegal are no legal??

homosexuality - once a punishable criminal offence, with a shift in societys conscienceness it has been not only legalised but advanced disproportionately compared to the length of time it was deemed illegal.

transgenderism, never a crime as such but considered to be a freak show, now in even a shorter period of time that homosexuality took to advance, transgenderism is unassailable, it is sacrosanct, you get in the shit for even daring to question it.

im not linking homosexuality or transgenderism to peadophillia but the MO used to normalise both are being used to normalise peadophillia, and it ALL seems to start with battle inoculation of the very young.

you push and push and push until you turn hostility into the first signs of sympathy, from sympathy comes victimhood and victimhood leads to power  
 
wont be long until the first openly peadophile is getting pats on the back for his bravery at "coming out"

Victorismyhero wrote:I wont condemn smelly for comparing paedophillia to homosexuality, since in fact he DIDNT  it is YOU that conflated the two

He specifically states " im not linking homosexuality or transgenderism to peadophillia but the MO used to normalise both are being used to normalise peadophillia, and it ALL seems to start with battle inoculation of the very young."

perhaps you need to learn to comprehend what folks are ACTUALLY saying

smelly-bandit wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:I wont condemn smelly for comparing paedophillia to homosexuality, since in fact he DIDNT  it is YOU that conflated the two

He specifically states " im not linking homosexuality or transgenderism to peadophillia but the MO used to normalise both are being used to normalise peadophillia, and it ALL seems to start with battle inoculation of the very young."

perhaps you need to learn to comprehend what folks are ACTUALLY saying

And this is precisely why I have the cretin on ignore, which he doesn't seem to understand.

One can never argue with a person that is so dogmatic. Didge has a narrative like most lefties and sticks to it rigidly.

What exactly can I say when he takes

"i don't think homosexuality is linked to paedophilia"

To

"smelly-bandit hates gays and thinks they are all pedophiles"

It's the strawman attack and I either ignore him or falll into his trap and have to start defeing something I haven't even said.

I choose the former

Eilzel wrote:The fallacy that is the idea paedophilia will be normalised (as homosexuality was) is broken by a single word:

CONSENT.

Since gay relationships are as consensual as straight ones, it was always an injustice to have it criminalised to begin with; and while it took years, its eventual acceptance was inevitable from that standpoint.

Paedophilia is completely and utterly incomparable.

-it requires explotation
-it requires grooming
-it requires lack of consent

People will rightly never accept their child being in a relationship with an exploitative senior. And they absolutely shouldn't, since a child is nowhere near having the mature mindset to make such choices for themselves.

So people will NOT accept that.

Paedophiles who have not acted on their impulses may deserve some sympathy (since they are not acting on them, and certainly didn't choose their feelings), but also mustn't be allowed among ordinary citizens because - even through no fault of their own - they pose a serious risk.

You will not find anyone (or significantly few) who would disagree with this. And I doubt you ever will.

Gay people always had supporters, even if in small (but large enough) numbers. Even in the early 20th century and the 80s. You won't find many speaking out for paedophiles now, because again they are incomparable. Gay people love people who love them back. Paedophiles, when active, are dangerous sexual predators.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:The fallacy that is the idea paedophilia will be normalised (as homosexuality was) is broken by a single word:

CONSENT.

Since gay relationships are as consensual as straight ones, it was always an injustice to have it criminalised to begin with; and while it took years, its eventual acceptance was inevitable from that standpoint.

Paedophilia is completely and utterly incomparable.

-it requires explotation
-it requires grooming
-it requires lack of consent

People will rightly never accept their child being in a relationship with an exploitative senior. And they absolutely shouldn't, since a child is nowhere near having the mature mindset to make such choices for themselves.

So people will NOT accept that.

Paedophiles who have not acted on their impulses may deserve some sympathy (since they are not acting on them, and certainly didn't choose their feelings), but also mustn't be allowed among ordinary citizens because - even through no fault of their own - they pose a serious risk.

You will not find anyone (or significantly few) who would disagree with this. And I doubt you ever will.

Gay people always had supporters, even if in small (but large enough) numbers. Even in the early 20th century and the 80s. You won't find many speaking out for paedophiles now, because again they are incomparable. Gay people love people who love them back. Paedophiles, when active, are dangerous sexual predators.

