• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

NSFW: The latest tranche of Epstein evidence – in pictures

 
 
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
It proves you are minimizing the degree of separation and closeness of the relationships. This isn't "6 degrees" (your words) or "knows a guy who knows a guy who knows Epstein." Those are false implications about both the intensity of the knowing and the distance of the linkage. The question is why are you minimizing that?
Click to expand...
I was originally replying to this:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Obviously, but Dershowitz was connected to Trump through Epstein's and other NY elites' parties.
Click to expand...
You are trying to connect two people because they are connected to each other in some way.
And you mentioned the "NY elites' parties", not I. That's where my "six degrees" quip comes in. Pretty much everybody at those parties is connected to each other through mutual acquaintances. I do not see how that's significant.
To add--consider the Epstein Dershowitz timeline.
Click to expand...
In aid of what exactly?
Late 2005: Dershowitz claimed during this time period he got a massage at Epstein's home, alleging it was by a middle aged woman.
Click to expand...
Is there any reason why we should doubt that?
I believe prior to this it was known that Epstein "liked them young"--didn't Trump say that?
Click to expand...
Sure, but "young" does not necessarily mean underage.
Dershowitz certainly wouldn't have gotten on the massage table at that point, right?
Click to expand...
I don't know what he would have done or not done.
My point was about you linking A and B because they both had connections to C and were at the same NYC society parties. That's what I was objecting to.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
While Derec is thinking about how to answer this question, I will just add that (1) Virginia Giuffre accused Dershowitz;
Click to expand...
She also recanted that accusation, saying that she can't be sure it was him.
Virginia Giuffre drops allegations against Alan Dershowitz, saying she ‘may have made a mistake’
In any case, she killed herself, so she can't be asked about it any more.

The rest of your response is snipped because it doesn't really matter. We can never know what happened, and in light of revelations about Epstein, it is not hard to imagine why Derschowitz would be cagy about getting a massage at Epstein's even if nothing untoward happened.
 
I really don't care about these new photos. What is more telling is Trump's complete unwillingness to clarify his relationship with Epstein over the years. Why is this so difficult for MAGAtards to understand?
 
Patooka said:
I really don't care about these new photos. What is more telling is Trump's complete unwillingness to clarify his relationship with Epstein over the years. Why is this so difficult for MAGAtards to understand?
Click to expand...
No shit. The guy has probably had one actual friend his entire life and his name was Jeffrey Epstein. Gimme a fuckin' break.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Derec said:
Just having a photo taken with somebody is not evidence in participation in their illegal activities.
Click to expand...

I agree with this rule. For example, just because Epstein liked to have criminal sex with underage girls and Steve Bannon liked to fraudulently scam people, doesn't mean that when they were seen together in pictures at Epstein's Island or home or wherever that they were engaging in illegal activities. One could say it is a reasonable suspicion, especially if the nature of the crimes of the persons are compatible, but either way it would not be either a mathematical proof or a court proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
This reads a lot like the Covid virus coming out of the Covid lab instead of the market next door.
I'm CT enough to believe both.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
WAB said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
thebeave said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
So you are claiming that Epstein was using the toys, handcuffs, and ball gags on consenting adults.
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming anything about whether they were used on adults or minors or both. Is there evidence one way or another? I assumed it was the sight of the sex toys themselves that bothered you.
Click to expand...

So you assumed I was bothered AND you assumed I was bothered by sex toys. You used an assumption to make an ad hom to what point? Defense of Epstein?

thebeave said:
There are MLM schemes where women throw parties selling these sex toys. Its all fairly mainstream and out in the open these days (unless you're Amish).
Click to expand...

Yes and there are penis cakes none of which has anything to do with the context of Epstein -- a man with a known predilection for teenage girls. Why are you removing the context?
Click to expand...
So you're suggesting he's defending Epstein and therefore he's probably a secret paedophile?

