Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > Uncensored Europe + > United Kingdom
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old October 1st, 2012 #121
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Total bullshit. "Not elaborating" means that you meant underage plain and simple. After I pointed out that underage girls could marry, you have tried to pretend that this wasn't what you meant.
Your eristic is entirely fallacious yet subjective. I know what I meant when I said "underage" in regard to "sex" and I can't convince you otherwise if you refuse to use common sense think you have somehow scored a point.

Quote:
These legally established ages for marriage etc. are arbitrary. The psychiatric definition of pædophilia is not. The psychiatric definition is the only real definition, since the UK doesn't define it by law. The word pædophile uttered without the applicability of any legal or psychiatric definition is simply an insult, in this instance a caricature through exaggeration.
I'm a little confused. You claim that legally established definitions are arbitrary (in actual fact, they are borne out of much consideration of all the factors I gave in my last post) yet in the next sentence, insist that since there is no legally-defined meaning to paedophile I should use the psychobabblers definition.


Are we going by the law or not? You can't have it both ways.



Quote:
Real pædophiles exist. A 30-year-old guy with a fully developed 15-year-old girlfriend is not a pædophile. Judging by the way he's handled the situation, I'd say that he's a little crazy and out of control, but he's not a pædophile. Errol Flynn was not a pædophile either. If you think that's a pædophile then you don't know what kinds of real sickos are out there. (Look into Larry Birkin if you want a hint.)
Yes he is a paedophile. You do realise that he only ran off with her when she was 15, don't you? You are cognizant of the fact that the relationship began before that. when she was younger?

I don't accept the lessening and apparent justification of this guy's crime because there are worse criminals out there.
Quote:
What am I supposed to be defending here?

It appears to be the paedophile teacher.

Quote:
I am attacking the inappropriate use of an inflammatory word. This is something that I do in a variety of contexts. Loosely tossing around inflammatory words is harmful to clear thinking. It leads to intemperate and ill-considered actions.

I beg to differ. Only those with no self control react intemperately when words are loosely tossed around. You'd be amazed how insulting people can get when the loosely-tossed word is pointed out for what it is.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #122
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
What you and other defenders very often miss is the glaring difference between 2012 and 1929. In the 1900's, approximately half of all children died before they reached five. The life-span was much less for many reasons - lack of medical knowledge, poverty and so on. If girls had waited until 20 or 21 to have their first child, they would not only have been an economic burden on their parents well past sustainability for the rest of the family. They would likely not have lived to see the child reach a fair age. Something like 1 in 4 births resulted in the death of the mother and the poorer you were, the higher the odds. Teenage is a relatively new concept and teenage in the 1900's - had the word been coined then - was an entirely different set of experiences to now.
Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask defenders is when they judge paederasty starts in terms of age and to justify why it starts then.

If it is 'ok' at 13-15 dependent on what they argue then when is it not 'ok' and why?
__________________
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #123
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
Your eristic is entirely fallacious yet subjective. I know what I meant when I said "underage" in regard to "sex" and I can't convince you otherwise if you refuse to use common sense think you have somehow scored a point.
I scored more than a point. I scored a touchdown.

All you have is the continued insistence that this guy was a pædophile, ignoring the fact that you have no justification for that label other than the fact that many unthinking intellectual slobs also use the word with equal looseness. It's mob-based labeling. Meanwhile the experts, the people who use words carefully, contradict you.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #124
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask defenders is when they judge paederasty starts in terms of age and to justify why it starts then.

If it is 'ok' at 13-15 dependent on what they argue then when is it not 'ok' and why?
It's a great question and one I indeed do now ask of Hadding, Steven Akins and others who have high-fived or otherwise defended the teacher. I predict a sudden and studious one-post wonder and/or disappearance, however......
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #125
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
I scored more than a point. I scored a touchdown.

All you have is the continued insistence that this guy was a pædophile, ignoring the fact that you have no justification for that label other than the fact that many unthinking intellectual slobs also use the word with equal looseness. It's mob-based labeling. Meanwhile the experts contradict you.
You didn't score a thing. You missed the point completely (just like you missed the rest of my post, but I suspected that'd happen, didn't I? )

Tell me, what did you think I referred to when I said "underage"? What age and why? Did you perhaps assume I meant the legal age to be permitted to drive? Babysit? Purchase alcohol? Buy cigarettes? Vote? Obtain medical treatment without consent?