Consent isn't the issue, anything that happens without consent is simply rape, and that's not about to be legalised, we aren't Muslims.

Age of consent is the issue.

If a 16 year old can give consent then if the age is lower then it stands to reason that a 10 or 12 year old will be able to give consent.

If the age of consent is lowered then what is considered illegal today will be considered legal tomorrow.

People will view it with disgust but won't be able to do anything about it.

If a child is groomed and manipulated by a predator to give consent then the peados will the identical argument you have just used.

That the relationship is consensual and therefore should never be illegal.

Same MO

Like I say it won't be long until we have peados on loose women speaking about the abuse they suffered at the hands of hateful bigots who can't understand that they have no control over who they find attractive and as the gays say "I was born this way"

They are hijacking the LGBTs argument and applying it to themselves.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Consent isn't the issue, anything that happens without consent is simply rape, and that's not about to be legalised, we aren't Muslims.

Age of consent is the issue.

If a 16 year old can give consent then if the age is lower then it stands to reason that a 10 or 12 year old will be able to give consent.

If the age of consent is lowered then what is considered illegal today will be considered legal tomorrow.

People will view it with disgust but won't be able to do anything about it.

If a child is groomed and manipulated by a predator to give consent then the peados will the identical argument you have just used.

That the relationship is consensual and therefore should never be illegal.

Same MO

Like I say it won't be long until we have peados on loose women speaking about the abuse they suffered at the hands of hateful bigots who can't understand that they have no control over who they find attractive and as the gays say "I was born this way"

They are hijacking the LGBTs argument and applying it to themselves.

The whole reason the age of consent is 16 is because we as a society agree that below that age is when someone is simply too young to make their own mature decisions in life.

At 16 you can start working full time. You are at the very beginning of adulthood.
Below 16 you are still a student, still learning.

There is a grey area - some 16 years (most, I'd say) are still incredibly immature; while some 15 year olds might be very mature for their age.

BUT, we need a point where we say THIS AGE is below where WE as a society consider you able to make your own decisions (ultimately, at 15, you still live under someone else's roof).

I don't see ANYONE but a tiny, almost unnoticeable, handful of people even considering the idea of lowering the age of consent.

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

The whole reason the age of consent is 16 is because we as a society agree that below that age is when someone is simply too young to make their own mature decisions in life.

At 16 you can start working full time. You are at the very beginning of adulthood.
Below 16 you are still a student, still learning.

There is a grey area - some 16 years (most, I'd say) are still incredibly immature; while some 15 year olds might be very mature for their age.

BUT, we need a point where we say THIS AGE is below where WE as a society consider you able to make your own decisions (ultimately, at 15, you still live under someone else's roof).

I don't see ANYONE but a tiny, almost unnoticeable, handful of people even considering the idea of lowering the age of consent.

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

are you being deliberately stupid??

the age of consent is an arbitrary number, in the UK its 18 to drink in the US its 21.

if it is lowered than that new lowered age will be the age of consent

am i typing in swahali or something?? what about this concept is confusing you??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Consent isn't the issue, anything that happens without consent is simply rape, and that's not about to be legalised, we aren't Muslims.

Age of consent is the issue.

If a 16 year old can give consent then if the age is lower then it stands to reason that a 10 or 12 year old will be able to give consent.

If the age of consent is lowered then what is considered illegal today will be considered legal tomorrow.

People will view it with disgust but won't be able to do anything about it.

If a child is groomed and manipulated by a predator to give consent then the peados will the identical argument you have just used.

That the relationship is consensual and therefore should never be illegal.

Same MO

Like I say it won't be long until we have peados on loose women speaking about the abuse they suffered at the hands of hateful bigots who can't understand that they have no control over who they find attractive and as the gays say "I was born this way"

They are hijacking the LGBTs argument and applying it to themselves.

The whole reason the age of consent is 16 is because we as a society agree that below that age is when someone is simply too young to make their own mature decisions in life.

At 16 you can start working full time. You are at the very beginning of adulthood.
Below 16 you are still a student, still learning.

