G
guest
Guest
Your old wop friend wouldn't mind you just doing it for fun.....
-
Reminder: Do not call, text, or mention harrassing someone in real life. Do not encourage it. Do not talk about killing or using violence against anyone, or engaging in any criminal behavior. If it is not an obvious joke even when taken out of context, don't post it. Please report violators.
DMCA, complaints, and other inquiries:
[email protected]
I'll just leave this here, then.
- Thread starter NormsGhost
- Start date
- Forum Clout
- 6,198
Attachments
- Forum Clout
- -893
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.
- Forum Clout
- 48,723
Why do you find it troublesome?
- Forum Clout
- 32,920
He wants pictures of Delaney putting his hard penis into an 8 year olds hiney. Just to make 100% sure he's an actual pedo! Circumstantial proof isn't enough for Hildy.
- Forum Clout
- 8,742
So ole child rape hildy here thinks 6 year old can consent to sex with a grown man.
Why do we argue with this pedophile? He's beyond redemption and I'm glad he's a childless loser with a barren pig of a wife.
If some nigger caves his head in or some random reddit guy ruins his life. Well. I'll smile.
- Forum Clout
- 85,983
You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. Your wife is a fat ugly cunt too.
G
guest
Guest
G
guest
Guest
He's a FAGGOT
- Forum Clout
- 41,857
I stopped reading after the first typo, "one once". Ever hear of spell check?
Switching the topic to something more nuanced and intellectually stimulating, does your wife have fistulas that allow shit juice to tunnel directly into her vagina from her ass? Do you think it's rad to get your cock covered in shit while having vaginal sex?
- Forum Clout
- 38,167
Hildy: I need a name and pictures. And maybe a video of juices still leaking out of the abused kid's ass.
everyone else: you need that level of proof?
Hildy: proof?
everyone else: you need that level of proof?
Hildy: proof?
- Forum Clout
- 36,599
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 "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." 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.
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 "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." 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.
- Forum Clout
- 36,599
Hogg (novel) - Wikipedia
Level-headed guy, that Delaney. This book is just wonderful, nothing to judge about it at all.
I just hope Delaney never cut in a line or tailgated somebody because those would both be creating several direct victims unlike the good virtuous celibate pedophiles who don't rape kids
(they're all good as long as they resist their urges, then there's nothing wrong with them, their porn habits, or their pedo advocacy. Big brain atheist hildy knows better than us mere mortals on this)
G
guest
Guest
Do you agree with all this @NormsGhostI 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.
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.
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.
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.
- Forum Clout
- 19,958
It’s not that we don’t get the nuance. Statutory rape typically involves willing participants, but society has still deemed it rape. You are a bad (or sick) guy!
- Forum Clout
- 119,249
- Forum Clout
- 14,136
- Forum Clout
- 93,645
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 "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." 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.
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.
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.
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.
Ginsburg and Burroughs are tremendous sex creeps, one of their “shared” teen boy victims wrote about how badly the experience fucked him up. No doubt Delaney feverishly masturbated while reading about how traumatic it was for the guy.
