Some words from Peter Tatchell, protestor against Priestly pederasty

[egb_hibs]

I've mentioned before it was a bit rum given his persistent attempts to get pederasty legalised. I hadn't realised quite how are he had gone before though;

"‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’"

A carefully worded beginning to the latter sentence, but when you add it all up, I do wonder why channel 4 and the Protest the Pope movement have had this guy in the front line.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1311193/PETER-HITCHENS-Question-Who-said-Not-sex-involving-children-unwanted-abusive-Answer-The-Popes-biggest-British-critic.html

 

[Brainwrong]

He's a disturbing @@$@. Same with Dawkins fucked up view on the subject.

Aye, let's blur the lines, then maybe we can get mair kids raped. Niceone guys.

 

[broonieboy]

An egotist masquerading as an activist.

A first class fud imo.

 

[Purple & Green]

He should be jailed for that.

 

[naughty_bob]

whilst i am no fan of tatchell who often seems confused about self publicity and whatever "cause" he is currently harping on about....the real UNCOMFORTABLE truth is the ACTUAL nature of our human sexuality,

i recall a discussion some years back with a respected gay friend of mine who told me tales of his childhood that caused my jaw to drop considerably. without disturbing anyone with the details ,it appears that certain individuals are sexualized at a VERY early age and pursue sexual activity with willing participants of either similar age or indeed those old enough to be "adult"

when i suggested that he had been the victim of some early influence to cause such behavior , he refuted such a suggestion and claimed it was entirely his own volition that drove his behavior & that he had many associates with similar experiences.

Obviously to advocate such practice as acceptable within our current society is ridiculous / bizarre and there may be innumerable factors that influence young minds to display sexual desire etc but i think the most uncomfortable truth is how such behavior has manifest within our human culture throughout all recorded history.

To willfully sexualise a child without committing "actual" abuse is pretty much the same thing as far as i am concerned and it is one of the few areas that i would find myself driven to violence if i was unfortunate enough to ever encounter such a situation

that said though ,there is a wider anthropological question that centers more on the human species and it's engagement in what might be termed "primal" activity, however unsettling unpalatable it may be.

perhaps if we were less polluted with the concept of "man through the eyes of god" we would be more capable of dealing with the actual horrific nature of the primal human.

 

[egb_hibs]

whilst i am no fan of tatchell who often seems confused about self publicity and whatever "cause" he is currently harping on about....the real UNCOMFORTABLE truth is the ACTUAL nature of our human sexuality,

i recall a discussion some years back with a respected gay friend of mine who told me tales of his childhood that caused my jaw to drop considerably. without disturbing anyone with the details ,it appears that certain individuals are sexualized at a VERY early age and pursue sexual activity with willing participants of either similar age or indeed those old enough to be "adult"

when i suggested that he had been the victim of some early influence to cause such behavior , he refuted such a suggestion and claimed it was entirely his own volition that drove his behavior & that he had many associates with similar experiences.

Obviously to advocate such practice as acceptable within our current society is ridiculous / bizarre and there may be innumerable factors that influence young minds to display sexual desire etc but i think the most uncomfortable truth is how such behavior has manifest within our human culture throughout all recorded history.

To willfully sexualise a child without committing "actual" abuse is pretty much the same thing as far as i am concerned and it is one of the few areas that i would find myself driven to violence if i was unfortunate enough to ever encounter such a situation

that said though ,there is a wider anthropological question that centers more on the human species and it's engagement in what might be termed "primal" activity, however unsettling unpalatable it may be.

This sort of thing is common among gay men, according to tatchell, which is why he wants it to be legal for adults to be able to have sex with young boys and girls. This also corresponds with the history of homosexuality in the pagan world and in other parts of the globe; it is intimately entwined with pederasty.

I have never heard of anything equivalent in the straight world, though I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I doubt it happens with anything like the same prevalence though. It is unsurprising that tatchell's social circle seems to include the rare heterosexual examples.

perhaps if we were less polluted with the concept of "man through the eyes of god" we would be more capable of dealing with the actual horrific nature of the primal human.

