Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
(Part II "Seize Positions or Power" will follow soon)
Inspired by this thread: Libs produce show in Canada to get you to empathize with pedophiles
It's a tried and true formula. Anyone thinking this is about merely getting sympathy for a mental illness is missing the big picture. It's about getting sympathy for yet another sexual orientation...the "rights" for that orientation will come later. They are all too aware of the public sentiments about their latest legal shoehorn still simmering under the surface of the majority.. the film is a Trojan Horse whose contents are meant to empty into the castle grounds while everyone is asleep...again...
I once read an article, lengthy, by a law enforcement official who had done an exhaustive study on pedophilia. He said that in general, pedophiles if nothing else are extraordinarily clever in how they go about "grooming" the adults in charge of the children they're after. That's why when it's discovered, it's always the person they thought least in the world who would do such a thing. Jerry Sandusky was such an example. He married a woman, sought to be involved in sports and then of course "outreach to youth" in sports. What a model man eh? Well, no. He was actually a homosexual pedophile....grooming the situation to place himself around the "objects" he craved sexually.
This fact, incidentally, is why I worry when gays make the argument for marriage that "it doesn't matter about the kids having a mom and dad, they just have to accept what the adults are doing". This apathic disconnect from the angst of a child's needs is the first red flag you look for. The adults so saying are saying "this object doesn't dictate what humans do with it".. It's called in psychology of abuse "thingifying" the object intended to be abused. If it's an "it", then it doesn't have feelings one might feel guilty about..
Whenever I see a man signing up to work with children I'm always suspicious. My experience with the guys I know and all are in agreement: "avoid childcare at all costs...make excuses..go to the pub...bathe the dog...anything but that!" Men just aren't wired to crave being around whining children. Rather be out hunting or fishing. So when one lines up to be around kiddies all day long..well... yeah.. I like to look at the obvious. There are exceptions I'm sure but radar is radar..when child abuse is the topic at hand, one should do well to not ignore even subtle cues..mandatory in fact as a matter of federal law to err on the side of caution.. I've known a couple of male teachers as an example of the exception. In general they were gruff, simmering annoyance with the kids pretty regularly and were dealing with them out of a sense of duty to trying to make society a better place. They never volunteer for extra duties with kids after school and the minute the clock strikes three they are blazing a trail for their car and the local tavern to take the edge off the stress..
Look at Kevin Jennings for example, gay, Obama's "education czar". He had to have chosen a life around children for years before he got that nod. Not saying he's a pedophile, but ordering the teaching of "fisting" and other inappropriate sexualized-content to school aged kids certainly gives one cause to wonder. Was he attempting to "groom" them? You be the judge..
In any event, look for talk of "Pedophile suicides" to be on the increase in the near future.. You'll hear buzzwords like "don't hate" or "bigot" or "pedophobe!"..
Inspired by this thread: Libs produce show in Canada to get you to empathize with pedophiles
Yes, first you gain sympathy for a mental issue of a given demographic (gay teen suicide), then you use that sympathy to propel that demographic into getting rights that never existed for that behavior before.(gay marriage)
It's a tried and true formula. Anyone thinking this is about merely getting sympathy for a mental illness is missing the big picture. It's about getting sympathy for yet another sexual orientation...the "rights" for that orientation will come later. They are all too aware of the public sentiments about their latest legal shoehorn still simmering under the surface of the majority.. the film is a Trojan Horse whose contents are meant to empty into the castle grounds while everyone is asleep...again...
I once read an article, lengthy, by a law enforcement official who had done an exhaustive study on pedophilia. He said that in general, pedophiles if nothing else are extraordinarily clever in how they go about "grooming" the adults in charge of the children they're after. That's why when it's discovered, it's always the person they thought least in the world who would do such a thing. Jerry Sandusky was such an example. He married a woman, sought to be involved in sports and then of course "outreach to youth" in sports. What a model man eh? Well, no. He was actually a homosexual pedophile....grooming the situation to place himself around the "objects" he craved sexually.
This fact, incidentally, is why I worry when gays make the argument for marriage that "it doesn't matter about the kids having a mom and dad, they just have to accept what the adults are doing". This apathic disconnect from the angst of a child's needs is the first red flag you look for. The adults so saying are saying "this object doesn't dictate what humans do with it".. It's called in psychology of abuse "thingifying" the object intended to be abused. If it's an "it", then it doesn't have feelings one might feel guilty about..
Whenever I see a man signing up to work with children I'm always suspicious. My experience with the guys I know and all are in agreement: "avoid childcare at all costs...make excuses..go to the pub...bathe the dog...anything but that!" Men just aren't wired to crave being around whining children. Rather be out hunting or fishing. So when one lines up to be around kiddies all day long..well... yeah.. I like to look at the obvious. There are exceptions I'm sure but radar is radar..when child abuse is the topic at hand, one should do well to not ignore even subtle cues..mandatory in fact as a matter of federal law to err on the side of caution.. I've known a couple of male teachers as an example of the exception. In general they were gruff, simmering annoyance with the kids pretty regularly and were dealing with them out of a sense of duty to trying to make society a better place. They never volunteer for extra duties with kids after school and the minute the clock strikes three they are blazing a trail for their car and the local tavern to take the edge off the stress..
Look at Kevin Jennings for example, gay, Obama's "education czar". He had to have chosen a life around children for years before he got that nod. Not saying he's a pedophile, but ordering the teaching of "fisting" and other inappropriate sexualized-content to school aged kids certainly gives one cause to wonder. Was he attempting to "groom" them? You be the judge..
In any event, look for talk of "Pedophile suicides" to be on the increase in the near future.. You'll hear buzzwords like "don't hate" or "bigot" or "pedophobe!"..
Last edited:
