I'll just leave this here, then.

[guest]

I don't know why people are arguing here. Eric has been extremely consistent with his position on this issue since he first started fighting with Boomia all those months ago.

Hildy views all these questions around unethical activities purely through a lens on the direct effect (or lack of) they have on a victim. It's all about whether a person's pursuits (whether they be anything from trolling or pedophilia) create a knowing victim or not. Morals have nothing to do with it. Eric has not defended child rape; most people here are misinterpreting him on this. He's merely saying that [SIZE=15px]"If a crime is victimless, then what is the cause for judgement? There is simply no victim, nobody was harmed so therefore it's perfectly ok."[/SIZE] Any action that creates a knowing victim is automatically worse than a crime that doesn't.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" basically.

---

A pedophile jerking off in his car while watching a playground of toddlers with binoculars? Well, if none of the kids see him, no victim will have been created and everyone will go home just the same. Hildy-approved!

Sam Delaney collecting dozens of books of photos of pre-pubescent to preteen boys in swimsuits & in the nude to use as spank material? Well, most of those titles (based on what Delaney has shown off himself and then x-posted here) are pics from european nudist colonies in the 1970s, photos taken for medical reasons (at the time), and pictures of child models from swimwear catalogues. No victims were created by taking those pictures, no kids faced any harm. Hildy-approved!

Bullying someone with mean words on Twitter? Vandalizing an online obituary comments section? Leaving fake 1-star book reviews? Those all create direct victims who are negatively impacted by your chosen actions. You have taken a direct action which has caused direct harm.
Ethically worse than any victimless crime in Hildy's eyes. Enjoy prison.

It's as simple as that. This is why he keeps asking for us to name a direct rape victim of Delaney's. In Hildy's eyes, that's the only unethical thing that Delaney could have done. He sees no problem with the jerking to child porn, pedophilia advocacy, and constant lust for children. No direct victims created so it's all nice and cheery. So even though none of us call Delaney a convicted molester or anything Eric just cannot drop this point as he simply cannot imagine judging someone for engaging in a victimless activity like jerking off to young boy swimsuit pics. If you tell Pat he's "stupid" though you're morally worse though as you're directly causing him emotional harm.

Take this as you will: This line of leftist thinking about 'victimless crimes' was popularized in '60s counterculture (predecessor to hildy-type atheists) and leftist academia by none other than Allen Ginsberg. A pedophile and NAMBLA member.

So if a bunch of people watch niggers being niggers and call them niggers amongst themselves he's good with that? Or does "nigger" get a special exception as harmful for even thinking it?

 

[Kim_Jong_Poon_]

Look Eric, (I'll treat you as not deserving a brick from some feral ape to the head, for the moment) it goes like this, there is no nuance regarding sex between adults and children. It is universally condemnable. There are no children who had sex with adults and grew emotionally from it. Delaney is a sick twisted nigger ghoul that had sex with men as a prepubescent child and like most victims that puts him at a much greater chance to reoffend. Use that bald Mensa dome to consider guys who break down and cry from sex that happened to them against their will as kids, still go on to do the same things frequently to new kids. What do you think perverted demons like Delaney would do to children if he both considered it a "fun and rewarding" experience and casually includes graphic portrayals of it in his books? You perpetually cling to a very dim-witted narrative of "radicalization and escalation" with regards to things from racism,sexism, transphobia, to obit defacing and Pat-posting, but somehow repeal from that with regards to pedophilia.

This will or should be simple from here out: First, do you not think that all types of human sexuality can become more obsessive as in the case of porn addictions leading to eventual rapes? Second, do you think that "fictional" (because neither of us know what Delaney has done, and you specifically have claimed lack of proof, does not prove lack of deed regarding Pat posters) depictions of child sex crimes may be based on real events or more often lead to people steeped in prolonged and unhealthy fantasies of sex with children to act out on those fantasies? Third, while you cite nuance as some sort of defense, why would or should people offer nuance to sex with children, when you can't see the nuance of southerners fighting federal troops invading their homeland ad heroes to sum especially when the societal norms and social constructs they acted on were normal contemporaneously? If you judge "confederate imbeciles" 75% of whom owned no slaves with thr mores of 2023 why can't you judge men graphically describing raping children with being morally decadent and unworthy of nuance? Lastly, you introduced us to your nuanced opinions, surely you must see why such a rare and unusual opinion set could and would garner such scorn and disgust? Did you think of a scenario where you could offer any defense (and yes it's a defense of pedophilia to equate it to trolling, not an indictment of trolling to compare it with pedophilia) of pedophilia short of fantasies of child murder and genocide where we should accept such unhealthy and potentially dangerous thoughts as "just thoughts" not deeds? You belong to a political philosophy that conflates mentioning disparate crime statistics amongst the races to nazism but somehow can craft nuance in a sick nigger ghoul fondly remembering his ass being fucked by some deranged nigger janitor and then fantasizing aloud in a book about sex with children. How is that possible?