I'm not sure what this means, but the religious view of human nature seems to me to correspond to the one that science describes; whereas humanism, socialism and other materialist systems rest on an anti-scientific, endlessly malleable and indeed perfectable man, who is a wholly fictitious construct. But let's not get into that subject again as you get out of your depth quite quickly

Not sure what you mean by 'dealing' with the nature of the primal human either. Perhaps we should codify moral systems which place such behaviour beyond the pale? but if it's a primal instinct we're dealing with we'll need to develop a narrative that establishes fairly robust reasons and incentives for suppressing damaging primal impulses. Mmmm. What do you think that would look like Bobster...

Anyway, perhaps it's worth giving it some thought. I fully expect the sexualisation of children to continue apace and for diseased weirdos to push for increased reductions in the AOC, all in the name of liberty.

 

[naughty_bob]

see no evil hear no evil

"in the str8 world" ? this statement alone exposes your ignorance... is it not just "the world" and there is plenty of evidence to document sexual activity between minors and adults of all sexes , it is certainly not exclusive to the gay community.

then in a pathetic attempt to patronise, you say: I'm not sure what this means, but the religious view of human nature seems to me to correspond to the one that science describes; whereas humanism, socialism and other materialist systems rest on an anti-scientific, endlessly malleable and indeed perfectable fiction. But let's not get into that subject again as you get out of your depth quite quickly

so your not sure what this means? oh really... pull the other one ,you know exactly what i meant.

your a "grade A" apologist and you aint no intellectual
if you want to play patronise then , in terms of being out of ones depth, i suggest you are floundering in the deep end of the commie whilst i have barley dipped a toe.

 

[naughty_bob]

ok NOW i see your tactics, you construct a response and post it, then EDIT your response after further consideration ... wtf? i am no where near as adept at you when it comes to posting on forums etc, this is a relatively new pursuit for me but you edited a response thus altering the incremental development of this discussion and potentially confusing my subsequent response , are you all for photoshopping images aswell?you like to re-write history..eh , Joe Stalin anyone....

 

[naughty_bob]

infact i would go further and call you a feking COWARD for doing that, what an absolute piece of shit thing to do. you obviously couldn't handle my response and thus altered your post accordingly and then neatly ended the discussion. as a result of your behavior i consider you well and truly "PWNED" (the first and only time i shall use this ridiculous term) besides your actions deserve such manky term to highlight your evasive and almost retarded method of debate. i am away to get ready for the game now , i presume at least we have Hibs in common so lets hope we cuff Hamilton, actually your probably a Jambo...;)

 

[egb_hibs]

"in the str8 world" ? this statement alone exposes your ignorance... is it not just "the world" and there is plenty of evidence to document sexual activity between minors and adults of all sexes , it is certainly not exclusive to the gay community.

I didn't say it was exclusive to the straight community.

I said, I don't believe it to be anywhere near as prevalent within the straight community. I stand by that. Peter Tatchell has gathered evidence which demonstrates that many homosexuals had sex with older men while young boys, which corroborates your friend's experience. I repeat that I am unaware of anything similar to this among straight people. Perhaps your circles are different.

then in a pathetic attempt to patronise, you say: I'm not sure what this means, but the religious view of human nature seems to me to correspond to the one that science describes; whereas humanism, socialism and other materialist systems rest on an anti-scientific, endlessly malleable and indeed perfectable fiction. But let's not get into that subject again as you get out of your depth quite quickly

so your not sure what this means? oh really... pull the other one ,you know exactly what i meant.

No I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know what the "concept of man through the eyes of God" actually means, or how it inhibits us from confronting the 'horror' of the 'primal human'.

Fuck's sake, give it a second's thought will you - why do we find it horrific to begin with?

your a "grade A" apologist and you aint no intellectual
if you want to play patronise then , in terms of being out of ones depth, i suggest you are floundering in the deep end of the commie whilst i have barley dipped a toe.

meh. You came in swearing and blasting in the last thread then bolted when some perfectly plain questions were put to you. Now we have more received wisdom that falls apart as soon as you prod it, and again lots of heat but not much light in response to points made.

I've never claimed to be an intellectual, and I'm not sure what I'm an apologist for. You, meanwhile, seem to me to be recycling cliches drummed into the impressionable by the liberal meeja, that the mildest scrutiny suggests you haven't thought through; so you launch into insults instead.

Don't waste both our time; debate the points or leave it.

