On Aug 2, 5:31 pm, Derek > wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:41:47 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >On Aug 1, 9:46 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:57:49 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, Derek > wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:41:23 -0700, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >Let me get this straight, Ball. I am perfectly happy to sign my full
> >> >> >name and photo to all my Internet activity. You, apparently, are a bit
> >> >> >uncomfortable with the idea that, within a few days, anyone will be
> >> >> >able to type your name into Google and find a record of this debate.
>
> >> >> You've provided much more than just that, you spiteful little
> >> >> prick, including a link to Lesley's spiteful little page, so take
> >> >> it down. If anyone wants to find a record of your arguments
> >> >> with him they can go through Google archives and find them
> >> >> in the usual way. There's certainly no need to publish his
> >> >> whereabouts and a photograph of him alongside your
> >> >> arguments, so take it down and stop being spiteful.
>
> >> >Let me just try to get to terms with your point of view. You think
> >> >Ball is entitled to behave in the way he behaves on this newsgroup,
> >> >and he is also entitled to expect people to graciously help him to do
> >> >it under a cloak of anonymity? Although Karen Winter is not entitled
> >> >to expect the same privilege?
>
> >> Unlike Jon, Karen is a potential threat to children, and
> >> like most other parents I feel compelled to take the right
> >> course of action against threats like her.
>
> >> I see Karen as a potential threat to children, especially
> >> while she tries to hide her identity here by lying about it
> >> after being kicked out of her parish.
>
> >> Everything I've said about her and forwarded to her
> >> church officials is true and backed by evidence from
> >> her own quotes found in Google archives. She openly
> >> promotes sex between children and adults, insisting
> >> that "responsible paedophiles" should work closely
> >> with children on a one-to-one basis (alone).
>
> >> "Pedophiles don't hate children -- they like them,
> >> enjoy being with them, love them both as sexual
> >> partners and as companions. A child-hating
> >> pedophile is a contradiction in terms. Many
> >> pedophiles and ephebophiles work in professions
> >> where they come in contact with children, and are
> >> excellent in those fields because they understand
> >> and like children, and can relate to them well on a
> >> one-to-one basis."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2l79z
>
> >> She would have no hesitation in allowing "responsible
> >> paedophiles" access to children, including her own
> >> son..
>
> >> "I would have had no hesitation in letting my son
> >> associate with the responsible pedophiles I met."
> >> http://snipurl.com/4aej
>
> >> She believes society should stop making a big deal
> >> out of protecting vulnerable children and allow
> >> "responsible paedophiles" access to them so they
> >> can then practice oral sex on them.
>
> >> "Laws are not the answer; love is the answer.
> >> And sometimes that love is provided by caring
> >> and responsible pedophiles or ephebophiles.
> >> OTOH, sometimes it's just a quick jerk-off or
> >> blow job, and if people didn't make a big deal out
> >> of it, it wouldn't be significant at all."
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2xn8o
>
> >> She and Sylvia actively seek out positions within
> >> church communities where they can come into
> >> contact with children, even though Sylvia hates
> >> them.
>
> >> "Do I hate kids? Yes!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/04/09
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx
>
> >> "Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE
> >> CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate
> >> THEIR children, I hate every shit stain, every
> >> whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the
> >> little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR
> >> ON THAT?!"
> >> Swan, Date: 2000/02/12
> >> http://snipurl.com/4ae8
>
> >> Those comments are of real concern to me and
> >> her church officials, and as a result she was expelled
> >> from one parish only to then flee to another
> >> which specialises in child care. Compounding my
> >> concerns are her efforts to hide from her real
> >> identity by openly lying like a common predator.
>
> >Karen's no threat to children.
>
> Her church officials certainly thought she was and kicked her
> out of her parish after thanking me for providing her quotes
> to them. Hopefully, your qualifications will mean that you
> teach older students and won't be in a position of authority
> over young children, because if you don't think she's a
> potential threat to young kids after seeing the evidence of her
> opinions on "responsible paedophiles" and her desperate
> attempts to hide her identity after being kicked out of parish,
> you become as much a threat to them as she is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay. So she said she had met some "responsible paedophiles". What's a
paedophile? Let's say a paedophile is an adult who is aware of
regularly having sexual feelings for pre-pubescent children. These
people were aware of having such feelings. She said she thought they
were "responsible". What does that mean? I believe it means she knew
them quite well and had formed the judgement that they were decent
people, that she was satisfied that they wouldn't do anything to harm
others. I think quite possibly it means she was satisfied that they
wouldn't break the law. And she made the judgement that they could be
trusted around children, including her son.
So, apparently, no-one who is aware of having sexual feelings towards
pre-pubescent children can under any circumstances be trusted around
children. I daresay quite a lot of people in our culture would agree
with that statement. Karen, who knew that these people were aware of
having sexual feeilngs towards pre-pubescent children, nevertheless
had formed the judgement on the basis of her knowledge of them that
they could be trusted around children. Apparently that makes her a
threat to children. And I am prepared to entertain the idea that this
judgement of hers might be correct, or at least that she is not
necessarily a threat to children herself just because she made this
judgement. Apparently that makes me too a threat to children, because
I am prepared to entertain this idea. I am not sure how many people in
our culture would go that far.
Okay, so all of this might be the case. Maybe no-one who is aware of
sexual feelings towards pre-pubscent children can be trusted around
children, and maybe Karen and I cannot be trusted around children
either. This might be the case. But do you really *know* it to be the
case? Have you subjected this belief of yours to rigorous scrutiny?
For example, have you yourself ever met anyone who admits to having
sexual feelings for children? The received wisdom of your culture
might be correct, but if you have not yourself confirmed that it is
correct you should acknowledge that fact.
I think of myself as someone who cares a lot about children. I get on
well with the children in my family, I volunteer quite a lot of time
and money to a children's rights organization called UNICEF. I am
strongly motivated to help children and protect them from harm, just
as much as you I am sure. I hope to have kids myself some day. And,
I'm sorry to tell you this because I know you'll worry about it, I do
work with children. Usually children who are on the verge of
adulthood, but sometimes younger. I get a lot of satisfaction out of
helping children with their studies. I find working with children who
are near the end of high-school to be the most intellectually engaging
work. I'm about to take up a teaching post in Shanghai working with
people who have just finished high-school. I guess probably most of
them will be over 18.
I'm sorry to hear you think I'm not fit to work with children. I
really do think it's a bit silly. I think you should examine this
belief a bit more carefully.