Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ouchdrummer at 2010-04-29 10:02:33

wow, they really make that guy out to be a "defender of pedophilia". Although in his last statement, he pretty much says that he's not, but i don't understand the need to mention that he "defends the right of children of a comparable age to engage in sexual acts, commonly referenced as playing doctor." That just seems strange to me in particular, because no one has EVER said anything contrary to that, and it feels like he's trying to back-peddle, so that something earlier that he said would be "explained" by that. when in reality, he was saying in a thinly veiled way that sometimes it's ok for consenting children to engage in homosexual acts with older men."

Listed to this earlier quote by him:

“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it, is neutral or ambiguous, it’s inappropriate,” Moeller wrote in 2001 in a post on Kuro5hin.org that he titled, “Pleasure, Affection, Cause and Effect”.

-so... in effect, as long as the child is SURE that they want it, it's ok. Can ANYONE read that statement any other way? He's obviously not referring to "playing doctor" because he flat out says:
“What is my position on pedophilia, then?"
at the beginning of it? Very disturbing.

[default homepage]

[print][

3:33:51am May 27,2024
load time 0.00673 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]