 

[egb_hibs]

infact i would go further and call you a feking COWARD for doing that, what an absolute piece of shit thing to do. you obviously couldn't handle my response and thus altered your post accordingly and then neatly ended the discussion. as a result of your behavior i consider you well and truly "PWNED" (the first and only time i shall use this ridiculous term) besides your actions deserve such manky term to highlight your evasive and almost retarded method of debate. i am away to get ready for the game now , i presume at least we have Hibs in common so lets hope we cuff Hamilton, actually your probably a Jambo...;)

I haven't the slightest idea what you are on about.

If I've edited a post while you have been responding to it, then that is an accident. I do sometimes add further thoughts if they occur, and at the time the post hasn't been responded to. I can see no evidence this has happened here but if it has it's a bloody coincidence, an accident. What are you saying has been changed that materially affects anything under discussion?

As for 'pwned' don't kid yourself. For one thing this isn't about 'pwning' it's about discussion. For another, if it was, your inability to respond to points put to you, while your own are rebutted, is not the stuff of PWNAG3.

Let's hope we win indeed. I am spending the day wrapped up with some lemsip unfortunately, but I hope a win puts you in better form. All this insults and aimless ranting is pointless.

 

[naughty_bob]

i wouldn't bolt from anything pal and why don't you address the real issue in this thread about you DOCTORING YOUR POSTS??????? . is it less insulting to subtly suggest ones inability to comprehend or to just tell someone they are a cock fair and square,
i prefer the latter , so especially in respect of you ALTERING your posts i herby call you a ALMIGHTY COCKEND if admins consider this abusive then so be it i don't regret insulting someone who debates in such an underhand and deceptive manor

 

[egb_hibs]

i wouldn't bolt from anything pal and why don't you address the real issue in this thread about you DOCTORING YOUR POSTS??????? . is it less insulting to subtly suggest ones inability to comprehend or to just tell someone they are a cock fair and square,
i prefer the latter , so especially in respect of you ALTERING your posts i herby call you a ALMIGHTY COCKEND if admins consider this abusive then so be it i don't regret insulting someone who debates in such an underhand and deceptive manor

What do you think has been doctored, what are you on about?

Stop ranting and just say so. I've no interest in calling you a cock. I don't know what you think this is, but for me at least it's not about shouting insults. I haven't reacted to any of yours from the get go. This is my last effort to get you to actually address a point, because name calling is a waste of time.

 

[arthurduncan]

i herby call you a ALMIGHTY COCKEND if admins consider this abusive then so be it

:hmmm :laff: I am not sure but I think that might just count as abusive. I am not quite sure what EGB's done to wind you up. We are keen on new blood getting involved in debate and even a bit of but you seem to have peaked a bit early, we've hardly moved out of 1st gear on this one. I'd save it till we get on to religion, or evolution, or Scottish independence, or whatever.

 

[HaarlemShuffler]

NB, your audacity is appreciated but you'll have to answer EGB's request for chapter and verse afa the 'altering' posts is concerned. Otherwise you can rant till face=blue etc.

My biggest laugh in this thread was EGB's "...socialists and other materialists" comment (not directly quoted, so sorry if not accurate). That is a classic. I was praying NB would do one on that, but nae luck.

EGB, you could have invented spin despite your hatred of the New Lab's overuse of same.

As a closing comment, my own experience leads me to believe that hetero pederasty is probably more common than the homo version. There are groups of people dedicated to this and they are hetero, the cops have their hands full and brains empty on this, as internet groups are international and not subject to one law. Belgium is one dodgy place to be afa that is concerned.

And Holland ain't much better if things I have heard from friends here are true as vouched for. And often (I give you the Catholic church) in elite circles.

 

[naughty_bob]

i was so enraged that he would alter the course of history (well edit existing posts) that i lost any desire to pursue the original discussion but yes that is possibly one of the most retarded combinations i have ever witnessed,i assume the confusion was in relation to historical materialism,
let's face it he is clearly "confused" about a lot of things ... actually i shall rephrase that, he is "selectively confused" anyway i am done discussing with such a shape shifter, i rekon he had a few too many "lemsips"

in respect of your "spin" comment i wrote a ranting response before leaving for the football today comparing him to alastair campbell etc but then i deleted it cause i thought :fuck it, he will just get all excited and lead me to waste even more time arguing against his truly bizarre musings.

i also sense a homophobic undercurrent.

the weird thing is he posts threads that initially imply a somewhat impartial opinion on whatever the chosen subject and invites others to post their thoughts, then.... he starts to argue like a radge against every subsequent response... save us all time mr verbal diarrhea .. show your cards from the start, why you want top play "poker post" ?

 

[FTJT]

the first thing I want to make clear is that I absolutely don't agree with Tatchell's implicit position from his arguments (which is also his explicit position from separate comments). However, it's utterly disingenuous to suggest he's trying to defend nonces here - he's talking about whether sexual consent can be given at a lower age. The point about adult-child relationships, as it segues into gayers, is basically this: two (opposite-gender) thirteen-year-olds getting off would certainly be tutted at, but wouldn't be seen as a consent issue. Because of the huge list of complications and difficulties facing gay kids who are sexually aware/active at that age, they'll often be looking at older men(/women) because of, primarily, limited options and a need for anonymity. Chiefly I think Tatchell's wrong to discard the motives of the older partner in such circumstances, not least because of the risk of repeat behaviour, but his argument is that consent can be given at a younger age; I don't think this is an unreasonable argument, and I don't think it's about giving cover to nonces either.

 

[Brainwrong]

the first thing I want to make clear is that I absolutely don't agree with Tatchell's implicit position from his arguments (which is also his explicit position from separate comments). However, it's utterly disingenuous to suggest he's trying to defend nonces here - he's talking about whether sexual consent can be given at a lower age. The point about adult-child relationships, as it segues into gayers, is basically this: two (opposite-gender) thirteen-year-olds getting off would certainly be tutted at, but wouldn't be seen as a consent issue. Because of the huge list of complications and difficulties facing gay kids who are sexually aware/active at that age, they'll often be looking at older men(/women) because of, primarily, limited options and a need for anonymity. Chiefly I think Tatchell's wrong to discard the motives of the older partner in such circumstances, not least because of the risk of repeat behaviour, but his argument is that consent can be given at a younger age; I don't think this is an unreasonable argument, and I don't think it's about giving cover to nonces either.

Good response. I do reckon though it would give more protection to nonces or peedohs or more specifically predators. Any blurring of the lines of age and consent is going to do that imo.

I don't think this is a gay issue (well, it's pretty gay where touchhell is concerned but I digress). I think it's an abuse of power issue, a lot of nonces don't seem to give a fuck about the sex of their target/victim so it can't be said to be a gay thing imo.

 

[egb_hibs]

i was so enraged that he would alter the course of history (well edit existing posts) that i lost any desire to pursue the original discussion but yes that is possibly one of the most retarded combinations i have ever witnessed,i assume the confusion was in relation to historical materialism,
let's face it he is clearly "confused" about a lot of things ... actually i shall rephrase that, he is "selectively confused" anyway i am done discussing with such a shape shifter, i rekon he had a few too many "lemsips"

in respect of your "spin" comment i wrote a ranting response before leaving for the football today comparing him to alastair campbell etc but then i deleted it cause i thought :fuck it, he will just get all excited and lead me to waste even more time arguing against his truly bizarre musings.

i also sense a homophobic undercurrent.

the weird thing is he posts threads that initially imply a somewhat impartial opinion on whatever the chosen subject and invites others to post their thoughts, then.... he starts to argue like a radge against every subsequent response... save us all time mr verbal diarrhea .. show your cards from the start, why you want top play "poker post" ?

Get lost Bob. Tell me and others what changes you are referring to. What changed that was material? Don't flatter yourself it was a debating ploy - apart from anything else, you haven't responded to anything that might have been affected by a change.

Seems to me your using this as a smokescreen just as on the previous thread you fired up a lot of chaff then shot off without addressing any points made to you.

The Cowshed has been on the up for a while after a rash of such trolling. If you're gonna stick around I would caution that an act based on abuse, avoiding the point through whatever harrumphing and so on, will only take you so far. It's been done a million times before and those currently bigging you up will get bored soon enough.

I digress; why don't you spell out what was changed, go on.

 

[egb_hibs]

NB, your audacity is appreciated but you'll have to answer EGB's request for chapter and verse afa the 'altering' posts is concerned. Otherwise you can rant till face=blue etc.

My biggest laugh in this thread was EGB's "...socialists and other materialists" comment (not directly quoted, so sorry if not accurate). That is a classic. I was praying NB would do one on that, but nae luck.

Why don't you do it yourself if you have a point to make? By the way your 's' on materialists as you misquote is all the difference. I don't mean people who revel in consumption I mean materialist conceptions of the nature of the universe. Perhaps you didn't get any of it.

EGB, you could have invented spin despite your hatred of the New Lab's overuse of same.

Examples?

As a closing comment, my own experience leads me to believe that hetero pederasty is probably more common than the homo version. There are groups of people dedicated to this and they are hetero, the cops have their hands full and brains empty on this, as internet groups are international and not subject to one law. Belgium is one dodgy place to be afa that is concerned.

And Holland ain't much better if things I have heard from friends here are true as vouched for. And often (I give you the Catholic church) in elite circles.

You rather miss the point. First, you don't get hetero pederasty, it's a term that refers to grown men and adolescent boys. Second you get nonces of all persuasions, but there is not crossover wherebye straight people are trying to get kids made 'legal' against a historical backdrop of this sort of thing.

 

[egb_hibs]

the first thing I want to make clear is that I absolutely don't agree with Tatchell's implicit position from his arguments (which is also his explicit position from separate comments). However, it's utterly disingenuous to suggest he's trying to defend nonces here - he's talking about whether sexual consent can be given at a lower age. The point about adult-child relationships, as it segues into gayers, is basically this: two (opposite-gender) thirteen-year-olds getting off would certainly be tutted at, but wouldn't be seen as a consent issue. Because of the huge list of complications and difficulties facing gay kids who are sexually aware/active at that age, they'll often be looking at older men(/women) because of, primarily, limited options and a need for anonymity. Chiefly I think Tatchell's wrong to discard the motives of the older partner in such circumstances, not least because of the risk of repeat behaviour, but his argument is that consent can be given at a younger age; I don't think this is an unreasonable argument, and I don't think it's about giving cover to nonces either.

Good response but I think you're wrong. Perhaps you need to look into Tatchell's past a little more. He has specifically used the fact that - according to him - it is a commonplace for gay sex to take place between adolescent boys and older men, to justify lowering the AOC to 14.

Anyway, at least you tackled a difficult point with some good analysis; what a refreshing changed from the anti papists turning into special pleaders - perhaps exposing, their real priorities.

 

[FTJT]

Perhaps you need to look into Tatchell's past a little more. He has specifically used the fact that - according to him - it is a commonplace for gay sex to take place between adolescent boys and older men, to justify lowering the AOC to 14.

I know, but I think his position is that the age of consent should be about, well, the age you can give consent, rather than a cut-off point below which only villains dip their beaks. Like I say, I think this is naive, I think it would do incalculably more harm than good (not least given that the kids aren't the ones getting prosecuted in such cases), but I think his motives are pure. I don't understand why a man of his intelligence can't see the awful downside and discuss it responsibly though.

As a postscript I'd point out another one of his 'arguments' (firmly tongue-in-cheek in this case) was that the gay AoC should be lower anyway because it doesn't lead to teenage pregnancies. Bet the Mail loved that one...

 

[naughty_bob]

good day , why should i devote more time to dissect the exact changes/additions YOU made to YOUR post?? you have more or less conceded that you did contribute further information to an already existing post , i only realised this after responding.
it is this principle that incensed me. i had written a response according to what you had written. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if YOU consider that your additions alter your original point or my subsequent response the fact is you altered the chronological order of the discussion. FACT. maybe this is common practice here- i am new and don't know the general procedure but personally i think that fucking stinks, in a verbal discussion you can't rewind and change what you said 5 minutes before, why should the rules be different on a forum?

Furthermore i did address the point as to the nature of the original post , citing an opinion based on personal knowledge and general social observation. furthermore these points were corroborated later in another post, when someone else contributed who also challenged your opinion on the matter based on their knowledge and personal experience.

Why am i a troll? i am taken to understand this as someone who needlessly posts responses purely to gain an inflammatory reaction, sorry to disappoint but i post responses due to a genuine opposition to both your point of view and your means of discussion, believe me, i wish i wasn't compelled to do so because i could most certainly use the time more productively.

Finally it does amuse me that you decide what is and what isn't a "good response" i notice that you have done this in a lot of threads , i mentioned earlier that you initially postulate a relatively impartial view on a discussion yet very quickly get involved in highly opinionated discourse....are you the ARBITER of good views? i very much doubt it.

 

[egb_hibs]

good day , why should i devote more time to dissect the exact changes/additions YOU made to YOUR post?? you have more or less conceded that you did contribute further information to an already existing post , i only realised this after responding.
it is this principle that incensed me. i had written a response according to what you had written. I DON'T GIVE A FUCK if YOU consider that your additions alter your original point or my subsequent response the fact is you altered the chronological order of the discussion. FACT. maybe this is common practice here- i am new and don't know the general procedure but personally i think that fucking stinks, in a verbal discussion you can't rewind and change what you said 5 minutes before, why should the rules be different on a forum?

I think your avoiding the point with this hysterical stuff. I repeat, I added some bit as they occurred, as the post had not yet been responded to. From memory they were very minor things, that changed the meaning of nothing. If you happened to be composing a reply while I did so this is a coincidence.

And I wasn't changing anything I said, I was just adding more detail. I've asked you a number of times what you think changed; and you haven't answered. Nothing did, certainly nothing that you referenced in your reply.

And if you are genuinely so preoccupied with an unreplied post being edited to correct typing mistakes or add some supplementary info, then perhaps you do need to adapt to the medium. Certainly after a bit more time you'll realise how laughable is your apparent assertion that changes were made to avoid the onslaught of your mighty argument.

You've not challenged any points at all.

Furthermore i did address the point as to the nature of the original post , citing an opinion based on personal knowledge and general social observation. furthermore these points were corroborated later in another post, when someone else contributed who also challenged your opinion on the matter based on their knowledge and personal experience.

What? You fired off something that wasn't a rebuttal of anything i said, something you didn't evidence by the way, just claimed 'you knew'. And thereafter you went all hysterical.

Why am i a troll? i am taken to understand this as someone who needlessly posts responses purely to gain an inflammatory reaction, sorry to disappoint but i post responses due to a genuine opposition to both your point of view and your means of discussion, believe me, i wish i wasn't compelled to do so because i could most certainly use the time more productively.

Because you fire in with abuse and flaming, and instead of sticking with the point pour on more of that calling me this or that.

Finally it does amuse me that you decide what is and what isn't a "good response" i notice that you have done this in a lot of threads , i mentioned earlier that you initially postulate a relatively impartial view on a discussion yet very quickly get involved in highly opinionated discourse....are you the ARBITER of good views? i very much doubt it.

I am no arbiter of 'good views' as you put it, but what I can and will say is that for me the purpose of this board is to debate topics, that is to say, exchange and contest opinions.

You don't seem to be in that game, which is fair enough, but I've no inclination to be audience for whatever kind of show you think you're putting on; as you say, it's not a very productive use of time.

To me you're a welcome addition to this board, but you really do need to get used to things if you believe editting tricks are being played on you as you seem to think. Believe me I wouldn't waste my time.

And I'm not wasting my time with this nonsense any more. Either state what changed that justifies all this, or preferrably, get back to the topic. If you don't want to do either, fine, but that's all I'm interested in.

 

[egb_hibs]

I know, but I think his position is that the age of consent should be about, well, the age you can give consent, rather than a cut-off point below which only villains dip their beaks. Like I say, I think this is naive, I think it would do incalculably more harm than good (not least given that the kids aren't the ones getting prosecuted in such cases), but I think his motives are pure. I don't understand why a man of his intelligence can't see the awful downside and discuss it responsibly though.

As a postscript I'd point out another one of his 'arguments' (firmly tongue-in-cheek in this case) was that the gay AoC should be lower anyway because it doesn't lead to teenage pregnancies. Bet the Mail loved that one...

That for me shows how twisted the man's outlook is. The practical needs of supporting pregnant teenagers is one reason for not raising the AoC there, the fact this doesn't apply with gay teenagers is reason to protect them as long as possible rather than make them open season.

I think you're being very charitable to him. He's been like a dog with a bone on this issue, changing the basis of his argument when he's not getting anywhere, but with an apparent single minded intent to getting youngsters made available.

Maybe he is naive, but it's not excuse. I'd lay the same charge at the door of the stupid white liberals who give support to the NAMBLA pederast organisation in the US. There was also a lot of naivety on the part of bishops who thought repentant pedos could move on.

In any case, I think a persistent activist for the lowering of the age of consent, who has argued that children as young as 9 can be involved in 'joyful' and undamaging sex with adults (a classic rationalisation used by pedos themselves) is not on particularly strong ground in leading a campaign charging someone with inadequate handling of a pederasty scandal.

 

[FTJT]

That for me shows how twisted the man's outlook is. The practical needs of supporting pregnant teenagers is one reason for not raising the AoC there, the fact this doesn't apply with gay teenagers is reason to protect them as long as possible rather than make them open season.

like I say, he was on the wind-up on that occasion. I was just amused by it.

I think you're being very charitable to him. He's been like a dog with a bone on this issue, changing the basis of his argument when he's not getting anywhere, but with an apparent single minded intent to getting youngsters made available.

I agree that it's been a cause he's returned to, but I dispute the suggestion it's the core of his political aims. It very simply isn't. It's the most infamous blind alley in a long campaign of civil rights campaigning, which has at times taken a scattergun approach. He's paid the price, physically, as a result of brutal violence from extremist, extragovernmental mobs from a multitude of regressive nations, for his commitment to his core belief - that the right of consenting adults to engage in homosexual sex is one that should be protected by international law.

You've said before that you've got very close gay friends - and while I've felt what I suspect is a familiar sense of surprise and unease at some of the anecdotes you've recounted, I don't believe you have any desire to see them imprisoned or lynched or hospitalised. Tatchell's life's work has been at the effective, changemaking vanguard of a long-term, mass-movement position to prevent, discourage, and prohibit anti-gay legislation, violence, and overall behaviour. As I say, I think he's strayed a long way from reason on this precise issue, but it's not his raison d'etre and if he was a voice for a cause you had more investment in, I think he'd earn your full-throated admiration. And if he wasn't shouting at the head of your faith, I don't think you'd be firing off countermeasures just now.

In any case, I think a persistent activist for the lowering of the age of consent, who has argued that children as young as 9 can be involved in 'joyful' and undamaging sex with adults (a classic rationalisation used by pedos themselves) is not on particularly strong ground in leading a campaign charging someone with inadequate handling of a pederasty scandal.

I agree. Not because he's wrong in his charges, but because, as you say, the blurred edges of his own position dilute and diminish his argument.

 

[egb_hibs]

like I say, he was on the wind-up on that occasion. I was just amused by it.

I agree that it's been a cause he's returned to, but I dispute the suggestion it's the core of his political aims. It very simply isn't. It's the most infamous blind alley in a long campaign of civil rights campaigning, which has at times taken a scattergun approach. He's paid the price, physically, as a result of brutal violence from extremist, extragovernmental mobs from a multitude of regressive nations, for his commitment to his core belief - that the right of consenting adults to engage in homosexual sex is one that should be protected by international law.

You've said before that you've got very close gay friends - and while I've felt what I suspect is a familiar sense of surprise and unease at some of the anecdotes you've recounted, I don't believe you have any desire to see them imprisoned or lynched or hospitalised. Tatchell's life's work has been at the effective, changemaking vanguard of a long-term, mass-movement position to prevent, discourage, and prohibit anti-gay legislation, violence, and overall behaviour. As I say, I think he's strayed a long way from reason on this precise issue, but it's not his raison d'etre and if he was a voice for a cause you had more investment in, I think he'd earn your full-throated admiration. And if he wasn't shouting at the head of your faith, I don't think you'd be firing off countermeasures just now.

I agree. Not because he's wrong in his charges, but because, as you say, the blurred edges of his own position dilute and diminish his argument.

I think there is much to admire in Tatchell's courage and his even handedness - he'll defend, for instance, fundamentalists who vilify him.

But while I think your scattergun point is well made, I don't think it let's him off the hook generally on the pederasty issue , and specifically it makes his anti pope protests on the issue seem opportunistic at best, hypocritical at worst.

I also think he does a big disfavour to the gay cause with this - him and Outrage generally, who collectively endorsed it. It all harks back to regrettable entwining of gay and pedophile 'liberation' movements in the 60s and 70s, and does nothing to dissuade people that their isn't a rather unhealthy preoccupation with youthful 'twinks' generally.

I think your post is well reasoned though, and I repeat that I acknowledge your point about Tatchell's qualities. But people are a mix of good and bad. And Tatchell has some bad ideas; wicked ones in fact.