There is a grey area - some 16 years (most, I'd say) are still incredibly immature; while some 15 year olds might be very mature for their age.

BUT, we need a point where we say THIS AGE is below where WE as a society consider you able to make your own decisions (ultimately, at 15, you still live under someone else's roof).

I don't see ANYONE but a tiny, almost unnoticeable, handful of people even considering the idea of lowering the age of consent.

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

are you being deliberately stupid??

the age of consent is an arbitrary number, in the UK its 18 to drink in the US its 21.

if it is lowered than that new lowered age will be the age of consent

am i typing in swahali or something?? what about this concept is confusing you??

smelly bandit wrote:They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

are you being deliberately stupid??

the age of consent is an arbitrary number, in the UK its 18 to drink in the US its 21.

if it is lowered than that new lowered age will be the age of consent

am i typing in swahali or something?? what about this concept is confusing you??

Paedophiles are born that way, fuck knows it isn't something they'd choose - but that doesn't make them less dangerous or any more socially acceptable. They are dangerous and their targets victims.

And age of consent is arbitrary, but where is even a vocal minority asking for a lowering of the age of consent? One or two known people doesn't cut it.

You assume that because some nuts suggest this once or twice, using the same logic gay rights activists did, that that will automatically eventually lead to the same outcome - but for the reasons I've explained, it just won't.

PS: didge is right, it is pure paranoia on your parts.

Understanding the Teen Brain

It doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly bandit wrote:They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

Being attracted to the same sex doesn't make you dangerous, though.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

are you being deliberately stupid??

the age of consent is an arbitrary number, in the UK its 18 to drink in the US its 21.

if it is lowered than that new lowered age will be the age of consent

am i typing in swahali or something?? what about this concept is confusing you??

Paedophiles are born that way, fuck knows it isn't something they'd choose - but that doesn't make them less dangerous or any more socially acceptable. They are dangerous and their targets victims.

And age of consent is arbitrary, but where is even a vocal minority asking for a lowering of the age of consent? One or two known people doesn't cut it.

You assume that because some nuts suggest this once or twice, using the same logic gay rights activists did, that that will automatically eventually lead to the same outcome - but for the reasons I've explained, it just won't.

PS: didge is right, it is pure paranoia on your parts.

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Being attracted to the same sex doesn't make you dangerous, though.

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

smelly-bandit wrote:

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

smelly bandit wrote:They might say they are 'born this way' and honestly they are right. But that doesn't change the fact that that makes them dangerous. It is different.

is that you talking about peadophiles or nparaphrasing other people talking about gays???

i cant tell which.

Being attracted to the same sex doesn't make you dangerous, though.

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

we are in that stage now, Paul Joseph Watson recently made a video about it and he makes a good point, we have a thread about Muslim parents kicking off over the "no outsiders" program where as we in the west encourage our children to be transgender and then parade them as if its normal, its not.

this sexualisaion of our children is just another way of grooming them, this isnt warning them about the dangers its about taming the dangers and normalisinig this deviancy  

its like battle inoculation

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

we are in that stage now, Paul Joseph Watson recently made a video about it and he makes a good point, we have a thread about Muslim parents kicking off over the "no outsiders" program where as we in the west encourage our children to be transgender and then parade them as if its normal, its not.

this sexualisaion of our children is just another way of grooming them, this isnt warning them about the dangers its about taming the dangers and normalisinig this deviancy  

its like battle inoculation

Again this is not a logical conclusion, but there is still a VICTIM of one, but not the other. You cannot escape this clear fact and it destroys you theory.

Incidentally, despite the political nonsenses which are Brexit and Trump, we still live in a very good era in which more people have a better standard of living than any period in human history.

The world is more connected than it has ever been, making wars less likely.

The common silly talk of previous great civilisations collapsing due to 'moral decadence' is totally ridiculous.

The Greeks fell to the Roman war machine.
The Roman overstretched, splintered and face numerous attacks from frontier forces that got stronger.
The Holy Roman Empire was broken apart by the rise of nation states.
The British Empire, and the so-called Pax Britannica, crumbled again due to over stretching, the damage of two world wars and rise of new super powers.

