This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 6.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Originally posted by Spiderman
Calling paedophiles “minor attracted persons” is taken out of context? How exactly? Speaking at a conference held by an organisation that want paedophiles to be able to live “with dignity”. Doesn’t prove he is a paedophile but sure as damn it shows he appears not to have an issue with them. Not just the Mail reporting it, wasinitially in the Times Edited by Spiderman (07 Oct 2022 2.17pm)[/ The allegation was that he was “pro-paedophile”, which suggests he regards them positively. Engaging with any controversial group doesn’t indicate anything of the sort. His motivation may well have been to challenge some of their ideas. I have no more idea than anyone else, but that doesn’t stop the media writing their stories. Using terms in a presentation that gets your audience on your side helps make them listen to your arguments. Thus “minor attracted persons” needs to be seen in its context. and your views on the other articles I posted? Taking a leaf out of your book, if Trump or a Trump supporter had said similar, your view would be?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 07 Oct 22 6.33pm | |
---|---|
People should really look at the images Spider posted on what this guy said and then look at what WE said in relation to it. It's quite terrible in my view.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 7.08pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
Ah lovely you are trying to conflate this with racism now. What an overtly pathetic and offensive attempt, to numerous parties, to try and demonise those who call you out. Secondly, you have compared to a biological fact there. Furthermore, you have reinforced your stance that this is indeed fact, just stating it as so, when it couldn't be further from fact. No matter how much you wish something buttercup it doesn't just make it so and therefore you cannot claim fact where it does not exist. That really is hilarious that you think opinions and feelings constitute truth. Thirdly, and this is getting funnier, no you have not found any answers. What you have done is sort to elicit and locate that which serves to validate your subjective opinion only, opinion not scientific hypothesis. Once again, whatever that may be motivated by. Lastly, and equally hilariously, nobody is 'introducing other unrelated, problems'. We are still operating off the point which provided the juncture at which I joined. A point you were supporting. This is hilarious. And even so yes, everything beyond 'some people just need understanding', itself a pathetic statement within the context you are employing it, does need attention especially when the ramifications are so dangerous. Yet another weasel attempt to derail and distract from the discussion, in which you hold no authority and are exposing yourself to ridicule, never mind your continuous attempt at shooting down those calling you out down using the same old, tired, excessively ignorant rhetoric which bears no relevance nor holds any water whatsoever. Still laughing at your attempt to place a proverbial 'race card'. For reiteration, race is a fact and discrimination of a person on this basis alone is appalling. Challenging somebody stating the anatomically, biologically and scientifically anti-truth is very far from appalling, it is actually appropriate if not necessary to at the very least call out. It is more so when that person seeks to endanger half of humanity in their attempts to justify their own anti-scientific delusions. I really do despair that people like you exist in the world sometimes but is does provide adequate fuel for some fun. What a word-soup of innuendo and insult, which I won't even attempt to answer in any detail. I have long since given up any hope of a discussion based on reason with you, at least on this subject. Your prejudices are so deeply ingrained that you probably don't even realise they exist. That you fail to see the parallels between racial and transgender exclusion is evidence of that. There is nothing "subjective" about transgenderism! The subjectivity exists in your mind. It's real. It's not what I have highlighted above. That you cannot accept that because someone is anatomically the same as you doesn't necessarily mean they are the same sex as you, is at the root of this. Until you are able to accept this, there is nothing more I can say to help you, and you will go on spreading your prejudice around, to the detriment of us all.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 7.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Spiderman
and your views on the other articles I posted? Taking a leaf out of your book, if Trump or a Trump supporter had said similar, your view would be? Let me quite clear, before anyone jumps on this and starts to make the kind of inferences that I have come to expect. I despise paedophiles and will never defend them. I know nothing of Dr Jacob Breslow, haven't read his book, heard his speech and have no intention of doing either. I am not defending him in any way. I made an aside remark criticising the Mail's use of inflammatory wording and suggested more evidence was needed before such things could be said. My comment was about the Mail. Not Dr Breslow. You have now provided more evidence and seem much more interested in this than me. I would still say the extracts need to be read in the context of the whole book and for Dr Breslow's explanations to be heard, before an accusation of "pro-paedophilia" could be justified. I trust those who sacked him had done just that. This though is a distraction, and has nothing to do with transgenderism.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 7.25pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
People should really look at the images Spider posted on what this guy said and then look at what WE said in relation to it. It's quite terrible in my view. Too late! How unsurprising that this ill-informed comment comes from this source. It really is as predictable as it is terrible. I have replied to Spider. Anyone interested can read it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Spiderman Horsham 07 Oct 22 8.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Let me quite clear, before anyone jumps on this and starts to make the kind of inferences that I have come to expect. I despise paedophiles and will never defend them. I know nothing of Dr Jacob Breslow, haven't read his book, heard his speech and have no intention of doing either. I am not defending him in any way. I made an aside remark criticising the Mail's use of inflammatory wording and suggested more evidence was needed before such things could be said. My comment was about the Mail. Not Dr Breslow. You have now provided more evidence and seem much more interested in this than me. I would still say the extracts need to be read in the context of the whole book and for Dr Breslow's explanations to be heard, before an accusation of "pro-paedophilia" could be justified. I trust those who sacked him had done just that. This though is a distraction, and has nothing to do with transgenderism. Well as he was a director of Mermaids, there certainly is a connection with transgenderism
