Pedologues

[JimmyJoe]

I have been watching the debate of the podcast "Pedologues" with a great deal of interest. It seems to me that the people who wish to silence it are actively espousing hate and censorship (and even violence).

Intergenerational sexuality is a touchy subject, yes. But outright censorship of it seems extreme.

As much as we may disagree with the Ku Klux Klan, we as Americans, allow them to march and to publish their views. This public debate is essential to American society, I think.

If we start "burning books" (or Podcasts) we start down a "slippery slope".

Disagree, but don't ban. (And don't threaten violence - this only shows everyone that you are an unthinking and violent person)

Just my 2 cents

JimmyJoe

[X Pat Radio]

Only the government can censor things. To simply not list something or de-list it isn't censorship. Censorship would mean that they can't make the podcast anymore, which isn't what is happening.

[JohnnyWB]

I listened to an episode of the Pedologues.

I am not a pedophile.

I am the father of two young children. Listening to these guys has given me a better insight in to what they are about and what I need to look out for to keep my kids away from this type of person.

These guys really don't think what they are doing is wrong.

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.

<To the Pedologues guys,

First of all I think you showed some guts putting this stuff out. I must tell you though that most of the dialogue is disturbing to me.

I know people in their 20's that make bad decisions regarding sex. I don't know how you can think that a child is capable of handling such decisions.

You acknnowledge that pedophilia is an illness yet you mention nothing about wanting to change your behavior. That seems wrong to me.

I am by no means closed minded or prudish. My Wife and I discuss sex openly on our show. Some listeners find it entertaining, some are offended and don't come back. That's the cool thing, we have the right to say what we want and listeners have the right to choose to listen or not.

If you are expecting wide acceptance of your cast and it's content I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed.>

Okay, I hope this isn't taken the wrong way by anyone. My point is, don't turn away from something disturbing or distasteful. Don't react violently. Try to understand it. This one is beyond my understanding but I'm glad that I listened.

Knowledge is power.

John

[rookiee]

Hey, Johnny, thanks for responding.

There's only one thing I really take issue with in what you said:

"You acknnowledge that pedophilia is an illness yet you mention nothing about wanting to change your behavior. That seems wrong to me."

When did we acknowledge that pedophilia was a mental illness? In fact, just about the entire three shows, we're quite clearly stating our position it is indeed not an illness. I think at one point I might have mentioned that the clinical definition of it is listed as a paraphilia; a mental illness. However, I strongly disagree with that definition, and throughout the rest of the show give dialogue as to our reasoning behind our position.

Just because something is commonly thought of as an illness doesn't make it so. For this reason, many have decided not to refer to themselves as pedophiles, and have chosen either pedosexual or boylover/girllover/childlover. I know some who refer to themselves as "bay", i.e.: boy gay. That term was coined by a 15 year old to refer to us.

As far as what happened not being censorship, it's really all semantics. Podcast Alley (and other indexes) are basically analogous to libraries which carry books. In this case, the books are audio. Each new edition of a book which is carried is a podcast. By chosing not to carry my "book", they are in effect silencing what my book is saying by not allowing it audience.

There have been far more widely unaccepted books that have been published in the past which have been banned and unbanned from libraries. Mein Kampf comes to mind. I hardly consider my oral squabblings are anything in comparison to his words, but yet I'm the one being taken off the bookshelves.

And as far as keeping your kids away from "us", well, that's your own perogative. Really, all I can say is, I'm sorry that the impression you seem to have is that we're "out to get your kids". That's simply not true. Do you attempt to have sex with every woman you see? Can you control your urges? It's no different for us. We're not sex crazed maniacs. Anyone who is, in my opinion, needs to see a psychologist, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

[Ian]

I find this quite interesting.

First, I'm against the age of consent. It should be abolished, and parents should understand that some silly law will not protect their kids from contact with people they may not like. If you want your kids to be "safe", teach them, and keep an eye on them. Don't expect the law to protect them, because you'll be sorry.

As far as what happened not being censorship, it's really all semantics. Podcast Alley (and other indexes) are basically analogous to libraries which carry books. In this case, the books are audio. Each new edition of a book which is carried is a podcast. By chosing not to carry my "book", they are in effect silencing what my book is saying by not allowing it audience.

As a Free Marketeer, I'm also for private property. PodcastAlley.com and any other website is the private property of the site owner. They can set whatever rules they like.

They may exclude without giving reason.

You have no claim on the use of their property, no matter what rationale you put forth.

If you don't like the rules of this "library" find one that fits you, and if there's not one, start your own and compete instead of complain.

[rookiee]

As a Free Marketeer, I'm also for private property. PodcastAlley.com and any other website is the private property of the site owner. They can set whatever rules they like.

They may exclude without giving reason.

You have no claim on the use of their property, no matter what rationale you put forth.

If you don't like the rules of this "library" find one that fits you, and if there's not one, start your own and compete instead of complain.

Hey Ian, thank you very much.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly with you. Podcast Alley has, and should have, the right to remove content which they deem is unacceptable. But on what basis? In my open letter to Adam Curry, I simply stated to him my suggestion at the end:

"Where is the line drawn, you ask? May I humbly and logically suggest the line be drawn for podcasts the same way it would be held via a text blog or forum: Harassment, clear and present danger, threats, advocation of illegal activity, slander/libel, (and if you so choose), blatent sexual content; NOT conflicting ideals. I am publicizing with oral words, rather than written. It should be consistant."

Would you want your podcast removed because you believe that the AOC should be abolished?

[rookiee]

Oh, btw. Dude. Ian. I'm listening to your show. Your podcast is kickass.

[pwfenton]

People get really confused about "free speech" issues. The U.S. Constitution guarantees "free speech". No one can deny you your right to speak. But we all individually have an equal right not to be forced to listen.

Think of it like a party you have at your home. One of your guests starts being obnoxious... bad mouthing the other guests... being rude. This person does indeed have the right to be rude, and say what he likes. However, you have the right to make him leave your property. Your property does not belong to the general public.

So this is not a free speech issue in any way. Nobody has denied the pedophiles or the hate mongers their right to speak. They just aren't welcome here... on private property.

The street I live or work on may be public property... but my home... or my business is not.

As for knowing what the enemy is up to... it ain't to hard to find these guys if you really want to hear what they have to say. Just cause they got kicked out of your party doesn't mean they've been silenced.

[kickasspodcast]

How about everyone at PCA ignores the Pedocast and hopefully
they will go back to where they came from. No need for long
windedness on this one.

I am not gonna get involved in any of this.

:)


Jack B.

[Hittman]

"Where is the line drawn, you ask? May I humbly and logically suggest the line be drawn for podcasts the same way it would be held via a text blog or forum: Harassment, clear and present danger, threats,

You are a clear and presenet danger to children. You are a threat to them.

The rest of your list is pathetic:

advocation of illegal activity, slander/libel, (and if you so choose), blatant sexual content;

There are laws that deserve to be broken, slander and libel is the responsibly of the person doing it, and blatant sexual content is fine with most of us.

Ian, do you really think it’s OK for Uncle Ernie to fiddle about with a six year old?

I do agree that many of the laws are ridiculous. In my neck of the woods they’re prosecuting a (very good looking) thirty year old teacher for having sex with a very willing sixteen year old boy. My reaction is “where were these teachers when I was sixteen. I said this to a friend who answered “They were around. They just didn’t pick you.

[richpav]

First, my worry is that someone who's a borderline pedophile--someone with urges he hasn't acted upon yet--will listen to your podcast and think, "Hey it's OK for me to want to have sex with children because other people feel the same way. I'm not as much as a freak as I thought." And that is a very frightening thought to us parents.

And second, this place is a community, and I don't want to belong to a community that includes racists and pedophiles. Unfortunately, the PCA forum doesn't have a "bozo filter" like Podcast Pickle does, where you can configure your account to ignore posts from people you'd rather not hear from.

The FBI has been cracking down on "obscene" websites with photos or stories of bondage, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. I hope you're next, Rookie. In fact, I'm going to direct them to your podcast.

[JimmyJoe]

[quote="Hittman
You are a clear and presenet danger to children. You are a threat to them...
[/quote]

I disagree. Why is it a danger to educate? Isn't it worse to keep children in the dark?

Empower the kids, I say. Teach them! Then they may make informed decisions - hopefully the right ones.

But keep them in ignorance and you are courting disaster for them and yourselves!

It almost seems as if people are afraid of hearing some truth here. It's as if by putting their hands over their ears and shouting "blah blah blah" they can somehow make ideas and people all go away. It's not that easy, guys.

Protect your children by giving them knowledge, Protect yourselves by hearing the argument BEFORE making a judgement on it. After all, if you don't hear an argument, yet try to respond to it, you are not going to be able to repudiate it. (Fight fire with fire, yes?)

(At least one respondent other than myself actually listened to this Podcast - I applaud his wisdom...and now he'll be able to tell his children the real facts about these people.)

[unknownsoldier]

First, my worry is that someone who's a borderline pedophile--someone with urges he hasn't acted upon yet--will listen to your podcast and think, "Hey it's OK for me to want to have sex with children because other people feel the same way. I'm not as much as a freak as I thought." And that is a very frightening thought to us parents.


I thought about that too... but from a different angle. If "Bls" try and repress their sexuality it is just going to get bottled up inside of them until it explodes in a very very bad way. Perhaps acceptance of sexuality, and acceptance of the law! (remember pedologues doesn't advocate the breaking of a law...) Is the way to go.

[richpav]

Fortunately, prisons offer pedophiles with psychological counselling. Just my humble opinion, but removing them from society while they get the help they need seems like a better solution for the community at large than setting up a support group for them on the internet.

I can't believe anyone can read a post here from a pedophile or a racist and think, "Hooray for free speech." Is this the kind of garbage Americans have given up their lives to defend?

[unknownsoldier]

I can't believe anyone can read a post here from a pedophile or a racist and think, "Hooray for free speech."

Although I may not agree with what he is saying, I'll fight to the death for his right to say it.

Thats freedom of speech :)

[unknownsoldier]

Have any other podcasts other than the hate one and this one been banned from podcast alley? How about shows that have been banned from other sites? Please pm/email me if you know of any.

[richpav]

Here's the page for reporting illegal activity on the Internet.

https://tips.fbi.gov/

I have given them all the URLs I can find that are related to the Pedologue Podcast.

[jawbone]

I've listened to the podcast in question and was deeply disturbed by what I heard. Here are my thoughts and why I feel PCA was indeed correct in removing them from this directory:

One of the hosts of the show makes a broad comment pretty early on that children "are not innocent." That innocence in society does not exist. Huh. That's a pretty easy way to justify their behavior. Dismantle innocence, the shield that protects these children, and you're vindicated in whatever you do. That, to me, is a clear sign of someone with a serious mental disorder. Someone who should be watched very closely and monitored. Why do I say that? Because a billion other people on this earth believe in the existance of innocence, especially the innocence of children.

My other comment is about "crying and weeping" that went on and on about a "special friend" the host lost. During a tear-stained rant, he explains that he "loved him" and would have "protected him for the rest of his life". Oh, so he was going to marry him and have a relationship with him until he was old and grey? I thought the host was a boy lover. Isn't the cause for his existence the fact that he loves underage children? I find it hard to find any sympathy for the host, seeing as it's a clear contradiction to what his supposed worldview is. For someone who cries for consistency from others, I find very little from him.

If this is in fact a fair and balanced dialog about "boy loving" why not tell some stories about victims whose lives were ruined by this sort of behavior? One doesn't have to dig real deep to present factual evidence that supports the fact that pedophila and the predatory stalking of children has deeply hurt families and individuals. About the closest I could hear is the host relating a story about a guy in Orange County, CA (could this be a clue as to where these guys are I wonder....) who was arrested for enticing young children with candy. And about the most he could say about this perp was to call him a "dark jedi", as if the world view that he respresents has any kind of "bright side" to it. I'm offended on two levels, not the least of which was the Star Wars reference. I would suggest that on future shows, they bring on a family who was been victimized by this sort of behavior and have and open discussion about the horrors and pain this type of lifestyle can inflict on someone. Then maybe, MAYBE the show can be taken seriously. Or perhaps they don't want to hear the other side of the story because it clashes too much with their own. Marginalizing and discrimination is a two-way street. Censorship is a two way street.

My suggestion is to allow to keep making shows, if only to have a way to track them.

[rookiee]

One of the hosts of the show makes a broad comment pretty early on that children "are not innocent." That innocence in society does not exist. Huh. That's a pretty easy way to justify their behavior.

I agree that Abe sometimes does his share of painting people with broad brushes, but as we both said on the show, we ourselves are still growing and learning as we spout out. I've done some thinking about this subject since we made that show, and I actually want to touch on it in Episode 5, but I'll touch on it now.

I think you're referring to the bit we touched on in Episode 1. We go into further detail on Episode 3 which involves what Abraxas was speaking about as the belief of whether children were born in innocence, or born in sin.

I agree with Abraxas that there's a bunch of religious stuff surrounding innocence, but I disagree that innocence doesn't exist. People are born with the lack of cognative knowledge. Technically this could be called "innocence". I DO agree with his statement that it's wrong to keep people in ignorance. I'm sure we can all agree on that.

innocent/pure : sinful/corrupt = Christian
ignorant/confused : knowledgable/enlightened = Buddhist

I suggest to go see the newest version of Oliver Twist as it touches on this subject. Throughout the entirety of the movie, the adults are treating the children as if they were all villianous scum that needed to be molded and not given a chance for mistake. Even if they had done nothing wrong, they were not trusted. That belief came from a portion of history where the belief was children were born in "sin". These days, it's just the opposite. People attempt to protect children no matter if they /are/ truely intellegable and it's the adults who are doomed to live in sin, even if they are genuine in their intentions. Both these are variations on the same religious premise.

My thoughts on the matter? Screw religion. Instead of treating people (no matter the age) as innocent or sinful, why not just treat them as human beings? A human being is born neutral.

The true loss of innocence is one's lost sense of fair value of the world.

Dismantle innocence, the shield that protects these children, and you're vindicated in whatever you do. That, to me, is a clear sign of someone with a serious mental disorder.

Then, there's a misunderstanding of my intentions. I do not want the loss of protections for children. That would be foolhearty. Every society needs to protect their young. There are many, many people who would want to manipulate and exploit children.

My other comment is about "crying and weeping" that went on and on about a "special friend" the host lost. During a tear-stained rant, he explains that he "loved him" and would have "protected him for the rest of his life". Oh, so he was going to marry him and have a relationship with him until he was old and grey?

Another misunderstanding, apparently. And yes, the crying was real.

The majority of stories I've heard from various BLs and YFs is that they continue their friendships beyond the point of puberty and onward into adulthood. While the dynamics of the relationship might change, the love is always there, if it indeed true and not simply for sex. If it is, then the person never had genuine intentions and is just using the boy for sex. That is wrong. I also think it's wrong in the heterosexual community as well, even if they're "consenting" individuals. They're still being used.

And no, they don't get married together. That's another misunderstanding although I could understand why.

The idea around true pederasty is that the mentor teach and help guide the young boy into maturity, and let the boy follow along his own path thereon. These days, everyone can agree that a mentor is good. The sex part is what's considered bad. This hasn't always the case.

With the cruel playing field that faces us today, most relationships are hardly allowed to come into fruition. They're usually stopped harshly, stomped on with prejudice and hatred, and the boy is left with confusion and guilt as to why something /he/ felt was so positive could "in reality" be so "bad", so he develops guilt, resentment, and shame. THAT is the true loss of innocence.

The key is, that the boy must given the choice to participate without force or coersion; and only unbiased enlightenment on the BL subject can nurture an environment where the AOC can be low enough for a boy to cognatively consent. Check your Age of Consent chart on Wikipedia. Those countries with more liberal understanding of sexual engagement have lower AOCs. They're slowly losing ground at current because the U.S. is pushing its backward beliefs on everyone else.

I thought the host was a boy lover. Isn't the cause for his existence the fact that he loves underage children?

Yeah?

I find it hard to find any sympathy for the host, seeing as it's a clear contradiction to what his supposed worldview is. For someone who cries for consistency from others, I find very little from him.

I'm going to guess most of where the misunderstanding comes from is the incompatibility between the modern nuclear family ideals and that of other societies in the past. While we may cling to our beliefs, you cannot discount that in other areas of the world, things are different. No one way is better or worse than another. No one way is the "true and righteous" way. Freedom is freedom. Repression is repression.

There are cultures in where the youth and children are not only allowed to be sexual with one another, but that it is encouraged as it's considered to stimulate healthy growth. Some cultures allow children to be sexual with one another until they reach adulthood (puberty). Jewish tradition states that once a boy has his bar mitzvah, he is a man.

If this is in fact a fair and balanced dialog about "boy loving" why not tell some stories about victims whose lives were ruined by this sort of behavior?

Give me a chance to. :) One thing I want to do on future shows is have people on who disagree with us. As long as they're willing to be civil and mature about it, then definately, I will do it.

However, the main purpose of my show is to allow the "outsiders" to listen in on what it's like from our side of things, and so things will /always/ sound biased, because we have a viewpoint.

My suggestion is to allow to keep making shows, if only to have a way to track them.

And you talk of /me/ being predatory? Jeesh.

[Seuss]

I suggest to go see the newest version of Oliver Twist as it touches on this subject.

That's the new Roman Polanski film right?

LOS ANGELES, March 12, 1977 — Polish film director Roman Polanski, widower of murdered actress Sharon Tate, was free on bond today on charges of luring a 13-year-old girl to the home of Jack Nicholson under the pretext of photographing her, then drugging and raping her.

[deadwhiteguy]

It disturbs me to see people being willing to defend evil like this in the name of free speech.

But then again it seems like many americans are insane. I'm still trying to figure out how violent rape pornography is "protected speech".

I some how doubt that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Jason

[Fueled By Beer Radio]

But then again it seems like many americans are insane. I'm still trying to figure out how violent rape pornography is "protected speech".


It disturbs ME that many people like to push this button about rape but rarely do I see anyone push the murder button. How many blockbuster hits were shown in the movie theaters this year that showed "Violent Murder?" Quite a few yet I have yet to see any frickin crazy liberal shout about that on this board. Violent Murder is a bit higher on the chain than Violent Rape if you ask me. Granted, not by much but you've got a hard argument ahead of you if you plan on telling me that it's worse to brutally rape someone than it is to brutally kill them.

Man, come up with a well thought out argument for once instead of immediately screaming "Violent Rape Pornography" Frickin Liberals.

It disturbs me to see people being willing to defend evil like this in the name of free speech.

WTF is this? If a person wants to defend this, it's their god-given right to do so. Who the hell are you to judge? Who made you the jury here? No one. You are no more qualified to judge what is evil than any other person on the planet. Evil is a relative term and can not be easily defined without bias so get off your high horse. We all have a right to our opinions and telling other people that their opinion is wrong is also our right. But when we start censoring peoples' opinions and try forcing what we think is right down their throat we go very much against what "the founding fathers had in mind."

[kickasspodcast]

How many morons will it take before these aweful people
begin to be ignored altogether?

How many people here wanna keep wasting their time
talking to a child molester?

Is it so hard to ignore these guys and let this thread and all
their threads die?

Please do.


Jack B.

[rookiee]

I suggest to go see the newest version of Oliver Twist as it touches on this subject.

That's the new Roman Polanski film right?

LOS ANGELES, March 12, 1977 — Polish film director Roman Polanski, widower of murdered actress Sharon Tate, was free on bond today on charges of luring a 13-year-old girl to the home of Jack Nicholson under the pretext of photographing her, then drugging and raping her.

Yep, same guy. And yes, from what I read of the grand jury testimony on Smoking Gun, I think he was wrong for what he did. As Fox News pointed out, it was a personal mistake. The girl wasn't a virgin, and she had also previously been drunk and had taken quaaludes in the past, but yes, it was still wrong that he forced himself on her. Interesting that Jack Nicholson and Angelica Houston didn't take offense to what was going on at the time...

[rookiee]

How many people here wanna keep wasting their time talking to a child molester?

Jack B.

Would you like a libel suit?

[richpav]

I would welcome a libel suit from you. You are a child molester. Send me the papers so I can forward your contact info to the FBI and your local newspaper, child molester.

And good luck finding a laywer willing to defend the rights of a tree-jumping pedophile to prey on innocent children.

[Hittman]

Most lawyers are sociopaths, and will defend anyone if there’s money it. But any lawyer successful enough to afford a $200 suit at Men’s Warehouse would laugh in the face of this baby rapier, because there would be absolutely no money in it.

As for rape porn, as long as the people in it are adult actors, and participating willingly, there’s no reason for anyone to get upset over it. Adults are capable of making such decisions. Children aren’t, which is why we protect them from dirtbags like this.

[richpav]

I've written to libsyn.com asking them not to remove the child molester's podcast until the FBI has a chance to investigate.

[JohnnyWB]

Jack B said:

How many morons will it take before these aweful people
begin to be ignored altogether?

Are you saying that those who participate in this discussion are morons?

If so, then you're talking about me. I don't like that.

JB

[AaronfromQC]

My neice and nephew were molested by a boy who lived in the same home with them. He was convinced that he was doing right because the kids never said "no". He is now spending 7 years in a state prison. If he ever gets near those kids again, he will spend the rest of his life breathing through a tube. So when you defend people who touch little kids, you defend him and how ignorant can you possibly be? I too have emailed Libsyn to encourage them to remove your show.

[jimk]

Would you like a libel suit?

I would. You're a monster and a child molester. I hope you die lonely and painfully.

Sue me. I dare you.

[deadwhiteguy]

It disturbs ME that many people like to push this button about rape but rarely do I see anyone push the murder button. How many blockbuster hits were shown in the movie theaters this year that showed "Violent Murder?" Quite a few yet I have yet to see any frickin crazy liberal shout about that on this board.
Crazy Liberal ? Given I tend to be the archest of conservatives this comment would amuse many people.

Man, come up with a well thought out argument for once instead of immediately screaming "Violent Rape Pornography" Frickin Liberals.
I don't think you know many "liberals" to draw this conclusion.

Also when have I ever offered such a comment before ? Plus, obviously enough, violent rape pornography is in the same basket as pederasty, depections of homicide are not.

WTF is this?
A comment that I am disturbed by people being willing to defend the "rightness" of an obvious moral evil.

If a person wants to defend this, it's their god-given right to do so.
I would suggest there is nothing God given about defending the right of men to sexually abuse little boys as rookie is in favour of doing.

Who the hell are you to judge?
Someone with a moral compass apparently.

You are no more qualified to judge what is evil than any other person on the planet. Evil is a relative term and can not be easily defined
If you can't see that sexually abusing small children is evil then I guess there is no hope for you.

We all have a right to our opinions and telling other people that their opinion is wrong is also our right.
Then you are hypocritically chastising me why exactly ?

But when we start censoring peoples' opinions and try forcing what we think is right down their throat we go very much against what "the founding fathers had in mind."
And you are seeking to "censog my opinions and try forcing what you think is right down my throat" for what reason then ?

More than a little hypocritical really.

Jason

[BSquared]

deadwhiteguy wrote It disturbs me to see people being willing to defend evil like this in the name of free speech.

But then again it seems like many americans are insane. I'm still trying to figure out how violent rape pornography is "protected speech".


I can appreciate that point of view. I really can. But I deliberately fight against those thoughts popping up in my own head. There are two reasons why:

Because your definition of "evil" will be different from mine, and different from the guy next door, and different again from the bloke down the street. There are how many billion of us in the world? I'll guarantee there are just as many variations on what is and is not considered evil. Different people have different views. Different cultures have different views. And different centuries have different views. You think we can all agree on "the line"? Nope - never happen.

But the second reason is more pragmatic. Banning things, sending people to jail for reading/collecting/publishing etc doesn't stop the behaviour. EVER. It never has and it never will. EVER. If our so-called civilisation survives for another million years we won't have stamped out this behaviour by banning books/podcasts etc. What banning this stuff does do is give us a false sense of security and that's scary because we get blase about things like teaching our kids how to be safe. "Well we've banned podcasts about child molesters so our kids will be ok now". They won't. There's still molesters out there no matter how many websites/books etc you ban...there'll be a hundred more around the corner.

Has banning drugs stopped people taking them?

Has banning prositution stopped people being and/or using prostitutes?

Has banning terrorism stopped people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up Indonesian restaurants?

[OuterLimits]

Have any of you actually listened to this guy's show?

What a laff. Nothing this Dame Edna wannabe says is 'threatening'. He's just a run of the mill homo in my opinion -- of which there are LEGION. Let him SAY whatever he wants. IF he commits a CRIME then it is up to the police and that's that.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if J.u Benjamin is behind this creature's opportune appearence, because we got CENSORED as if we were the same thing. Bullsh*t. In our first month out of the gate we took the #2 spot in the cultural/political category.

You've been chumped folks -- only 'approved' content from here on out. Yeah, people just like ya'll stood in long lines for toilet paper.


Cheers,
:lol:

[deadwhiteguy]

Because your definition of "evil" will be different from mine, and different from the guy next door, and different again from the bloke down the street.
Actually I don't put much stock in this sort of relativism you are espousing and the reality is that neither do you. It would be trivial to demonstrate this to you in person.

Also, different cultures don't really have the sorts of different views you suggest, except at a very superficial level. All cultures base their moral reasoning on what the ancient Stoics called Natural Law. These "First Principles of Practical Reason" (to borrow a term from Aristotle) are universal among men, but the non-core principles are situationally specific outworkings of these basic moral laws.

Banning things, sending people to jail for reading/collecting/publishing etc doesn't stop the behaviour. EVER. It never has and it never will. EVER.
I suppose it is pointless to punish murder and rape them. I mean despite out punishing it some people still do it.

There's still molesters out there no matter how many websites/books etc you ban...there'll be a hundred more around the corner.
Which is why we should deal with pederasty properly instead of taking seriously Kinsey's fraudlent research and pussy footing around when it comes to sex crime.

Has banning drugs stopped people taking them?
Actually proper enforcement does work to curb use.

Has banning prositution stopped people being and/or using prostitutes?
Again proper enforcement and taking the problem seriously will deal with the problem to varying degrees.

No law enforcement solution is perfect, but you should not judge a result by a half-assed approach.

Has banning terrorism stopped people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up Indonesian restaurants?
Nope, but if we took terrorism seriously perhaps we would make a bigger dent in it, instead we soft-step around for fear of offending people.

Jason

[unknownsoldier]

to borrow a term from Aristotle)

Anyone will tell you that he lived in a time when pedestry was accepted as a right of passage for young boys. It is well documented that Socrates was definitely a pedophile, and it is more than likely aristotle was too.

How many americans are in jail because of the war on drugs? 1 million? 1.5 million? I think they have done a bloody huge job trying to get rid of it. and the young boys from FTL still smoke pot.

[deadwhiteguy]

Anyone will tell you that he lived in a time when pedestry was accepted as a right of passage for young boys. It is well documented that Socrates was definitely a pedophile, and it is more than likely aristotle was too.
And Aristotle thought that the chief end of man was happiness. I did not suggest he was right about everything.

That doesn't make pedarasty anything other than an evil.

How many americans are in jail because of the war on drugs? 1 million? 1.5 million? I think they have done a bloody huge job trying to get rid of it. and the young boys from FTL still smoke pot.
Except we don't really take the problem seriously. I'm an Australian BTW, and seriously, I live in a culture that takes medicating yourself as a solution to all problems. Is it really a surprise that the kids understand the message we teach them ?

To deal with the drug problem seriously we need to stop teaching people that a drug is the solution to every problem.

Jason

[unknownsoldier]

Anyone will tell you that he lived in a time when pedestry was accepted as a right of passage for young boys. It is well documented that Socrates was definitely a pedophile, and it is more than likely aristotle was too.
And Aristotle thought that the chief end of man was happiness. I did not suggest he was right about everything.

That doesn't make pedarasty anything other than an evil.
Jason

The op was stating that aristotle said that all humans have a base of human morals that is not realtive, but absolute. Across all cultures.

the poster then claimed that pedestry was one of those evil's that is absolute. Hatred of it is in the genones of us, not related to society. The fact that aristotle's society openly accepted pedophilia seems to refute that, in a quite ironic way.

I'm not denying that pedophilia is wrong. - But it IS wrong, because of what society thinks of it. The problem a lot of these people have is that they say "well society is wrong!" - But simply pointing out how society should change is not going to change it, and as long as society sees it as wrong, it will leave horrible mental scars on any child who 'consented' to sex with an older person and later learned what that meant.

I'm not going to go into whether society SHOULD change, that could take years to discuss. What I know is that society WON'T change. Therefore another solution to the sexual desires of pedosexuals needs to be found.

[richpav]

Therefore another solution to the sexual desires of pedosexuals needs to be found.

Castration by pit bull.

[unknownsoldier]

Therefore another solution to the sexual desires of pedosexuals needs to be found.

Castration by pit bull.

Would be great if we could figure out who these people are before they comite a crime. The creators of the podcast remembered lust for younger boys when they were 15. How do you castrate a 15 year old? How do you KNOW to castrate a 15 year old.

The problem with that is that it relies on a perpetrator comitting the crime before the problem is solved. It doesn't stop what happened to the child, and it doesn't prevent the next generation of like minded people from doing the same thing.

[deadwhiteguy]

The op was stating that aristotle said that all humans have a base of human morals that is not realtive, but absolute. Across all cultures.
True.

the poster then claimed that pedestry was one of those evil's that is absolute.
No I didn't. It is actually an outworking of the Natural Law, not part of the First Principles.

Hatred of it is in the genones of us
I also didn't claim anything this reductionist and silly.

I'm not denying that pedophilia is wrong. - But it IS wrong, because of what society thinks of it.
If that is why it is wrong, then it is not actually wrong. You can't base a claim that something is wrong in the personal preference of the majority.

Or else you need to concede strange things. Most notably things like, "Martin Luther King Jr was wrong to campaign for civil rights".

Are you sure you want to do this ?

The problem a lot of these people have is that they say "well society is wrong!"
Yes because they have bought into the ridiculous notion you are espousing that says civil rights campaigners are wrong for seeking to challenge the status quo.

Therefore another solution to the sexual desires of pedosexuals needs to be found.
Yes treatment for their disorder, and execution of the offenders.

But we don't take sex crimes seriously anymore, so I doubt that will happen.

Jason

[unknownsoldier]

If that is why it is wrong, then it is not actually wrong. You can't base a claim that something is wrong in the personal preference of the majority.


society believes consent cannot be given by a minor. If a minor grows up and finds that the consent he gave was invalid, he will rightly feel raped. This will cause huge emotional problems in the person, which are obvious. This is why pedophilia is wrong - the emotional stress it causes on the victims, even though they gave consent, is so great that it is morally irreprehensible to engage in such acts, no matter what level of consent is given.

In other societies - consent of minors was considered valid. This is why the Romans did not feel "raped" when they became adults after having pedosexual relations with older men.

This is not our society. Our society is based on different values. Which is exactly why pedophilia needs to be prevented.

I'm sorry if my reasons for disagreeing with pedophilia are different to yours. I don't argue using morale "wrongs" and moral "rights" and I try not to give opinions with out a logical thought process behind it, relying on as few societal assumptions as possible. But rest assured I agree with you, pedophilia needs to be stopped.

freedom of speech does not.

[docsnavely]

if you want to go somewhere where they actually talk about PODCASTING, click here (http://www.podcastpickle.com/)

[NewsGuy]

Pedophelia is not a freedom of speech issue. Pedophelia destroys innocents and is illegal.

Whoever put up this ped-cast is using this as a red herring to slander the more conservative podcasts on podcast alley.

If you cannot speak the obvious then you have no freedom.

[richpav]

After I finish listening to all the episodes of the child molesters' podcast, I'm going to call the FBI and ask them if advocating statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape) over the internet and admitting to having committed it is a crime. If they allow me to record the call, I'll make it available.

[Hittman]

Has banning drugs stopped people taking them?
Actually proper enforcement does work to curb use.

Absolute nonsense.

It used to be possible to go to the drug store and buy all the cocaine or morphine you wanted. Addiction was a problem, but not nearly the problem it is today. Making it illegal provided huge incentives for people to set up their own illegal drug business.

We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other country. More than Egypt, China, North Korea, Cuba…and we should all be appalled that more than half of them are there for non-violent drug crimes.

[quote]Has banning prositution stopped people being and/or using prostitutes?
Again proper enforcement and taking the problem seriously will deal with the problem to varying degrees.

No law enforcement solution is perfect, but you should not judge a result by a half-assed approach.

Are you advocating a full-assed approach?

[NewsGuy]

After I finish listening to all the episodes of the child molesters' podcast, I'm going to call the FBI and ask them if advocating statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape) over the internet and admitting to having committed it is a crime. If they allow me to record the call, I'll make it available.

You ought to make a podcast out of it ;)

Seriously though, there is a huge Grand Canyon of difference between the pedo-cast and Goyfire. Although Goyfire does tend to make the conservative right look bad. Maybe Curry is doing us on the Right a favor by banning it. :D

[jimk]

Seriously though, there is a huge Grand Canyon of difference between the pedo-cast and Goyfire. Although Goyfire does tend to make the conservative right look bad. Maybe Curry is doing us on the Right a favor by banning it. :D

They are neither conservative nor right. Just because they co-opt some conservative issues and twist them to a racist perspective doesn't make them conservatives.

[NewsGuy]

Seriously though, there is a huge Grand Canyon of difference between the pedo-cast and Goyfire. Although Goyfire does tend to make the conservative right look bad. Maybe Curry is doing us on the Right a favor by banning it. :D

They are neither conservative nor right. Just because they co-opt some conservative issues and twist them to a racist perspective doesn't make them conservatives.

Yeah that's what I meant by saying Curry is probably doing us a favor.

Lately there has been a lot of "infiltration" by these types into the "patriot" or "real-con" movement.

[rookiee]

To deal with the drug problem seriously we need to stop teaching people that a drug is the solution to every problem.

Wow, we agree on something. :)

[rookiee]

After I finish listening to all the episodes of the child molesters' podcast, I'm going to call the FBI and ask them if advocating statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape) over the internet and admitting to having committed it is a crime. If they allow me to record the call, I'll make it available.

Oh, that'll be grand. Excuse me, but of course it's not ILLEGAL to say you've done something. Actually having DONE something is illegal. I have never done anything illegal with a kid, so why waste your time? I've also NEVER claimed to having done anything with anyone on my show. Have you actually LISTENED to my show? We talk about politics, sociology, law, philosophy, religion, taboos, the media, child sexuality, multi-generational relationships (both sexual and non-sexual), and how all the above relates and affects public opinion about people like us; from OUR point of view. We give hypothetical examples of instances where it could work, examples in the past where it /has/ worked, and I attempt to give clear examples where it DOES NOT work. We even give real examples from our own childhoods regarding instances in where it has and has not been consentual with others, same-aged or pan-aged.

We have NEVER advocated that someone actually go out and DO things with minors. That would be illegal. We're talking about thought. Moral vs. legal. What's true and what isn't true. The lies and the deceitful practices of adults for AND against pedosexuality.

If people would stop griping and threatening, and give back constructive critizism, hey, I will DEFINATELY put it on the next show as a subject to talk about. Stop rattling your swords at us, chanting slogans and hate speech. TALK to us. Tell us your concerns for crying out loud. It's talk. It's podcasting. Speak your mind. Send us mp3 files to play showing us your thoughts. Be angry if you want to. Just don't be hateful. Be intellegent. Be bold.

Oh, and btw, I absolutely love that term "statutory rape"... they should call it "statutory sex". That's what it really is. :P They create conflicting laws based on semantics. Let's say two minors, one 12, the other 17, personally consent to sex. They call that rape, but two 12 year olds and two 17 year olds? No problem. It's "consentual", even though legally, they can't consent.

[JimmyJoe]

First let me say "me too". I will fight to the death for free speech, even if I don't agree with it. It is called having principles and seeking TRUTH.

Second, while I may not agree personally with pedophilia, I have been doing some research. I became intruiged and wanted to know more.

Here is what I learned: :shock:

It is a fact that it is still very much in debate by the psychiatric community whether or not to consider pedophilia a mental illness. The issue has been revisited twice in the past 6 years (1999 and 2003 by the APA) and debated very heatedly by both sides.

Also, in most countries of the world (still), the age of consent is much lower than here in the United States (often 14, 15 and 16 - in some cases 12 and 13).

Apparently not everyone thinks that pedophiles (at least those who target teens) must be jailed or given psych counseling.

More: :arrow:

I also found out that both the ancient and classical Greeks as well as the medieval (and modern) Japanese and Arabs have seen pederasty as quite normal (as well as a number of other societies - even to this day - around the globe).

While I may not agree personally with this lifestyle, I do have to consider that "normal" seems to be very relative to where you live.

More: :shock: :shock:

Apparently some of the brightest minds in history were pedophiles. I have found sonnets written about beautiful boys by Shakespeare and found out that Leonardo Da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, James M. Barrie (author of Peter Pan), Goethe and Socrates, were all reputed to be pedophiles.

Celebrated movie director Roman Polanski is an exile from the USA because he is reputedly a pedophile. Poet and author Alan Ginsburg was a pedophile.

Still More Weird Facts :? :?:

You won't believe this one! Did you know that child pornography was legal in the USA as recently as 1978? (Apparently, it was not very easy to find because there was such low demand for it, and only a few small publishers handled it.) Possession is still legal in Russia. And even though it was outlawed in Japan in 1999, it can still be found openly sold on many news stands there.

Also, in a few modern day countries around the globe today, (mostly Arab) many men consider boys to be sexually alluring, and it is accepted (and grudgingly tolerated) as a "man thing" by the wives. For instance, if you ever dared to call an Afghani official a "pervert" or criminal because of his "traveling wives" (his boys), he would certainly think you were an "odd" person and snub you socially (if he didn't kill you). :!:

Weird but true! (If you don't believe me, do the research yourself.)

So maybe instead of screaming hysterically to ban other people's ideas (that you don't agree with), you should do your research first. (I did mine.)

Let the Pedos speak and keep a good eye on your kids! Tell your kids the plain, honest truth of the matter. If you've raised them right, they will make good decisions for themselves.

Jimmy

[podcastrant.com]

People used to believe the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. People used to believe in leeches to cure medical ailments. People used to tremble when it thundered and sacrifice animals to their Gods. People used to say man would never fly. People used to believe everything that came from papal authority was sacrosanct.

Your logic is hopelessly flawed and shows you for the moron you are. Since your first post was with this one it seems that you are rookiee's lackey who had never come to this site before the incident.

In episode 3 Rookiee compared his plight to the plight of the Jews!? Like I said morons.

[richpav]

In episode 3 Rookiee compared his plight to the plight of the Jews!? Like I said morons.

If Hitler eradicated pedophiles, then at least he did one thing right.

[unknownsoldier]

shows you for the moron you are.

And herein lies the problem. You obviously beleive pedophilia is wrong, yes? Then why not back it up with clear and coherant argument based on facts, statistic and knowlege of the issue, instead of attacking people and using hysteria? You're hoping that people will automatically agree with your hysteria, but if people do not, and want to look at this objectively you have completely alienated them by providing no practicle reason for why pedophilia is wrong.

I have posted above about what I see wrong with pedophilia... I hope that it will make BL's think about why laws exist. I feel that it will make BL's think about their actions, as appose to their sexuality. How does what you do help?

[podcastrant.com]

I was not referring to pedophilia in my last post. I was referring to their warped logic. I think my point was made why I think their logic is flawed.

[unknownsoldier]

I was not referring to pedophilia in my last post. I was referring to their warped logic. I think my point was made why I think their logic is flawed.

Does Russia think the world is flat?

[richpav]

Let's add replies to other threads until this one disapears off the PCA home page.

[JimmyJoe]

I never said that pedophilia was a "correct" or "incorrect" sensibility.

I simply provided the results of my research.

As to being anyone's lackey, I do not think I am a lackey for simply standing for freedom of speech.

When presented with clear and reasonable evidence that you may be succumbing to hysteria and predjudice, you simply make ad baculum and ad hominem attacks.

I am not choosing anyone's side except that of free speech and clear, logical and RATIONAL thought.

:arrow: THINK! Pedophila is still alive and very well today in the world. Did you read my entire post?

You imply with your very faulty logic that our modern, western society is better than ancient or modern primitive societies. This is called ethnocentrism.

:arrow: Ethnocentrism is the mistaken notion that one's own society (with it's own social mores) is inherently better than anyone elses.


:roll: People used to hunt and gather, for instance, instead of getting dressed up in a shirt and tie and going to work. Don't try to say that we are more successful in our shirts and ties because anthropologically speaking you'd be very wrong.

:D Hunter-gatherer societies (another fact, sorry old man) are much more successful because they only work about 16 hours each week and yet entirely meet their nutritional requirements. As a general rule, they eat a much healthier diet than we do, have far less stress, better sex lives and more satisfying familial relationships.

Hunter gatherer societies are alive and very well still today in the world.

True, most no longer believe in leeching blood and curing warts by magical incantation in the moonlight. But, again, in a few contemporary societies around the globe today, pederasty is still practiced. Once again, THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK!

PS: I think I'd rather take the pedo's side than yours. You are like the TV character Archie Bunker - ignorant and happy to be that way.

[podcastrant.com]

Where in my post did I say that we are better in every way than ancient cultures? Where in my post did I say that we as a brain-washed capitalist society were better than hunter-gathers?

It seems you didn't read my post. It's funny how you judge my lack of historical knowledge.Your command of the english language is impressive as well.

eth·no·cen·trism Audio pronunciation of "Ethnocentrism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thn-sntrzm)
n.

1. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group.
2. Overriding concern with race.

All of the people that I criticized in my last post were a part of my ethnic group. See how your walls of flawed logic come tumbling down.

If you look at my old posts about the pedo podcast you will find that I never said to ban it. I questioned it's validity and ultimately came to the posted conclusion that it should fall under "don't like it, don't listen to it".

Who needs to think before they speak?

[yaz]

i might be a little late on this one (i've had better things to do than watch pca all the time)...

free speech is one thing, talk about whatever, say whatever, who gives a ****...

but when you talk about having sexual contact with someone's child...think about that "rookiee" and "abraxas", that is a direct violation of someone's right...

saying something that supports boylove or whatever you lowlives call it, is just downright sickening and i do hope that one day one of the fathers of these boys beats the pathetic snot out of your heads to the point where you are no longer breathing, because we really don't need scum like you two around...

there is no logical defense for this behavior so don't even try it anymore, do us and yourselves a favor and jump in front of the next moving train you see...if not...

i hope you honestly have the balls to come to california and admit to who you are...

thank you

p.s. good for that kid you lost, maybe with some therapy he'll be able to function as a semi-normal human...

[unknownsoldier]

p.s. good for that kid you lost, maybe with some therapy he'll be able to function as a semi-normal human...

I'm pretty sure his father beat the kid to death. lost meant "LOST".

You're ignorance between the incredibly common and barbaric act of rape, the incredibly common sexual power act of fathers abusing their own kids sexually even though they are hetrosexual and not pedosexual, which most societies find abhorrent, and the act of statutory rape that is considered less abhorrent by many societies, makes discussion difficult.

I'm on your side yaz. but to be quite honest, using hysteria to encase your point of view in favour of logic and calculated reason, only hurts our case. It only makes pedosexuals more self-ritous in their beliefs that society is wrong.

Hysteria doesn't help anything. Only information does.

[richpav]

Is it safe to assume that none of you who are defending the rights of the child molesters were never sexually abused as children, nor do you have anyone close to you who struggles with the life-long psychological scars? If so, consider yourselves lucky, but unable to fully comprehend why these child molesters should rot in prison and burn in hell. I won't explain it to you. Suffice to say, the way they portray themselves as the victims makes me absolutely sick. Go look up some of the online support groups for the real victims.

[podcastrant.com]

I think if you look at when they signed up richpav, you'll see that unknown and jimmy signed up after the delisting of Pedo....

Just reinforces my belief that they are not part of the Podcast Alley community and are just Rookiee's lackeys.

It's ok for the people in this forum to have differing views. That's what makes a good discussion board. But when people come out of nowhere and their first and only posts are about this discussion it discredits their whole argument.

[unknownsoldier]

I think if you look at when they signed up richpav, you'll see that unknown and jimmy signed up after the delisting of Pedo....



I joined PCA in December. Don't give me that crap. 9 months before you came on this forum, and proclaimed as a first post "Listen to my podcast! Listen to my podcast!" - and I have the agenda.

My first post in this forum was in december as well. I have voted nearly every month for dawn and drew, and now keith and the girl. My podcast list in iPodder lemon, then doppler, then finally iTunes has consisted of more than 50 feeds. Don't give me that crap.

I don't support pedologues. I don't support pedophilia.

What is also so shocking to you is that I don't support irational arguments based on fear uncertainty and doubt either.

[podcastrant.com]

You showed me man.

[JimmyJoe]

Where in my post did I say that we are better in every way than ancient cultures? Where in my post did I say that we as a brain-washed capitalist society were better than hunter-gathers?


"People used to believe the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. People used to believe in leeches to cure medical ailments. People used to tremble when it thundered and sacrifice animals to their Gods. People used to say man would never fly. People used to believe everything that came from papal authority was sacrosanct..."

1.) Your comments implied that you believe that pedosexuality is akin to an incorrect scientific (or metaphysical) theory.

2.) You implied that we have progressed as a world society beyond these notions (including pedosexuality and leeching blood).

3. - conclusion) Considering that there are millions of intelligent (and educated) persons around the globe today who are practicing pedosexuals, and are not shunned by their own culture's social mores, your comments were, indeed, ethnocentric.

And your definition of ethnocentrism is lousy. Get yourself a better dictionary, or take the word of a professor of ethnic studies at a major American university (me).

And, yes it is true that I responded to this after I heard the podcast. How does that make me a lackey?

[rookiee]

but when you talk about having sexual contact with someone's child...think about that "rookiee" and "abraxas", that is a direct violation of someone's right...

saying something that supports boylove or whatever you lowlives call it, is just downright sickening and i do hope that one day one of the fathers of these boys beats the pathetic snot out of your heads to the point where you are no longer breathing, because we really don't need scum like you two around...

So, I can only assume that you've listened to all of the shows and heard every word that we've said on the subject for you to come to these conclusions, right? RIGHT?

I've never had sex with a child, yaz. I've never claimed to have had sex with a child, either. I've chosen abstainance. The sociopolitical movement which I've volunteered to become part of is more important than sex, imo.

Alright guys.. let's make some clarifications on my position about all this. Especially for those who refuse to listen to the show.

Once again, I state that I am for laws protecting children against sexual predators. What I am /not/ for is social inacceptability of consentual multi-generational sex.

You have to understand something. Age of Consent being so high has only existed for the last century. It was started by a bunch of victorian "moralists" who considered having a dress worn higher than above the ankles was considered indecent exposure. In 1885 they started a campaign to lobby the government to raise the age up to 18. The laws were aimed specifically at girls. Most states had an age of 10-12 at that point, (hence the lingering ability to get married at young ages in states like Oklahoma).

Homosexuality was illegal clear across the board no matter what age you were, so nothing was ever mentioned about boys having ages of consent. They were pretty much allowed to do whatever it was they wanted. While this is a sexist idea, it did allow more freedoms for young boys and teens than are available now. 16-18 years old? That's ****in' overkill.

This IS NOT about guys wanting to get it on with boys. It's about boys wanting to get it on with GUYS. YES. THEY EXIST.

Example: IF it were completely LEGAL, let's say if a 12 year old who had someone older who they loved and were involved in a loving, caring relationship with, decided that he wanted to be physically intimate, AND his parents were knowledgable consenting, AND the man knew the boy was able to cogantively give informed consent, they should be able to do it without fear of the right-wingers on their asses sticking them in jail for it.

I would NEVER attempt to shove or coerce my way into bed with a boy. That's wrong. It should always be their choice. If sex was my top priority in being in a relationship with a minor, I shouldn't be in that relationship in the first place. I would be in it for the wrong reasons.

The boy should know what the man's interests are. The man should not lie about his sexual orientation. The man should not undermine the authority of the parents. The man should never lie or coerce or use stimulants to get the boy in the mood. Rape? Obvious answer: NO.

There should be legal protections for the boy should anyone ever force their way into sex. But they should have freedom to engage if they were willing. That's my standpoint.

there is no logical defense for this behavior so don't even try it anymore, do us and yourselves a favor and jump in front of the next moving train you see...if not...

I take it you don't like me very much. I'm sorry. Perhaps if you've had bad experiences in the past with pedosexuals, you could put together some type of statement or something. I'll gladly read it or play it on the show.

That goes for anyone else, really. If you want your side of things spoken about, I have absolutely no problem with doing so.