Moral values within that civilisation have no bearing. Some fell sooner. Some fell later. Almost always affected by outside forces.

For one who portrays himself as a patriot, you're pretty bloody negative tbh.

Pedophilia is where an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent (early adolescent) children (especially those showing Tanner stages 2-3 of development), which is typically ages 11–14.

Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

phildidge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

lol, just like i said, ultimate paranoia around a view that western civilizations is crumbling. I seriously cringe reading the above, as its filled with such a negative fear, no born in reality.

Actually in the past homosexuality was not seen as immoral. It took Christianity to later hold sway in the west. To then make a really absurd view on homosexuality as being a sin. Hence that certainly was an arbitrary view point on homosexuality.

So lets rephrase your point and make it sound in reality to history itself

many years ago = homosexuality was neither moral or immoral

Yeas ago = Abrahamic religions come along and now the view is to cast homosexualty as bad

now = homosexuality is back to being neither moral or immoral. Basically as it does not effect the well being of anyone else

now = peadophillia is wrong.

years in the future = peadophlllia will remain wrong and a criminal offense. As it effects the well being of children, who have not the mental capacity to consent to sex. Being as the decision making parts of the brain have not reached a level sufficient to consent to sex.

Hence exposing the real stupidity of your argument and even more how its a strawman argument. As to the two examples are not even in the same ball park

As the age of consent for homosexuals is the very same for hetrosexuals.

Again, no law in the west, which  is backed up with scientific understanding. Is ever going to lower the age of consent. Being as they know the decision part making of the brain has not fully developed

I mean even your reasoning is absurd

Where in the past the view was based off some religious claptrap to demean homosexuals and class them as immoral. They were never a danger to anyone. Where as peadophiles are and always will be a danger to children. Being the fact that children have rights and are effected by this. as it fundementally effects thier well being.

Hence again,you are trying to compare where adults consent, to where you think the view to lower the age of adulthood itself. As that is what you are basically arguing. A view that some how adulthood will be lowered and not off any sound reasoning but extreme paranoia. In fact they are looking to raise the legal age to smoke to 21. Which is sound advice, because again at this age they have not fully developed the part of the brain for decision making.

I seriously cringe reading your absolute nonsense and drivel that you write. As its not based on anything remotely evidence based, but only your extreme paranoia. Even more led by your identity politics view point

Even if we took your warped view to lowering the age limit. That would still mean anyone under this age, would not be able to consent and that the sexual abuse against children would be a crime. The only way your view would make any sense. Would to take away the age of consent completely. Which is never going to happen

Hence your view to the future with peadophiles. Will always remain bad. As nobody is ever going to remove an age of consent for sex.



So based off his claim around Peter Thatchel wanting to lower the age to 14. No future society is ever going to see Pedophilia as ever being good.

Pedophilia is where an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent (early adolescent) children (especially those showing Tanner stages 2-3 of development), which is typically ages 11–14.

Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.

No society in the future is ever going to view Hebephilia as good

The only real argument he has here would be on Ephebophilia. With a lowering of the age of consent and possible the higher age limit of Hebephilia at a push.

Again I very much doubt any would be considered acceptable in the future. Based again off the known fact around the development of the decision making part of the brain.

Hence I wish I had not been so annoyed and allowed emotions to control me last night and would have rather. As i am today, calm. Expose the nonsense that smelly and Victor have been arguing. As it has no sense at all. Which is more based on their paranoia of the entire left. They fail to make distinctions between the majority of the left and the far left

Hence your argument is sheer and utter bollocks

Victorismyhero wrote:
I point out

peak oil passed
global food production now peaked and NOT increasing at the necessary rate
water resources at peak
minerals for technology at peak or very close

social structures at breakdown or close to
our OWN govt  (and I mean the institution of govt NOT a party ) tottering and having no respect from the electorate
our supposedly democratic system being slowly undermined by minority groups with their own agenda playing the system and the victim card and it has to be said by our authorities failure to crack down on them (sharia law anyone?)

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

we are in that stage now, Paul Joseph Watson recently made a video about it and he makes a good point, we have a thread about Muslim parents kicking off over the "no outsiders" program where as we in the west encourage our children to be transgender and then parade them as if its normal, its not.

this sexualisaion of our children is just another way of grooming them, this isnt warning them about the dangers its about taming the dangers and normalisinig this deviancy  

its like battle inoculation

Again this is not a logical conclusion, there is still a VICTIM of one, but not the other. You cannot escape this clear fact and it destroys your theory.

Incidentally, despite the political nonsenses which are Brexit and Trump, we still live in a very good era in which more people have a better standard of living than any period in human history.

The world is more connected than it has ever been, making wars less likely.

The common silly talk of previous great civilisations collapsing due to 'moral decadence' is totally ridiculous.

The Greeks fell to the Roman war machine.
The Romans overstretched, splintered and faced numerous attacks from frontier forces that got stronger.
The Holy Roman Empire was broken apart by the rise of nation states.
The British Empire, and the so-called Pax Britannica, crumbled again due to over stretching, the damage of two world wars and rise of new super powers.

Moral values within that civilisation have no bearing. Some fell sooner. Some fell later. Almost always affected by outside forces.

For one who portrays himself as a patriot, you're pretty bloody negative tbh.

Victorismyhero wrote:and NON of the above changes the fact that YOU (didge) tried to warp his point from "there are forces at work trying to normalise paedophilia " into "smelly's attacking gays and calling them paedophiles" when in fact he did NOT do so and in fact specifically stated that was NOT his intent.... In other words you failed to answer HIS point and instead went of on an entirely pointless diatribe about what you imagined him to have said......

as for civilisation on the brink of collapse

I point out

peak oil passed
global food production now peaked and NOT increasing at the necessary rate
water resources at peak
minerals for technology at peak or very close

social structures at breakdown or close to
our OWN govt  (and I mean the institution of govt NOT a party ) tottering and having no respect from the electorate
our supposedly democratic system being slowly undermined by minority groups with their own agenda playing the system and the victim card and it has to be said by our authorities failure to crack down on them (sharia law anyone?)

Eilzel wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:and NON of the above changes the fact that YOU (didge) tried to warp his point from "there are forces at work trying to normalise paedophilia " into "smelly's attacking gays and calling them paedophiles" when in fact he did NOT do so and in fact specifically stated that was NOT his intent.... In other words you failed to answer HIS point and instead went of on an entirely pointless diatribe about what you imagined him to have said......

as for civilisation on the brink of collapse

I point out

peak oil passed
global food production now peaked and NOT increasing at the necessary rate
water resources at peak
minerals for technology at peak or very close

social structures at breakdown or close to
our OWN govt  (and I mean the institution of govt NOT a party ) tottering and having no respect from the electorate
our supposedly democratic system being slowly undermined by minority groups with their own agenda playing the system and the victim card and it has to be said by our authorities failure to crack down on them (sharia law anyone?)

I love how you mention a lot of genuine problems that are seriously in need of addressing...


... and the context of them being brought up is a discussion of the absolute terror of teaching kids to beware of potential predators

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

it was once upon a time considered dangerous, people used to think that gays were deviants and perverted and were dangerous to morality.

are you aware that society once frowned upon homosexuality quite severely???

dont you understand the logical conclusion for what is happening

many years ago = homosexuality bad.

now = homosexuality good.

now = peadophillia bad.

years in the future = peadophlllia good.

the western civilization is crumbling and its in the late of collapse and typically when a civilization is in the late stages of collapse its people view themseleves as highly enlightened and freed from the bounds of tradition at this stage decadance and perversion seeps into what remains of the moral fabric of society and it essentialy becomes a free-for-all anything goes hedonistic society

we are in that stage now, Paul Joseph Watson recently made a video about it and he makes a good point, we have a thread about Muslim parents kicking off over the "no outsiders" program where as we in the west encourage our children to be transgender and then parade them as if its normal, its not.

this sexualisaion of our children is just another way of grooming them, this isnt warning them about the dangers its about taming the dangers and normalisinig this deviancy  

its like battle inoculation

Again this is not a logical conclusion, there is still a VICTIM of one, but not the other. You cannot escape this clear fact and it destroys your theory.

Incidentally, despite the political nonsenses which are Brexit and Trump, we still live in a very good era in which more people have a better standard of living than any period in human history.