There's a lot of this horseshit going on around this place, little sideways hints that some posters are total scumbags in hiding. It's getting fucked up.
Click to expand...

No, I am hypothesizing that thebeave makes a lot of noise often for no apparent reason and this pattern seems to suggest obfuscation. Of course, it is just an hypothesis and usually Hanlon's Razor applies--that which can be explained by stupidity rather than malice. Thus, I ask a question of him and point out his assumptions. The thread is about Epstein and not me--there is ZERO reason for it to have become about me. So he has to explain himself.
Click to expand...
Yes I know we have some members who like to ask questions about posts, to examine, and even, God forbid, ask questions about them. Bomb20 is seen to do it frequently, and fat lot of good it did him.

My point is, you asked thebeave if he was defending Epstein based on a question about sex toys, and then I asked if you were also intimating that he was therefore a paedophile, and Jahryn said that YES, they were doing just that. First, thebeave was NOT defending Epstein; second, there was absolutely no justification for assuming he was, except for your personal suspicions. I suggest, reason that someone is defending Epstein when that person actually defends Epstein, which thebeave has never done.

There was the same thing in the Charlie Kirk thread, where a few members were accused of siding with Kirk and sharing his views, all for the crime of examining the methods of argumentation used by other posters.

We have one member, whom I have finally put on ignore, who routinely claims another poster is a "Jebus freak", that she "loves Jesus", despite the fact that she is an atheist and, more importantly, has never once said anything that would indicate she is a Christian - in fact, the exact opposite. Why does that happen? Because of this unfounded belief among several people here that if you argue persistently one way, you must really mean the opposite. Of course this does not apply as long as you stick to the accepted doctrine; it only applies to members who have expressed views that are in the slightest conflict to it, or to members who dare to ask questions and examine particular posts that strike them as being written in bad faith, or to contain dubious methods, or outright misrepresentation. There is virtually no way, at this point, to argue an issue from any unorthodox or unofficial angle without being suspected of foul play.

It's one thing to be accused of being a nazi, or a bigot, or a hater; it's quite another to make accusations of paedophilia, which you haven't done but Jahryn has, quite unambiguously too, in this thread. And completely without reason, without even the remotest cause. I plan to address them about that in due time.
 
Last edited:
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
hyper moralistic arrogance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm occasionally (or often) skeptical of claims that people on the left are acting under "hyper-moralistic arrogance", because having basic compassion and concern for human rights is seen by many on the right as an example of hyper-moralistic arrogance. Many of the people you are defending do not seem have much or any concern for human rights, they have shown that with their comments about immigration and various other issues (they'll even go so far as to deny immigrants are being put in concentration camps, will constantly make excuses for police murders, etc). So I can't fully agree.
Click to expand...
And my point is made: the implication that because I used a phrase you have apparently seen used before - which by the way I haven't - by people who lack compassion and respect for rights, that I could very well lack compassion and respect for rights? No, maybe you didn't do that exactly and I'm being sensitive and paranoid? But I will just assume that in any case the mention of such despicable people in close association with me puts me in a rather bad light to readers who do not know me, or who do not know my posting history, especially years ago when I adamantly defended and in fact exercised compassion, and vigorously, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, championed human rights, and even *explained* them to some ignorant souls who did not understand the concept of rights, and in one onerous case, the concept of reciprocity.

I don't know of which poster you refer to, the one, or ones, who said immigrants should be placed in
concentration camps? Can you refresh my memory? I will accept the blame. It could be that I defended someone for something specific, and did not defend that horrible view, and perhaps was not aware of it?

I've told you before, GM, that I am in sympathy with your intolerance of idiots who bully and oppress and hate; my point is that some people get accused or suspected of those things when they are not really that way, and are not bullies, oppressors, or haters. Do you know that I was strung up years ago for starting a thread which claimed that not all cops are nazis? Not strung up, okay, but not treated well, as if my position was that I was defending bad cops, when I was merely defending good cops. That bothered me, especially when the thread was moved to Elsewhere, as if, it seemed to me, because defending good cops was not acceptable, or that there were simply no good cops. This is irrelevant, but in a way it is.
 
