Zone1 I know "groomer" has been discussed already, but.....

[bripat9643]

Boohoo

 

[Bob Blaylock]

More and more it has clearly been used to mean "pedophile".....why is it still allowed when posters are called "groomers'.........particularly randomly in threads having NOTHING to do with the discussion of pedophilia?

You know, if you did not openly defend activity that is sexually exploitive and abusive to children, then people would be much less inclined to call you a groomer, or any other name that implies such things.

Your problem is that you want to advocate shit that is immoral and harmful, but you do not want to be called out for it.

 

[bodecea]

If you are advocating for well known grooming techniques used by pedophiles, what you rather be called?

And your link to me advocating such isn't working....you aren't projecting again, are you?

 

[westwall]

And your link to me advocating such isn't working....you aren't projecting again, are you?

I ain't the one trying to ban the word "groomer", cupcake. That would be you.....

 

[Natural Citizen]

I ain't the one trying to ban the word "groomer", cupcake. That would be you.....

Yeah, serial projector projecting that you are a projecting projecter is projecting.

 

[Calypso Jones]

And while we're at it, I thought casting such accusations was against the rules here.

What the hell do call what you did to ecb just this past week?

 

[Unkotare]

What the hell do call what you did to ecb just this past week?

Not accusing it over and over and over of committing a heinous crime, that’s for damn sure.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be spreading social contagion and encouraging needless hormone treatments and surgeries on kids.
You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be sexualizing young minors or insisting on needlessly teaching young students about sexuality (i.e. this isn't biology, you're just blathering about homosexuality or gender identity to first graders) or pushing books with grossly inappropriate content to those kids.

These things would make one scum, sure, and "groomer" is an accurate label.

Leave the kids alone.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be spreading social contagion and encouraging needless hormone treatments and surgeries on kids.
You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be sexualizing young minors or insisting on needlessly teaching young students about sexuality (i.e. this isn't biology, you're just blathering about homosexuality or gender identity to first graders) or pushing books with grossly inappropriate content to those kids.

These things would make one scum, sure, and "groomer" is an accurate label.

Leave the kids alone.

If any of the above behavior doesn't directly implicate the one engaging in or defending it as a pedophile, then it certainly indicates one to be on the side of pedophiles.

And one is known by the company that one chooses to keep.

 

[Unkotare]

You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be spreading social contagion and encouraging needless hormone treatments and surgeries on kids.
You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be sexualizing young minors or insisting on needlessly teaching young students about sexuality (i.e. this isn't biology, you're just blathering about homosexuality or gender identity to first graders) or pushing books with grossly inappropriate content to those kids.

These things would make one scum, sure, and "groomer" is an accurate label.

Leave the kids alone.

Who the hell are you talking to?

 

[DudleySmith]

More and more it has clearly been used to mean "pedophile".....why is it still allowed when posters are called "groomers'.........particularly randomly in threads having NOTHING to do with the discussion of pedophilia?

lol deviants get all mad n stuff when they're outed.

 

[Vastator]

You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be spreading social contagion and encouraging needless hormone treatments and surgeries on kids.
You don't have to be a literal pedophile to be sexualizing young minors or insisting on needlessly teaching young students about sexuality (i.e. this isn't biology, you're just blathering about homosexuality or gender identity to first graders) or pushing books with grossly inappropriate content to those kids.

These things would make one scum, sure, and "groomer" is an accurate label.

Leave the kids alone.

Nah. It's the most timid of the bunch, attempting to more normalize it so they too can dip their toes in the water while most of the attention is on the real wave makers. Then they can claim that they are the lesser evil.

 

[Foxfyre]

More and more it has clearly been used to mean "pedophile".....why is it still allowed when posters are called "groomers'.........particularly randomly in threads having NOTHING to do with the discussion of pedophilia?

I don't know about anybody else, but I have very specific criteria in mind when I use the term 'grooming', and, unless the topic is pedophilia, I won't be meaning or thinking about pedophilia.

 

[westwall]

Yeah, serial projector projecting that you are a projecting projecter is projecting.

Touche!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If a child is being groomed towards a predisposition to questioning their sexual identity and accepting the greater political agenda behind such, they are definitely being groomed, but there does not have to be any insinuation whatsoever that their groomer wants to have sex with them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If a child is being groomed towards a predisposition to questioning their sexual identity and accepting the greater political agenda behind such, they are definitely being groomed, but there does not have to be any insinuation whatsoever that their groomer wants to have sex with them.

I don't know what other motives there might be behind this behavior, beyond a direct urge to engage in sexual activity with the children in question; but surely, this kind of shit is not based on any good motives. Whatever the true motive is of a groomer, the groomer is willing to fuck a child up for life, in order to fulfill that motive.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Some folks take offense at being called a traitor to their country, simply for who they voted for, too.

I bet that didn't even blip your radar though, did it?

Bodecea has her own, personal radar?

I have always just assumed that Bodecea simply passed on what she was programmed to say.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I don't know what other motives there might be behind this behavior, beyond a direct urge to engage in sexual activity with the children in question; but surely, this kind of shit is not based on any good motives. Whatever the true motive is of a groomer, the groomer is willing to fuck a child up for life, in order to fulfill that motive.

Ther motives I usually ascribe have to do with the sense of moral superiority the groomer derives by their insane woke moonbattery.

 

[Mac-7]

More and more it has clearly been used to mean "pedophile".....why is it still allowed when posters are called "groomers'.........particularly randomly in threads having NOTHING to do with the discussion of pedophilia?

For the same reason that libs paint conservatives as bigots for opposing the woke grooming agenda

You dnt like us and we make no bones about not liking you either

 

[Coyote]

This has been discussed before..not sure why we need another thread on it. If you call another member "groomer" (and it isn't a thread about dog grooming) we will take it in the way it is most commonly meant: pedophilia.