The world is more connected than it has ever been, making wars less likely.

The common silly talk of previous great civilisations collapsing due to 'moral decadence' is totally ridiculous.

The Greeks fell to the Roman war machine.
The Romans overstretched, splintered and faced numerous attacks from frontier forces that got stronger.
The Holy Roman Empire was broken apart by the rise of nation states.
The British Empire, and the so-called Pax Britannica, crumbled again due to over stretching, the damage of two world wars and rise of new super powers.

Moral values within that civilisation have no bearing. Some fell sooner. Some fell later. Almost always affected by outside forces.

For one who portrays himself as a patriot, you're pretty bloody negative tbh.

youre as bad as the forum idiot when it comes to reading and comprehending what a person is saying.

i never said civilizations fall BECAUSE of decadance but rather that moral is a sympton of a collapsing civilization, wake up and pay attention!!!!

and no we arent at the top of our game, more and more people are taking anti depressants, the US has an opiod crisis and a shit oad of yanks are over dosing, more and more kids are taking drugs at younger and younger ages, suicide rates are on the up, despite our technological advancements we are more miserable than ever.

you are still not getting it

you are living in the here and now

im not saying that we currently view peadophillia as  acceptable, im saying that if the peados are using the same tactics used by the LBGT mafia (and they are) then there  will come a time IN THE FUTURE (do you understand that??) that a concerted effort will be made to "have a discussion" about it

thats when you will have peadophiles who happen to be gay as well coming out and conflating the two and likening their struggle to be peadophile with their struggle to be accepted as gay

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Again this is not a logical conclusion, there is still a VICTIM of one, but not the other. You cannot escape this clear fact and it destroys your theory.

Incidentally, despite the political nonsenses which are Brexit and Trump, we still live in a very good era in which more people have a better standard of living than any period in human history.

The world is more connected than it has ever been, making wars less likely.

The common silly talk of previous great civilisations collapsing due to 'moral decadence' is totally ridiculous.

The Greeks fell to the Roman war machine.
The Romans overstretched, splintered and faced numerous attacks from frontier forces that got stronger.
The Holy Roman Empire was broken apart by the rise of nation states.
The British Empire, and the so-called Pax Britannica, crumbled again due to over stretching, the damage of two world wars and rise of new super powers.

Moral values within that civilisation have no bearing. Some fell sooner. Some fell later. Almost always affected by outside forces.

For one who portrays himself as a patriot, you're pretty bloody negative tbh.

im not saying that we currently view peadophillia as  acceptable, im saying that if the peados are using the same tactics used by the LBGT mafia (and they are) then there  will come a time IN THE FUTURE (do you understand that??) that a concerted effort will be made to "have a discussion" about it

thats when you will have peadophiles who happen to be gay as well coming out and conflating the two and likening their struggle to be peadophile with their struggle to be accepted as gay

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

youre as bad as the forum idiot when it comes to reading and comprehending what a person is saying.

i never said civilizations fall BECAUSE of decadance but rather that moral is a sympton of a collapsing civilization, wake up and pay attention!!!!

and no we arent at the top of our game, more and more people are taking anti depressants, the US has an opiod crisis and a shit oad of yanks are over dosing, more and more kids are taking drugs at younger and younger ages, suicide rates are on the up, despite our technological advancements we are more miserable than ever.

you are still not getting it

you are living in the here and now

im not saying that we currently view peadophillia as  acceptable, im saying that if the peados are using the same tactics used by the LBGT mafia (and they are) then there  will come a time IN THE FUTURE (do you understand that??) that a concerted effort will be made to "have a discussion" about it

thats when you will have peadophiles who happen to be gay as well coming out and conflating the two and likening their struggle to be peadophile with their struggle to be accepted as gay

Just unsubstantiated paranoia though really, isn't it

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Just unsubstantiated paranoia though really, isn't it

much like you saying youve never experienced homophobia and  then screeching homophobia at everything that moves???

i can see you will be on the side that is pro peadophile when it comes round.

the reason i believe this is because the peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities, and that means they will link the two, ironic isnt it??