WAB said:
My point is, you asked thebeave if he was defending Epstein based on a question about sex toys, and then I asked if you were also intimating that he was therefore a paedophile, and Jahryn said that YES, they were doing just that
Click to expand...
TheBeave's behavior is not observed in isolation from the rest of TheBeave's behavior. THAT, and not any single star in that constellation, paints the picture of this support that is observed.

We have a clear pedophile.

We have someone clearly defending that clear pedophile at every opportunity rather than looking at the evidence.

Why does anyone feel the need to instantly jump to acting as an armchair lawyer for who might be the second most evil person to live in modern times (because even he observed Trump was somehow more evil)?

Why are we going to pretend that the island was anything other than a sex resort for the rich and powerful to hide their sins rather than to have any degree of pride in themselves?

IT would be one thing if the people questioning whether bringing up the sex toys was appropriate demonstrated the capability to at least acknowledge the pedophilia, the accusations... But being an utter ally to a child molester seems so predictable for these sorts.

It just seems so disingenuous to call people "hyper-moralistic" for identifying and rejecting patterns of asymmetric support for child molesters
 
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
You are one of the people I referred to, with your repeated suggestions and innuendos to the effect that certain members here are not what they seem or claim to be, but are hiding some awful degeneracy
Click to expand...
Yes, I do think that people who regularly defend awful people in the course of awful things they do, are likely awful people.

The whole "15 isn't a 'child'" 'defense' is chief among these.

It is "flocking together", commonly done by "birds of a feather".

I have not made any secret that I wish to do something very close to genocide with respect to ending long-term Solipsism and Nihilism and Fatalism entirely, forever, through education, opportunities, and family planning efforts: I wish to end the existence entirely of those who would place themselves above others, those who would burn the world, and those who would place others above the group, to free humanity forever of gods, masters, kings, and (jokers).

You don't have to be paranoid about that. I have very clearly stated that my version of heaven is one in which every tyrant and psychotic and sycophant eventually dies or is put in storage and it never really becomes a problem again.

Yes, I will actively identify such people today with the express purpose of either presenting them with every opportunity to reject their theism or to find joy in their own existence as an alternative to putting them in a padded room until they're dirt, but I will absolutely endorse putting them in a padded room until they are dirt!

I absolutely have weird interests of my own. I mean shit, I run a store for sex apparel and absolutely won't share some of the disgusting porn I generate... I just abide by ethical standards as I do it. In fact one of my interests in understanding ethics was to understand where those lines would be so I wouldn't cross them... But in seeing the line, I can see that many people don't even believe there is a line and many people insist on crossing it.

The problem here is that I don't need to engage in any extraordinary action to do any of that.

I don't need an island worth of privacy for that.

So what is different about what these people are doing? Why the secrecy? Why the lack of oversight? Why the coverup? Why not just a full and honest interest in investigating the irregularities and uncovering the truth, and why instead preemptive explanations?

If it looks bad, you should be capable at least if saying it looks bad.

Of course, assholes and shitty people and pedophiles make this whole song and dance and suspicion necessary because it's not like they're tripping over themselves to seek justice for the people they violate. The only way to detect them is then with extraordinary efforts and careful examination and paying attention to every bit and lead that drops: through sleuthing.

So what the fuck else are we supposed to do given the knowledge of how deep this rot runs?
Click to expand...
I had intended to give this post more of a response, but frankly I find your views, expressed here as a kind of "genocide", with further rationalizations, to be reprehensible. Almost insanely so.

You think way too highly of yourself. You have no business, and no right, to determine who gets to live or die. I recall a thread where you felt as if you could decide, yourself, who was a person and who wasn't (and we were not discussing the personhood or lack thereof of fetuses, but people in general). There is a name for people who believe they are superior and that that gives them some sort of moral right - and seemingly in your case - obligation to wipe them out, whether by killing (which you don't mean) or by coordinated and wholesale reeducation, therapy, thought- engineering, what have you, pick your dystopian nightmare.
 
WAB said:
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
hyper moralistic arrogance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm occasionally (or often) skeptical of claims that people on the left are acting under "hyper-moralistic arrogance", because having basic compassion and concern for human rights is seen by many on the right as an example of hyper-moralistic arrogance. Many of the people you are defending do not seem have much or any concern for human rights, they have shown that with their comments about immigration and various other issues (they'll even go so far as to deny immigrants are being put in concentration camps, will constantly make excuses for police murders, etc). So I can't fully agree.
Click to expand...
And my point is made: the implication that because I used a phrase you have apparently seen used before - which by the way I haven't - by people who lack compassion and respect for rights, that I could very well lack compassion and respect for rights? No, maybe you didn't do that exactly and I'm being sensitive and paranoid?
Click to expand...
Wasn't what I meant, I was simply saying that what is considered "hyper-moralistic arrogance" is often just basic compassion being displayed.
WAB said:
I don't know of which poster you refer to, the one, or ones, who said immigrants should be placed in
concentration camps? Can you refresh my memory? I will accept the blame. It could be that I defended someone for something specific, and did not defend that horrible view, and perhaps was not aware of it?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of those here on the right I've interacted with will simply mock people if caring about the treatment of illegal immigrants, they will mock any sort of compassion for them as it being just "wokeism", "the woke mind virus", etc, they never have anything whatsoever to say about it themselves, and will only say things like "the law must be followed at all costs!" That doesn't appear to leave room for any compassion whatsoever and it's exactly the kind of conviction that leads to authoritarianism and worse.

WAB said:
I've told you before, GM, that I am in sympathy with your intolerance of idiots who bully and oppress and hate; my point is that some people get accused or suspected of those things when they are not really that way, and are not bullies, oppressors, or haters. Do you know that I was strung up years ago for starting a thread which claimed that not all cops are nazis? Not strung up, okay, but not treated well, as if my position was that I was defending bad cops, when I was merely defending good cops. That bothered me, especially when the thread was moved to Elsewhere, as if, it seemed to me, because defending good cops was not acceptable, or that there were simply no good cops. This is irrelevant, but in a way it is.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that happened to you, it obviously shouldn't have happened and I don't think you're a Nazi. I can, and have been called "mentally ill" just for being concerned about Trump though. Or I can be called a "groomer" simply for supporting sex education in schools. Or I can be called "immoral/selfish" simply for accepting evolutionary theory. This is all rhetoric that happens consistently from the right. And now the government considers me and other atheists a domestic terrorism threat, due to the increasingly extreme rhetoric on the right. Am I allowed to be paranoid too?
 
Last edited:
WAB said:
I had intended to give this post more of a response, but frankly I find your views, expressed here as a kind of "genocide", with further rationalizations, to be reprehensible
Click to expand...
I explained what I meant, how to do it through education and family planning.

If you want to demonstrate, with some moral principle, why solipsists who would own the world and narcissists who would burn it and fatalists who would hand it over to others are in any way positive or wonderful or productive and are not in fact detrimental and based on nonsense, I would like to hear it!

Personally, I find those who would encourage filling the world with people who would steal, burn, or squander it to those who would steal and/or burn it, to be reprehensible.

WAB said:
There is a name for people who believe they are superior and that that gives them some sort of moral right - and seemingly in your case - obligation to wipe them out, whether by killing (which you don't mean) or by coordinated and wholesale reeducation, therapy, thought- engineering, what have you, pick your dystopian nightmare
Click to expand...
I mean, I actually, you know, make logical arguments as to why: I like my access to the world and that goes away if people burn or gatekeep it.