Somehow you offer excuses for Pat threatening to murder a baby, why "fictional" child porn isn't bad, why Pat being swated potentially by himself is the fault of Pat posters and they should be punished for it and why his "brusk" opinions are all OK. What you do is contrive to make any offence by your side something offered nuance and measured opinions while elevating a "thoughts and prayers" by Tony Danza on some stupid tribute site into the worst of all crimes. You lack even the veneer of equality with your low IQ "deeds are worse than thoughts" nonsense when you openly dismiss any number of thoughts as too odious, but somehow include child rape as a thought worthy of special and select nuance and the holders of those thoughts like Delaney an endless window in which to backtrack and offer qualifiers and explanations of what they "actually" meant. Delaney is a worthless nigger ghoul, that's my opinion and thought, it isn't a deed so you're cool with it right? Or is saying nigger a deed even if it's on a "nigger safe" site? So publishing child rape descriptions that both children and sexually dangerous actors can get their hands on is somehow less bad than me nigger on a comedy forum? Is Mel Brooks eviler than Delaney for Blazing Saddles? How about Twain? Tell me in all your Mensa ways how I'm wrong and you're a genius because you ignore the reality of what exists like Baby murderer wannabe Tomlinson's 13 year old response to being broken up with.

Try and address any of this with that high IQ special brain and have it remain logically consistent. You can't you dumb bald nigger.

@Riccardo Bosi

 

[Saddam Hussein]

Bullshit. Let's bury this "child rape" thing one once and for all. You use the word "rape" three times in your argument. @Sue Lightning makes the same erroneous accusation. "Child rape advocate" she calls Delany. I disagree. Delany was abused as a boy by an older man, and somehow didn't find it unpleasant, so now he apparently believes in a gay version of Finch and Stiffler's mom in American Pie. I frankly disagree with this and think Delany is full of shit. But he's got a limited (but troublesome) point in that you can't rape the willing. So no, Delany isn't a "rape advocate," and you're an idiot each time you repeat that lie. I know that's a nuanced argument, and you people are incapable of comprehending nuance because you've deliberately supplanted brain-matter for shit for so long you can't think straight. Or at all. From now on, any of you that say "Delany rape advocate" are out of this debate (such as you are even capable of debating) as far as I give a damn.

It’s still statutory rape you monster. Children can’t consent (I know that’s a concept you and your buddies have trouble with)

 

[NormsGhost]

It’s still statutory rape you monster. Children can’t consent (I know that’s a concept you and your buddies have trouble with)

My point exactly. If you'd been paying attention.

 

[NormsGhost]

Going off this logic, if Mr. Hitler wants to gas the kikes, he's not an advocate for murder because in his mind, Jews are all bloodsucking leeches who destroy society, and he is just enacting justice. This is of course faulty reasoning. Just because Mr. Hitler feels that his killings are justified does not mean that he isn't advocating for murder. Furthermore, all adult sexual contact with children is by definition child rape. Sam Delaney wants to make it legal to fuck kids. Ergo, he is a child rape advocate.


Lol.

Your name is Miss Interpret from now on.

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

Your name is Miss Interpret from now on.

Misgendering people on purpose as an insult is not okay. So uhhh are we 100% sure this pussy boy faggot works at Wal-Mart?

 

[Kim_Jong_Poon_]

Your name is Miss Interpret from now on.

Thank you for that. Your misogyny has been noted for the record

 

[NormsGhost]

there is no nuance regarding sex between adults and children. It is universally condemnable.

Pretty much what I already said, and I agree with. I quit reading after the 1st paragraph. If you can't even get my position right in the first sentences, I see no reason to read further.

 

[NormsGhost]

Eric Hildeman abhors religion, except when a new age evil one gives him awards for his delusional sci fi writer aspirations.

Scientology is as big a joke as y'all are.

 

[Skatole C9H9N]

Scientology is as big a joke as y'all are.

Let's pack it up fellas. We're a joke.

 

[NormsGhost]

Misgendering people on purpose as an insult is not okay. So uhhh are we 100% sure this pussy boy faggot works at Wal-Mart?

How do we know the dude's gender? It might be as bullshit as the rest of "his" identity.

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

Scientology is as big a joke as y'all are.

He’s a better fiction writer than you and Pat are, dipshit. At least when they covered for Danny Masterson he had raped adults. You’re a sick person and deserve the wall.

 

[BonnieMcFarlaneMe2]

How do we know the dude's gender? It might be as bullshit as the rest of "his" identity.

Shelf stocker or cashier? Answer the fucking question, pussy boy faggot.

 

[guest]

What part of "I disagree with this and think Delany is full of shit" did you not understand?

The part where you with a straight face even bother to add nuance and discuss whether fictionalized portrayals of child sex compare with any deeds that don't involve physical harm. Here's an idea since I do help the special needs community, just say now "Pedophilia, both active and in thought are horrific and should never be given cover." Pretty simple withdraw the trolling is worse than sex fantasies with kids and say you were wrong. Or just continue to prove that to some degree you advocate for child rape.

Because I think statutory rape is wrong, numbnutz. That's why I bluntly stated I disagree with Delany, which you'd know if you'd have bothered to read.

If you thought rape was wrong you would disown Delaney in full, state clearly here that he's lower than every OnA poster, and apologize for being wrong to ever even attempt to state that rape (any sex with children) ever is better than anything that doesn't result in physical injury.

No. That's Dan Mullen's hyper-exaggeration, probably because he's the one who fantasized about stuff like that. I never agreed with that, and I never said such.

Darvo, no you fucking sick pedo, realizing that people fantasizing about kids beat off to them is what normal people think, sick fucks try to mitigate their crimes and claim mocking your filthy pedophile dead father on webpage is worse.

"I frankly disagree with this and think Delany is full of shit." READ. You're right. Society has deemed it rape, and society is right. Gay or straight, it's wrong. That's why I disagree with Delany on that point, and yet somehow you fail to bother READING what I wrote. Pay attention.

You think Delaney is full of shit? Is he a nigger ghoul whose death by cinderblock by a 19 year old male prostitute he hired would be a good thing?

Already dealt with this phrase. Pay attention.

Oh Eric's special and brilliant thoughts should be up there and remembered like he was Kant or Locke. Look you fucking sick fuck, you called a minor repeatedly to score points with Pat and you defend pedophilia, sorry if that gets in the way of the nuance you meant us to get.

 

[guest]

Your name is Miss Interpret from now on.

OK Shecky, we get it your arms are tired from flying, and your mattress is covered in lesbian liquid shit.

 

[guest]

Your name is Miss Interpret from now on.

As always, you got nothing faggot.

 

[Saddam Hussein]

My point exactly. If you'd been paying attention.

Eric have you brought up your thoughts on celibate pedophiles to anybody IRL? I can’t imagine normal people would react to your take with anything other than revulsion.

 

[NormsGhost]

Okay ninnies, it's been fun, but all your answers all fall into three categories:
1) People who can't understand what I'm saying, in which case, there's no point even bothering.
2) People who do understand what I'm saying, but deliberately misinterpret it to get a rise out of me, in which case, there's also no point.
3) People who don't bother reading what I'm saying, in which case saying nothing is equally as effective.

So, show's over. I like being entertained, but I like denying you the entertainment even more.

 

[guest]

Pretty much what I already said, and I agree with. I quit reading after the 1st paragraph. If you can't even get my position right in the first sentences, I see no reason to read further.

Oh did you, you fucking manlet scumbag. We only know your "nuance" because you literally said a pedophile (an adult that wants sex with kids) that doesn't actually have the opportunity to rape kids is better than "Roe Cumia" saying sorry on some stupid webpage. We didn't misunderstand you, you boasted that you consider some rape thoughts are better than trolling. Nothing in what I said is wrong, you're backtracking again.

On a separate note meet me in a gym somewhere and we'll talk it out and if it don't work you can beat me into agreeing with you, deal?

 

[guest]

Okay ninnies, it's been fun, but all your answers all fall into three categories:
1) People who can't understand what I'm saying, in which case, there's no point even bothering.
2) People who do understand what I'm saying, but deliberately misinterpret it to get a rise out of me, in which case, there's also no point.
3) People who don't bother reading what I'm saying, in which case saying nothing is equally as effective.

So, show's over. I like being entertained, but I like denying you the entertainment even more.

Be ready Eric, be ready, you invited the karma you get. You'll like prison, lots of nigger cock for you.