once that happens you will immediately see it that any attack on peadophillia is the same as an attack on gays and begin screeching "peadophobe" at people, thats the probelm with intersectional identity politics that you like to play so much.

you wont support peadphillia or condone peadophillia but it will be linked to homosexuality and will enjoy your support by default.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

youre as bad as the forum idiot when it comes to reading and comprehending what a person is saying.

i never said civilizations fall BECAUSE of decadance but rather that moral is a sympton of a collapsing civilization, wake up and pay attention!!!!

and no we arent at the top of our game, more and more people are taking anti depressants, the US has an opiod crisis and a shit oad of yanks are over dosing, more and more kids are taking drugs at younger and younger ages, suicide rates are on the up, despite our technological advancements we are more miserable than ever.

you are still not getting it

you are living in the here and now

im not saying that we currently view peadophillia as  acceptable, im saying that if the peados are using the same tactics used by the LBGT mafia (and they are) then there  will come a time IN THE FUTURE (do you understand that??) that a concerted effort will be made to "have a discussion" about it

thats when you will have peadophiles who happen to be gay as well coming out and conflating the two and likening their struggle to be peadophile with their struggle to be accepted as gay

Just unsubstantiated paranoia though really, isn't it

much like you saying youve never experienced homophobia and  then screeching homophobia at everything that moves???

i can see you will be on the side that is pro peadophile when it comes round.

the reason i believe this is because the peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities, and that means they will link the two, ironic isnt it??

once that happens you will immediately see it that any attack on peadophillia is the same as an attack on gays and begin screeching "peadophobe" at people, thats the probelm with intersectional identity politics that you like to play so much.

you wont support peadphillia or condone peadophillia but it will be linked to homosexuality and will enjoy your support by default.

it is coming elizel and it will be quiet and stealthy and put into place before anyone knows whats happened

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

much like you saying youve never experienced homophobia and  then screeching homophobia at everything that moves???

i can see you will be on the side that is pro peadophile when it comes round.

the reason i believe this is because the peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities, and that means they will link the two, ironic isnt it??

once that happens you will immediately see it that any attack on peadophillia is the same as an attack on gays and begin screeching "peadophobe" at people, thats the probelm with intersectional identity politics that you like to play so much.

you wont support peadphillia or condone peadophillia but it will be linked to homosexuality and will enjoy your support by default.

it is coming elizel and it will be quiet and stealthy and put into place before anyone knows whats happened

More unsubstantiated nonsense. You are good at that.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

much like you saying youve never experienced homophobia and  then screeching homophobia at everything that moves???

i can see you will be on the side that is pro peadophile when it comes round.

the reason i believe this is because the peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities, and that means they will link the two, ironic isnt it??

once that happens you will immediately see it that any attack on peadophillia is the same as an attack on gays and begin screeching "peadophobe" at people, thats the probelm with intersectional identity politics that you like to play so much.

you wont support peadphillia or condone peadophillia but it will be linked to homosexuality and will enjoy your support by default.

it is coming elizel and it will be quiet and stealthy and put into place before anyone knows whats happened

More unsubstantiated nonsense. You are good at that.

i never said i could substantiate it, this isnt proveable by any means.

i said that i have observed a pattern of events that points towards a softening stance towards peadophillia, and im not the only person arond here having "paranoid delusions"

do you not read my posts?? if you dont read them then dont respond to them because it sounds like you dont know what youre talking about.

if you dont agree with then dont agree with me, but youre ignoring the points ive raised about how the concerns and specifically the punishment for it is softening

we are at a point where it is highly possible that a father battering a peado who raped his daughter, into a near death state, will get a a harsher sentence than the peado himself.

what does that say about how we see the crime??

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

i never said i could substantiate it, this isnt proveable by any means.

i said that i have observed a pattern of events that points towards a softening stance towards peadophillia, and im not the only person arond here having "paranoid delusions"

do you not read my posts?? if you dont read them then dont respond to them because it sounds like you dont know what youre talking about.

if you dont agree with then dont agree with me, but youre ignoring the points ive raised about how the concerns and specifically the punishment for it is softening

we are at a point where it is highly possible that a father battering a peado who raped his daughter, into a near death state, will get a a harsher sentence than the peado himself.

what does that say about how we see the crime??