Why, when the whole thread centres around sex and nothing but sex, did you decide I meant something completely different? I understand grasping at straws, but I've found they're often rather flimsy when weight is applied.

Also:

What KR said.
Quote:
.....when they judge paederasty starts in terms of age and to justify why it starts then.

If it is 'ok' at 13-15 dependent on what they argue then when is it not 'ok' and why?
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #126
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Cannon View Post
It wasn't me with the rep point just in case anyone wondered. Forrest was supposed to be the TEACHER, a MARRIED one at that. So far he seems to have behaved like a perpetual youth seeking thrills.

Very much like these parents who want to be "friends" and not parents to their children.
It wasn't me either. My husband just skyped me asking if it was me. And, I agree with this post.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #127
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Wish I was near my computer to reply properly. The cell is fine for browsing, but a pain in the arse to post with.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #128
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Well, it wasn't me who left him rep. I did actually try to, so he could feel even better about himself but unfortunately I need to spread more rep otherwise I would already have given Dawn, Angel, Karl and many others rep on this thread.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #129
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Perhaps a more appropriate question to ask defenders is when they judge paederasty starts in terms of age and to justify why it starts then.

If it is 'ok' at 13-15 dependent on what they argue then when is it not 'ok' and why?
Pæderasty is not the same as pædophilia. I don't care to explain it, but the Wikipedia article on pædophilia gives a pretty good rundown of the different related perversions if you want to know.

I am not arguing that anything is "ok." I would not have done what this teacher did, for various reasons. He violated professional ethics, broke the law, and certainly made a mess of his life. I am just saying that it's not pædophilia. He may be crazy, taking such extravagant risks with his own future, but I don't believe that he did that girl any harm (relatively speaking). White girls are subjected to sexual advances from Blacks every day in school, and we are supposed to get upset about this?

I would just like to see the herd-thinkers stop degrading the level of discourse with TV-approved inflammatory terms where they are not even justified.

Last edited by Hadding; October 1st, 2012 at 03:42 PM.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #130
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Without knowing the perv's exact philosophy, I do notthink he clinically fits the definition of a pedo or ephebo. There seems to be a semantic arguement about the legal use of a term vs the clinical definition. Personally, it reslly doesnt matter to me.

Bottom line, the man is a sexual predator in every sense of the definition. Whether he fits a clinical definition for being a predator of a specific sage group as a whole really isnt important to me.

Sorry for the typos, stupid phone software wont allow me to edit properly.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #131
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Pæderasty is not the same as pædophilia. I don't care to explain it, but the Wikipedia article on pædophilia gives a pretty good rundown of the different related perversions if you want to know.
I recommend Tresemme conditioner for those split hairs.

At what age do you consider a man is a paedophile for raping (because it is rape - the UK law states anyone under 16 cannot give consent) a minor. Minor in this case means someone under 16.

Quote:
White girls are subjected to sexual advances from Blacks every day in school, and we are supposed to get upset about this?
So you would be delighted to learn that your 15 year old daughter/granddaughter was having sex with her 30 year old teacher and you would not be upset to learn that the relationship had begun at an even younger age.

Bolding the salient point because it seems to have been missed. (repeatedly.)

Last edited by Bev; October 1st, 2012 at 04:14 PM.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #132
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
Bottom line, the man is a sexual predator in every sense of the definition.
Don't you think that a large part of the male population of schools could be called sexual predators? There are young males that just want to have sex with as many girls as possible, that talk about notches on the bedpost, etc. White youths are bad enough in that regard. On top of that you have niggers and Muslims.

As for Forrest? News-reports indicate that Forrest has strong feelings about the girl. He may have a screw loose but I don't think he fits any reasonable definition of a "sexual predator."

To call Forrest a pædophile requires not knowing what a real pædophile is.

To call him a sexual predator requires not knowing what a real sexual predator is.