I have every moral right to seek the end of the things that bring everyone further from the ability to accomplish their goals.

I do not believe myself strictly superior. Rather I believe that in attempting to own the world or burn it, people volunteer for inferior treatment by declaring others their inferiors, though it is not such a declaration to observe the declaration by those others... Especially when offer every mercy is offered in recanting.

While this doesn't put me in any way above the highest stature of my peers, it does generate something like a sigmoid curve.

Of course, my goals are accomplished slowly over time with mechanisms like Bluey rather than gas chambers and bullets. I mean, those blue cartoon dogs sure are some "dystopian nightmare". Though I suppose they may be for anyone who wants child abusers to keep popping up.
 
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
hyper moralistic arrogance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm occasionally (or often) skeptical of claims that people on the left are acting under "hyper-moralistic arrogance", because having basic compassion and concern for human rights is seen by many on the right as an example of hyper-moralistic arrogance. Many of the people you are defending do not seem have much or any concern for human rights, they have shown that with their comments about immigration and various other issues (they'll even go so far as to deny immigrants are being put in concentration camps, will constantly make excuses for police murders, etc). So I can't fully agree.
Click to expand...
And my point is made: the implication that because I used a phrase you have apparently seen used before - which by the way I haven't - by people who lack compassion and respect for rights, that I could very well lack compassion and respect for rights? No, maybe you didn't do that exactly and I'm being sensitive and paranoid?
Click to expand...
Wasn't what I meant, I was simply saying that what is considered "hyper-moralistic arrogance" is often just basic compassion being displayed.
WAB said:
I don't know of which poster you refer to, the one, or ones, who said immigrants should be placed in
concentration camps? Can you refresh my memory? I will accept the blame. It could be that I defended someone for something specific, and did not defend that horrible view, and perhaps was not aware of it?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of those here on the right I've interacted with will simply mock people if caring about the treatment of illegal immigrants, they will mock any sort of compassion for them as it being just "wokeism", "the woke mind virus", etc, they never have anything whatsoever to say about it themselves, and will only say things like "the law must be followed at all costs!" That doesn't appear to leave room for any compassion whatsoever and it's exactly the kind of conviction that leads to authoritarianism and worse.

WAB said:
I've told you before, GM, that I am in sympathy with your intolerance of idiots who bully and oppress and hate; my point is that some people get accused or suspected of those things when they are not really that way, and are not bullies, oppressors, or haters. Do you know that I was strung up years ago for starting a thread which claimed that not all cops are nazis? Not strung up, okay, but not treated well, as if my position was that I was defending bad cops, when I was merely defending good cops. That bothered me, especially when the thread was moved to Elsewhere, as if, it seemed to me, because defending good cops was not acceptable, or that there were simply no good cops. This is irrelevant, but in a way it is.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that happened to you, it obviously shouldn't have happened and I don't think you're a Nazi. I can, and have been called "mentally ill" just for being concerned about Trump though. Or I can be called a "groomer" simply for supporting sex education in schools. Or I can be called "immoral/selfish" simply for accepting evolutionary theory. This is all rhetoric that happens consistently from the right. And now the government considers me and other atheists a domestic terrorism threat, due to the increasingly extreme rhetoric on the right. Am I allowed to be paranoid too?
Click to expand...
Of course! But you don't seem to be. You appear to be cool and level headed. I really have no quarrel with you, and I apologize if it appears otherwise. The bones I pick with you are trivial; not so with Jahryn however. Those are some big ass bones.
 