I already argued against your reasoning, don't be upset if I don't agree with you.

phildidge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

much like you saying youve never experienced homophobia and  then screeching homophobia at everything that moves???

i can see you will be on the side that is pro peadophile when it comes round.

the reason i believe this is because the peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities, and that means they will link the two, ironic isnt it??

once that happens you will immediately see it that any attack on peadophillia is the same as an attack on gays and begin screeching "peadophobe" at people, thats the probelm with intersectional identity politics that you like to play so much.

you wont support peadphillia or condone peadophillia but it will be linked to homosexuality and will enjoy your support by default.

Like i said smelly has a hate and obsession against Eilzel and if Victor cannot see how he is attacking Eilzel based on his homosexuality here. Then mate you are utterly blind

The claims smelly has just made are utterly false against Eizel and smelly is taking the view, that all homosexuals are part of some homosexual mafia group. Simple because Eizel disagrees with smelly

I have seen zero evidence that peadophiles are using LGBT tactics to legitimize their activities and it would not even matter if some of them did, because they cannot supercede the rights of children

Hence the absurdity of smellys arguments

This is nothing more than a view to personally attack eilzel and also view homosexuality alongside peadphillia. As if they are singing off the same hymn sheet

If people cannot now see what kind of person smelly really is. Then they are blind to his hate. As his view onto Eilzel are not even based on political views, but a percieved and hateful warped view against Eilzel being homosexual. How is Eilzel being homosexual ever going to back the abuse of children? Its never going to happen and yet we have smelly so badly lie here and only do so, because Eilzel is homosexual. As to smelly, he is making them comparable to thinking the same way

This is nothing more than a personal attack and people should condemn smelly here for being a lying hateful tosser

Victor you need to now speak up and condemn smelly, as you know i was right all along here

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I already argued against your reasoning, don't be upset if I don't agree with you.

if i said up , you would disagree and say down, in many ways you are as bad as didge when it comes to disagreeing with me for the sake of it, so no im not upset or even surpised, if anything its rather dissapointing being right about you all the time.

you didnt argue aginst my reasoning you argued on the basis that i was saying that we currently accept peadophillia, my reasoning is that in time we will be forced to accept it.

and so far you havent argued against a single obseervation ive made about the softening stance towards peadophillia, apart from "youre being paranoid"

yeah cheers

phildidge wrote:

Victorismyhero wrote:
I point out

peak oil passed
global food production now peaked and NOT increasing at the necessary rate
water resources at peak
minerals for technology at peak or very close

social structures at breakdown or close to
our OWN govt  (and I mean the institution of govt NOT a party ) tottering and having no respect from the electorate
our supposedly democratic system being slowly undermined by minority groups with their own agenda playing the system and the victim card and it has to be said by our authorities failure to crack down on them (sharia law anyone?)

I am sure people said the same in the 1960's when gangs were rife and during the prohibition during the 1930's

You are just one of a number of fear based pessimists. That have existed throughout history

Global food production has not peaked and far from this. That is a shear load of claptrap



Water resources are not at their peak, again absurd

The only danger for the future that could create the above is climate change

Victorismyhero wrote:

phildidge wrote:



I am sure people said the same in the 1960's when gangs were rife and during the prohibition during the 1930's

You are just one of a number of fear based pessimists. That have existed throughout history

Global food production has not peaked and far from this. That is a shear load of claptrap



Water resources are not at their peak, again absurd

The only danger for the future that could create the above is climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/19/industrial-agriculture-limits-peak-food
https://inhabitat.com/we-may-have-reached-peak-food-production-and-what-we-can-do-to-change-it/?variation=c

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water
and climate change generated food  and water shortages are now unavoidable..even if we reduced co2 production to zero tomorrow it will STILL happen

Victorismyhero wrote:saudi ...out of water
yemen ....out of water
\israel at the tipping point
india on the brink

America last year virtually out of water in some states, notably california

in case you hadnt noticed...its kinda getting warmer....

agricultural land is at a premium in many parts of the world....less than 10 years to go I'd say...and thats my guess, until the first water war

Victorismyhero wrote:what american states gained water last year??  or the year before??