While you people in the UK are so angry at this Forrest guy your girls are being raped by Muslims and niggers.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #133
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Don't you think that a large part of the male population of schools could be called sexual predators? There are young males that just want to have sex with as many girls as possible, that talk about notches on the bedpost, etc. White youths are bad enough in that regard. On top of that you have niggers and Muslims.

As for Forrest? News-reports indicate that Forrest has strong feelings about the girl. He may have a screw loose but I don't think he fits any reasonable definition of a "sexual predator."

To call Forrest a pædophile requires not knowing what a real pædophile is.

To call him a sexual predator requires not knowing what a real sexual predator is.

While you people in the UK are so angry at this Forrest guy your girls are being raped by Muslims and niggers.
I've never understood exactly how a 30 year old penis is any more dangerous to a teenage girl than a 16 or 17 year old penis could be.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #134
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bev View Post
I recommend Tresemme conditioner for those split hairs.
You call the correct use of words hair-splitting. That's contempt for accurate use of words, which is what I am trying to achieve. I am not responding to you further.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #135
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
I've never understood exactly how a 30 year old penis is any more dangerous to a teenage girl than a 16 or 17 year old penis could be.
That's because you formulate relationships based on sex and attraction, not on compatibility, enjoyment of company or anything else that most people do.

Again, I reiterate that this girl was not 15 when the relationship began She was younger. She did not have the emotional maturity to handle anything other than a date, a holding of hands or a kiss with a boy of roundabout her own age.

She fell "in love" with him because he, as an amateur musician, wrote her a song. Emotional blackmail. He saw it on her bucket list and did it. Grooming.

Damage is not limited to physical. Mental scars take longer to heal than physical.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #136
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post

While you people in the UK are so angry at this Forrest guy your girls are being raped by Muslims and niggers.
And 30 year old, white, married teachers. Why are you defending this guy so much?

If a 30 year old teacher kidnapped my 15 year old child, and took her to a foreign country, I'd want his head. WTF is so hard to understand about this?
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #137
Bev
drinking tea
 
Bev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,247
Bev
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
You call the correct use of words hair-splitting. That's contempt for accurate use of words, which is what I am trying to achieve. I am not responding to you further.
Pity you didn't apply the same standard on the last occasion you tried to achieve an "accurate use of words" and got it so miserably wrong that you had to resort to insulting me in order to "win".

Shame you feel the need to ignore me. I quite enjoy duelling with a fellow eristical logomachist.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #138
Angel Ramsey
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
I've never understood exactly how a 30 year old penis is any more dangerous to a teenage girl than a 16 or 17 year old penis could be.
And our very own residant kiddie fiddler weighs in.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #139
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Hadding
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel Ramsey View Post
And 30 year old, white, married teachers. Why are you defending this guy so much?

If a 30 year old teacher kidnapped my 15 year old child, and took her to a foreign country, I'd want his head. WTF is so hard to understand about this?
I already stated, it's about accurate use of words. You may hate the guy of whatever age that seduces your teenage daughter but that doesn't justify calling him a pædophile. Find something accurate to call him. You can call Forrest a sorry piece of shit if you want and I won't argue with it, but a pædophile he's not.
 
Old October 1st, 2012 #140
Mr A.Anderson
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
Don't you think that a large part of the male population of schools could be called sexual predators? There are young males that just want to have sex with as many girls as possible, that talk about notches on the bedpost, etc. White youths are bad enough in that regard. On top of that you have niggers and Muslims.

As for Forrest? News-reports indicate that Forrest has strong feelings about the girl. He may have a screw loose but I don't think he fits any reasonable definition of a "sexual predator."

To call Forrest a pædophile requires not knowing what a real pædophile is.

To call him a sexual predator requires not knowing what a real sexual predator is.

While you people in the UK are so angry at this Forrest guy your girls are being raped by Muslims and niggers.
Sexual predator is the absolute correct term to describe him. You will have to wait a fee days for me to fully explain why, as I am out of town for work, and only have my phone for access. Even typing these short responses are tedious.
 
Reply

Tags
forrest, groomers, grooming, jeremy forrest, paedophile

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 PM.
Page generated in 0.19578 seconds.