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 10.37pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Well as he was a director of Mermaids, there certainly is a connection with transgenderism He was actually a trustee, so unlikely to have been directly involved, and they said they were unaware of his attendance at the symposium 11 years ago as a Phd student, and distanced themselves as soon as it was made known to them. I guess they wanted to avoid any possibility of any more negative publicity, having had quite a lot.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 07 Oct 22 10.40pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What a word-soup of innuendo and insult, which I won't even attempt to answer in any detail. I have long since given up any hope of a discussion based on reason with you, at least on this subject. Your prejudices are so deeply ingrained that you probably don't even realise they exist. That you fail to see the parallels between racial and transgender exclusion is evidence of that. There is nothing "subjective" about transgenderism! The subjectivity exists in your mind. It's real. It's not what I have highlighted above. That you cannot accept that because someone is anatomically the same as you doesn't necessarily mean they are the same sex as you, is at the root of this. Until you are able to accept this, there is nothing more I can say to help you, and you will go on spreading your prejudice around, to the detriment of us all. You truly are beyond comprehension. I have already covered the fact that you cannot just so hysterically invent insult, throw actual insult and then so offensively conflate one thing with something entirely different in an attempt to whip up hysteria. It's offensive and cowardly. As per usual you do not address any particular point, provide any evidence or rationale for your ranting/raving and just latch onto anything to hook the hurling of nonsensical, invented accusations at. You cannot just concoct a narrative out of thin air, continuously contradict yourself and then dismiss those whose point this out. I would also suggest you cannot promote paedophilia, the erosion of women's rights and promulgate ideological nonsense at will but then perhaps you are proving that suggestion wrong. You may well just be playing the antagonist once more for kicks or attention, you may just have cultivated a character for anarchic purposes, there may be no Wisbech Eagle at all. All said however, I do feel it a necessary duty of at least some to challenge and call out your war on rationale and thought.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 07 Oct 22 10.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
You truly are beyond comprehension. I have already covered the fact that you cannot just so hysterically invent insult, throw actual insult and then so offensively conflate one thing with something entirely different in an attempt to whip up hysteria. It's offensive and cowardly. As per usual you do not address any particular point, provide any evidence or rationale for your ranting/raving and just latch onto anything to hook the hurling of nonsensical, invented accusations at. You cannot just concoct a narrative out of thin air, continuously contradict yourself and then dismiss those whose point this out. I would also suggest you cannot promote paedophilia, the erosion of women's rights and promulgate ideological nonsense at will but then perhaps you are proving that suggestion wrong. You may well just be playing the antagonist once more for kicks or attention, you may just have cultivated a character for anarchic purposes, there may be no Wisbech Eagle at all. All said however, I do feel it a necessary duty of at least some to challenge and call out your war on rationale and thought. Excellent points. There's a lot I'd say about this guy but it's just not worth it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 07 Oct 22 11.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Excellent points. There's a lot I'd say about this guy but it's just not worth it. I'm going to jump on this train. Another poster whom I have a great deal of respect for (covers 99% on HoL TBF) on here private messaged me before. It was seriously starting to irk me some of the line crossing stuff. I think I will resist henceforth unless I feel it absolutely necessary.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 11.20pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
You truly are beyond comprehension. I have already covered the fact that you cannot just so hysterically invent insult, throw actual insult and then so offensively conflate one thing with something entirely different in an attempt to whip up hysteria. It's offensive and cowardly. As per usual you do not address any particular point, provide any evidence or rationale for your ranting/raving and just latch onto anything to hook the hurling of nonsensical, invented accusations at. You cannot just concoct a narrative out of thin air, continuously contradict yourself and then dismiss those whose point this out. I would also suggest you cannot promote paedophilia, the erosion of women's rights and promulgate ideological nonsense at will but then perhaps you are proving that suggestion wrong. You may well just be playing the antagonist once more for kicks or attention, you may just have cultivated a character for anarchic purposes, there may be no Wisbech Eagle at all. All said however, I do feel it a necessary duty of at least some to challenge and call out your war on rationale and thought. Just as well I am not then! I would never "promote paedophilia" and to suggest that I might is really beyond the pale. Nor do I seek to erode women's rights! Another ridiculous idea. I have long argued here to enhance them, and this thread isn't any different. The difference is that only one of us recognise all women, as women. One of us wants to classify some of them as men. There is only one of us who is "ranting and raving" and it isn't me. I am dealing with your stream of repetitive nonsense quite calmly. You seem unable to come to terms with transgenderism and want to dismiss it as some kind of mental illness, weakness of character or political activism, simply because it doesn't match your prejudices. That's your problem. It isn't mine. I suggest you go deal with it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Oct 22 11.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Excellent points. There's a lot I'd say about this guy but it's just not worth it. There is an awful lot more I could say about you, and do, in private. I often cite you as an example of what can happen when people lose their trust in the MSM in the internet age. How opinions get manipulated and distorted, then recycled as original. I was having this conversation in the pub no more than a couple of hours ago. It's illuminating how common an experience it is.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.