WAB said:
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
GenesisNemesis said:
WAB said:
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
hyper moralistic arrogance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm occasionally (or often) skeptical of claims that people on the left are acting under "hyper-moralistic arrogance", because having basic compassion and concern for human rights is seen by many on the right as an example of hyper-moralistic arrogance. Many of the people you are defending do not seem have much or any concern for human rights, they have shown that with their comments about immigration and various other issues (they'll even go so far as to deny immigrants are being put in concentration camps, will constantly make excuses for police murders, etc). So I can't fully agree.
Click to expand...
And my point is made: the implication that because I used a phrase you have apparently seen used before - which by the way I haven't - by people who lack compassion and respect for rights, that I could very well lack compassion and respect for rights? No, maybe you didn't do that exactly and I'm being sensitive and paranoid?
Click to expand...
Wasn't what I meant, I was simply saying that what is considered "hyper-moralistic arrogance" is often just basic compassion being displayed.
WAB said:
I don't know of which poster you refer to, the one, or ones, who said immigrants should be placed in
concentration camps? Can you refresh my memory? I will accept the blame. It could be that I defended someone for something specific, and did not defend that horrible view, and perhaps was not aware of it?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of those here on the right I've interacted with will simply mock people if caring about the treatment of illegal immigrants, they will mock any sort of compassion for them as it being just "wokeism", "the woke mind virus", etc, they never have anything whatsoever to say about it themselves, and will only say things like "the law must be followed at all costs!" That doesn't appear to leave room for any compassion whatsoever and it's exactly the kind of conviction that leads to authoritarianism and worse.

WAB said:
I've told you before, GM, that I am in sympathy with your intolerance of idiots who bully and oppress and hate; my point is that some people get accused or suspected of those things when they are not really that way, and are not bullies, oppressors, or haters. Do you know that I was strung up years ago for starting a thread which claimed that not all cops are nazis? Not strung up, okay, but not treated well, as if my position was that I was defending bad cops, when I was merely defending good cops. That bothered me, especially when the thread was moved to Elsewhere, as if, it seemed to me, because defending good cops was not acceptable, or that there were simply no good cops. This is irrelevant, but in a way it is.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that happened to you, it obviously shouldn't have happened and I don't think you're a Nazi. I can, and have been called "mentally ill" just for being concerned about Trump though. Or I can be called a "groomer" simply for supporting sex education in schools. Or I can be called "immoral/selfish" simply for accepting evolutionary theory. This is all rhetoric that happens consistently from the right. And now the government considers me and other atheists a domestic terrorism threat, due to the increasingly extreme rhetoric on the right. Am I allowed to be paranoid too?
Click to expand...
Of course! But you don't seem to be. You appear to be cool and level headed.
Click to expand...
Some on the right may feel betrayed by this statement. But thanks!
 
  • Smile
Reactions: WAB
Jarhyn said:
WAB said:
I had intended to give this post more of a response, but frankly I find your views, expressed here as a kind of "genocide", with further rationalizations, to be reprehensible
Click to expand...
I explained what I meant, how to do it through education and family planning.

If you want to demonstrate, with some moral principle, why solipsists who would own the world and narcissists who would burn it and fatalists who would hand it over to others are in any way positive or wonderful or productive and are not in fact detrimental and based on nonsense, I would like to hear it!

Personally, I find those who would encourage filling the world with people who would steal, burn, or squander it to those who would steal and/or burn it, to be reprehensible.

WAB said:
There is a name for people who believe they are superior and that that gives them some sort of moral right - and seemingly in your case - obligation to wipe them out, whether by killing (which you don't mean) or by coordinated and wholesale reeducation, therapy, thought- engineering, what have you, pick your dystopian nightmare
Click to expand...
I mean, I actually, you know, make logical arguments as to why: I like my access to the world and that goes away if people burn or gatekeep it.

I have every moral right to seek the end of the things that bring everyone further from the ability to accomplish their goals.

I do not believe myself strictly superior. Rather I believe that in attempting to own the world or burn it, people volunteer for inferior treatment by declaring others their inferiors, though it is not such a declaration to observe the declaration by those others... Especially when offer every mercy is offered in recanting.

While this doesn't put me in any way above the highest stature of my peers, it does generate something like a sigmoid curve.

