Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[Watchyourwaite]

This is what was written.

"Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and fondling kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and for us.


You think he is actually saying "Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and raping kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and us"

Instead of "Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and touching lovingly kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and for us."

That's your reading comprehension at fault. Not evidence that he is a pedo.

 

[Sir James Sober]

This is what was written.

"Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and fondling kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and for us.


You think he is actually saying "Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and raping kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and us"

Instead of "Cuddling, breast feeding, bathing together, playing, kissing and touching lovingly kids are immensely pleasurable activities for them and for us."

That's your reading comprehension at fault. Not evidence that he is a pedo.

And the next sentence that begins with "Its is not uncommon .." explain that one. There are no footnotes to his research so what is he basing this on?

 

[Watchyourwaite]

And the next sentence that begins with "Its is not uncommon .." explain that one. There are no footnotes to his research so what is he basing this on?

He is talking about the children's sexual responses. Not the adults.

I don't agree with it.

 

[Sir James Sober]

He is talking about the children's sexual responses. Not the adults.

I don't agree with it.

You don't agree with it !! Amen to that.

I'm outta here.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

So these are your quotes ? ^^^^

FFS mate, give it away.

Everyone knows what fondling a kid is.

You are making a fool of yourself

Yes, I included the entire definition.

You've removed the main part of the definition, to go with what you want it to mean, even though the context shows it doesn't mean what you want it to.

 

[Garlic muncher]

She accused him of fondling her (= touching her in a sexual way) in the back of a taxi.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fondle



2. To handle, stroke, or touch sexually and inappropriately.

2. To touch, stroke, or handle someone or something sexually and inappropriately.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fondling

Your quotes

FFS mate, give it away.

Everyone knows what fondling a kid is.

You are making a fool of yourself

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Your quotes

FFS mate, give it away.

Everyone knows what fondling a kid is.

You are making a fool of yourself

Why have you posted this again?

I've already explained it to you.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Hypocrisy of the left.


Who wrote this, comparing paedophilia favourably with parental love?

How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover?

Some serial abuser in a Catholic school? Gerald Ridsdale? George Pell? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

As we now know, thanks to an intervention in federal parliament a week ago, the author of this ardent tribute to the beauty of ‘intergenerational love’ is one Gary Dowsett, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He wrote those words, and many more, in an article on ‘gay men and kids’ in a 1982 edition of a publication called Gay Information. Dowsett is a former schoolteacher now employed in La Trobe’s department of Sex, Health and Society, the nest of thinkers who gave us the Safe Schools Coalition, that gay, lesbian and transgender recruitment programme masquerading in the sheep’s clothing of an anti-bullying campaign, which has had to be reined in by the federal government.

Dowsett went on to say that: love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship. What a pity someone couldn’t have dug up such a quote and pinned it on Cardinal Pell. The media would have had a field day. Which brings us to our big question. Why are we not hearing anything on l’affaire Dowsett from all the outraged moral arbiters who savaged Pell and others for supposedly covering up ‘paedophilic relationships’? What do those who would have crucified Pell, though he never tried to defend or justify paedophilia and actually was a pioneer in seeking to curb it, have to say about a former teacher now working with young people in a university who openly defends it, or did 34 years ago and hasn’t disowned what he wrote then?

Further, does a man who could write with such authority about paedophilia know of any cases of paedophiles ‘loving’ children which ought to be drawn to the attention of the police? What about the chum he wrote about?

[a] friend, a paedophile, who is working very hard on making sense out of his relations with boys. These relations consist of, among other things, a large amount of nurture and support for these boys, a real caring for their welfare and growth.

Why aren’t police and media besieging the friend, or at least finding out whether he is still around and still busy caring for boys’ ‘welfare and growth’? Can’t Gail Furness SC find a way to haul Dowsett into the witness box and interrogate him for days on end on that and on what else the 'friend' has been up to?



https://www.spectator.com.au/2016/03/immoral-relativity/

Yes, it is not paedophilia anymore, it is intergenerational love, what a beautiful term, we can sell that term to the sheeple.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Hypocrisy of the left.


Who wrote this, comparing paedophilia favourably with parental love?

How different then is that gentle, tentative sexuality between parent and child from the love of a paedophile and his/her lover?

Some serial abuser in a Catholic school? Gerald Ridsdale? George Pell? Wrong, wrong, wrong.

As we now know, thanks to an intervention in federal parliament a week ago, the author of this ardent tribute to the beauty of ‘intergenerational love’ is one Gary Dowsett, a professor at La Trobe University in Melbourne. He wrote those words, and many more, in an article on ‘gay men and kids’ in a 1982 edition of a publication called Gay Information. Dowsett is a former schoolteacher now employed in La Trobe’s department of Sex, Health and Society, the nest of thinkers who gave us the Safe Schools Coalition, that gay, lesbian and transgender recruitment programme masquerading in the sheep’s clothing of an anti-bullying campaign, which has had to be reined in by the federal government.

Dowsett went on to say that: love, warmth, support and nurture is an important part of the paedophilic relationship. What a pity someone couldn’t have dug up such a quote and pinned it on Cardinal Pell. The media would have had a field day. Which brings us to our big question. Why are we not hearing anything on l’affaire Dowsett from all the outraged moral arbiters who savaged Pell and others for supposedly covering up ‘paedophilic relationships’? What do those who would have crucified Pell, though he never tried to defend or justify paedophilia and actually was a pioneer in seeking to curb it, have to say about a former teacher now working with young people in a university who openly defends it, or did 34 years ago and hasn’t disowned what he wrote then?

Further, does a man who could write with such authority about paedophilia know of any cases of paedophiles ‘loving’ children which ought to be drawn to the attention of the police? What about the chum he wrote about?

[a] friend, a paedophile, who is working very hard on making sense out of his relations with boys. These relations consist of, among other things, a large amount of nurture and support for these boys, a real caring for their welfare and growth.

Why aren’t police and media besieging the friend, or at least finding out whether he is still around and still busy caring for boys’ ‘welfare and growth’? Can’t Gail Furness SC find a way to haul Dowsett into the witness box and interrogate him for days on end on that and on what else the 'friend' has been up to?



https://www.spectator.com.au/2016/03/immoral-relativity/

Yes, it is not paedophilia anymore, it is intergenerational love, what a beautiful term, we can sell that term to the sheeple.

Read the article.
Gary Dowsett doesn't even mention "inter-generational love".


It's not a comfortable read, but if you get past the idea that he is somehow promoting child sex, you'll see that it's just a beat up, because they want to close down safe schools altogether.




Gary did say he had a friend who was a pedophile. And while I find them disgusting, it's not illegal to be attracted to children. It is illegal to act on those feelings though.


So, can the article, or you, link to a single person who has ever hinted at accusing Gary or anyone connected to Gary or Safe Schools of pedophilic actions?

Because there are plenty in connection to Pell.

You still haven't explained how this means that Joel Radcliffe is a pedophile.

 

[Garlic muncher]

Funny how you attitude has gone from one of he has done nothing wrong to - its uncomfortable and i don't agree.

What a piece of work you are.

Seriously mate, you ought to have a really GLHLAY.

Defending the indefensible.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Funny how you attitude has gone from one of he has done nothing wrong to - its uncomfortable and i don't agree.

What a piece of work you are.

Seriously mate, you ought to have a really GLHLAY.

Defending the indefensible.

He hasn't done anything wrong.

I've been explaining to you and your friend how you're wrong for calling him and Joel Radcliffe pedophiles.

I can not agree with him, and find it uncomfortable. That doesn't mean he has done anything wrong.

My position hasn't changed. But you keep running from out of context quote to out of context quote.


You tell me.
What has he done wrong, and how does it make him and Joel pedophiles?

 

[Mofra]

that gay, lesbian and transgender recruitment programme

A "recruitment programme"?

By god talk about insecurity. Are you worried you'll be "recruited" and you'll no longer be able to suppress your "urges"?
Homophobes generally do have a hidden secret they're terrified of.

 

[Gough]

A "recruitment programme"?

By god talk about insecurity. Are you worried you'll be "recruited" and you'll no longer be able to suppress your "urges"?
Homophobes generally do have a hidden secret they're terrified of.

I must have the worst sex ed in history, not even a mention of homosexuality and they still failed to recruit me as a breeder.

 

[Mofra]

I must have the worst sex ed in history, not even a mention of homosexuality and they still failed to recruit me as a breeder.

When you're at the gay club and talking about the gay recruitment tally, I think you get a gay bonus for recruiting a conservative right?

I'm thinking ol' mate Garlic, named after a root + mastication (we really should have seen it coming earlier), is a fruit ripe for the picking

Better get in quick before Tony Abbott stops the dastardly gay lobby's plans dead in their tracks.

 

[Gough]

When you're at the gay club and talking about the gay recruitment tally, I think you get a gay bonus for recruiting a conservative right?

I'm thinking ol' mate Garlic, named after a root + mastication (we really should have seen it coming earlier), is a fruit ripe for the picking

Better get in quick before Tony Abbott stops the dastardly gay lobby's plans dead in their tracks.

Double $$$ for a tory. Recruitment numbers forwarded to Windsor monthly to be collated by oiled up twinks who work for our head of state Queen Elton

 

[WA ROO]

our head of state Queen Elton

Rob Halford Metal God>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Queen Elton

 

[Garlic muncher]

When you're at the gay club and talking about the gay recruitment tally, I think you get a gay bonus for recruiting a conservative right?

I'm thinking ol' mate Garlic, named after a root + mastication (we really should have seen it coming earlier), is a fruit ripe for the picking

Better get in quick before Tony Abbott stops the dastardly gay lobby's plans dead in their tracks.

You are a really funny guy, your jokes are just hilarious and as always mod appropriate, but answer me this funny man and i quote Dowsett... “The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”

How many non pedophiles do you know that advocate this type of thinking.

I await your new found comic genius.

Sorry, did i say pedophiles, i meant intergenerational love.

,

 

[Maggie5]

You are a really funny guy, your jokes are just hilarious and as always mod appropriate, but answer me this funny man and i quote Dowsett... “The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”

How many non pedophiles do you know that advocate this type of thinking.

I await your new found comic genius.

Sorry, did i say pedophiles, i meant intergenerational love.

,

Don't know the answer to that but I think that maybe George does:
Pell:
“the Fosters and others in 1997 pleaded with him to remove five other priests that were involved in, or believed at that stage to be involved in paedophilia, away from being in schools and contact with young children. And his comment to them on that occasion was, “It’s all gossip until it’s proven in court.“

 

[Garlic muncher]

Don't know the answer to that but I think that maybe George does:
Pell:
“the Fosters and others in 1997 pleaded with him to remove five other priests that were involved in, or believed at that stage to be involved in paedophilia, away from being in schools and contact with young children. And his comment to them on that occasion was, “It’s all gossip until it’s proven in court.“

Thanks Mofra, nice to see the old gang sticks fat and always picks the correct political targets

 

[Bradesmaen]

You are a really funny guy, your jokes are just hilarious and as always mod appropriate, but answer me this funny man and i quote Dowsett... “The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”

How many non pedophiles do you know that advocate this type of thinking.

I await your new found comic genius.

Sorry, did i say pedophiles, i meant intergenerational love.

,

Kurt Schneider wrote a paper on the diagnosis of Schizophrenia. In your twisted and poor logic, he was a Schizophrenic.

 

[Bradesmaen]

A "recruitment programme"?

By god talk about insecurity. Are you worried you'll be "recruited" and you'll no longer be able to suppress your "urges"?
Homophobes generally do have a hidden secret they're terrified of.

Post of the year. I laughed so hard I couldn't pretend I was working.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

You are a really funny guy, your jokes are just hilarious and as always mod appropriate, but answer me this funny man and i quote Dowsett... “The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms.”

How many non pedophiles do you know that advocate this type of thinking.

I await your new found comic genius.

Sorry, did i say pedophiles, i meant intergenerational love.

,

When this article was published, homosexuality was still a criminal offence in NSW, WA, QLD, NT, TAS.
Male homosexuality had only been decriminalised in Victoria within the 2 years before this article was published.

So, in the article, Gary is talking about the parenting rights of lesbians and male homosexuals. And how regardless of their sex, they should still be able to be parents and have the same rights as heterosexual parents.

Remembering that same sex couples couldn’t adopt anywhere in Australia until WA in 2002. (SA 2017, ACT 2004, NSW 2010, tas 2013, QLD & Vic 2016. And it’s still illegal in the NT.)

In fact, it’s only as of this year that all states and territories allow both same-sex partners to have legally recognised telationships with their children. (bar the NT with adoption and WA with surrogacy.)


Homosexuals were looked at in a similar light to pedophiles.

His article is arguing about the rights for people to be parents, regardless of their sex or sexuality.

And as disgusting and untrustworthy as I find the idea of letting pedophiles be parents. If they never act on their thoughts, then they should be able to raise their children.

At no point is he advocating for pedophilic actions, or supporting them.


“I’m not saying that mothering/fathering is paedophilic; but I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive. Nor is the social parent so different from the child-lover. A perfect example of the ambiguities and discontinuities of such a relationship is that of J.M. Barrie – the author of Peter Pan – and the boys he loved. To argue that such a relationship is paedophilic or non-paedophilic is irrelevant. The presence or absence of sex as a criterion is specious for it relies on a definition of sex as “*******”, and it acts again to constitute sexuality as separate, a reactionary definition we should argue against strongly. We should argue for the reintroduction of sex, its re-integration into social life rather than its privatization. The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: Paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms. “
I've underlined your quote in the larger part of what was actually written. To give it a little more context.
But you need to read the entire article to actually understand what he is trying to say.

 

[Garlic muncher]

When this article was published, homosexuality was still a criminal offence in NSW, WA, QLD, NT, TAS.
Male homosexuality had only been decriminalised in Victoria within the 2 years before this article was published.

So, in the article, Gary is talking about the parenting rights of lesbians and male homosexuals. And how regardless of their sex, they should still be able to be parents and have the same rights as heterosexual parents.

Remembering that same sex couples couldn’t adopt anywhere in Australia until WA in 2002. (SA 2017, ACT 2004, NSW 2010, tas 2013, QLD & Vic 2016. And it’s still illegal in the NT.)

In fact, it’s only as of this year that all states and territories allow both same-sex partners to have legally recognised telationships with their children. (bar the NT with adoption and WA with surrogacy.)


Homosexuals were looked at in a similar light to pedophiles.

His article is arguing about the rights for people to be parents, regardless of their sex or sexuality.

And as disgusting and untrustworthy as I find the idea of letting pedophiles be parents. If they never act on their thoughts, then they should be able to raise their children.

At no point is he advocating for pedophilic actions, or supporting them.


“I’m not saying that mothering/fathering is paedophilic; but I am saying that they are not mutually exclusive. Nor is the social parent so different from the child-lover. A perfect example of the ambiguities and discontinuities of such a relationship is that of J.M. Barrie – the author of Peter Pan – and the boys he loved. To argue that such a relationship is paedophilic or non-paedophilic is irrelevant. The presence or absence of sex as a criterion is specious for it relies on a definition of sex as “*******”, and it acts again to constitute sexuality as separate, a reactionary definition we should argue against strongly. We should argue for the reintroduction of sex, its re-integration into social life rather than its privatization. The current paedophilia debate then is crucial to the political processes of the gay movement: Paedophiles need our support, and we need to construct the child/adult sex issue on our terms. “
I've underlined your quote in the larger part of what was actually written. To give it a little more context.
But you need to read the entire article to actually understand what he is trying to say.

You really need help and so does your chum Gary as you call him constantly, you obviously have some sort of close connection to him, who knows what it is.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

You really need help and so does your chum Gary as you call him constantly, you obviously have some sort of close connection to him, who knows what it is.

Once again, when you're shown how you're being misleading, you go back to insinuations.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You really need help and so does your chum Gary as you call him constantly, you obviously have some sort of close connection to him, who knows what it is.

Do you reckon they kissed?