Of course, my goals are accomplished slowly over time with mechanisms like Bluey rather than gas chambers and bullets. I mean, those blue cartoon dogs sure are some "dystopian nightmare". Though I suppose they may be for anyone who wants child abusers to keep popping up.
Click to expand...
All that aside (for now).

Did you or did you not say, point blank, that thebeave is a paedophile? Or that, at any rate, you believe that he is one? If YES, on what do you base that accusation? Specifics, not just vague reference to his posting behavior. I pay good attention to who types what, and I have seen zero reason to leap to such a terrible accusation. Why do you?

Just asking questions and probing people on a sensitive topic doesn't equate to having a horrible secret. This view has some psychological basis, certainly, but at IIDB this leap to the worst seems to be getting facile and habitual.

I contend (and I realize this is a derail) that thebeave has not only NOT given cause to be called a paedophile, but that he has not even defended Epstein.

Never mind reciting to me your general suspicions about people in general.
 
Last edited:
WAB said:
Do you know that I was strung up years ago for starting a thread which claimed that not all cops are nazis? Not strung up, okay, but not treated well, as if my position was that I was defending bad cops, when I was merely defending good cops. That bothered me, especially when the thread was moved to Elsewhere, as if, it seemed to me, because defending good cops was not acceptable, or that there were simply no good cops. This is irrelevant, but in a way it is.
Click to expand...
Threads are moved to Elsewhere based on the behavior of the participants, not on the subject matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Derec said:
Toni said:
I doubt that anyone here is upset about what happens between consenting adults
Click to expand...
You are very upset at what happens between consenting adults as long money is overtly exchanged.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said, repeatedly, my concern with prostitution is the part re: consent. I believe that you would never knowingly engage in sex with anyone who indicated any bit of unwillingness—this is not an accusation against you. However, studies have shown that the average age for females to enter prostitution is far below the age of consent. I’ve read studies that say on average, for girls, 12-14. I know you don’t frequent child prostitutes. But there is a big question as to how much choice someone who began to be prostituted at such a young age feels they actually have at 18 or 21.
 
WAB said:
Did you or did you not say, point blank, that thebeave is a paedophile
Click to expand...
Not that I recall in this thread. Rather, I think he is a pedophile enabler, though, which seems rather trite as a distinction.

WAB said:
Or that, at any rate, you believe that he is one
Click to expand...
At best I can say he is an enabler and a pedophile cheerleader.

That said, the "15 is not a child" argument, when presented with adults who fuck 15 year olds constitutes grooming in any setting where a 15 year old can read it... Which happens to include this place.

WAB said:
If YES, on what do you base that accusation
Click to expand...
Mostly that whenever TheBeave has a contribution to a discussion of child molestation, it's universally a contribution that downplays the whole child molestation aspect or creates noise that obfuscates the events.

WAB said:
I pay good attention to who types what, and I have seen zero reason to leap to such a terrible accusation. Why do you?
Click to expand...
Because I can see a consistent pattern among people in general: when people "run interference" for someone, generally they play on the same team.

I can and will defend people who make AI porn of anything that is not identifiably similar to a real living, human child (including many things that are identifiably child-like but also identifiably not real children), to include pretty much every hentai ever illustrated, even the ones where the characters get chopped up by laser machines.

I will publicly and happily support people's rights to that disgusting shit.

TheBeave could start a thread tomorrow extolling the virtues of AI porn of cat boys doing things even the greeks would hesitate to put on an urn, and while I might say "ew, gross", I wouldn't call him a pedophile (assuming he didn't argue for realizing images like that with human children).

My accusations come specifically from the fact that someone is in here pretending that an island owned by an infamous sex pest containing numerous objects of sexual application was not used for sex tourism of the sort that requires an island.

If people just wanted to have a completely legal orgy, you don't need to take the weekend to take a private jet to a private island.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom