ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 05, 2015

The genteel civility of the moderate

Charles C.W. Cooke defends Salon's pedophile piece on NRO:
I’ve seen a good number of conservatives slamming this confession, often on the presumption that it represents an attempt to “mainstream” pedophilia. Respectfully, I have to disagree with this assessment.

Naturally, I am as disgusted by the urges that are referenced in the piece as the next guy, and, despite the author’s heartfelt plea for “understanding,” I find it difficult not to harbor a real animus toward him.

But I see no evidence whatsoever that Salon is endorsing or excusing child abuse, or that it is making the case that pedophilia is an “ingrained identity” and that its sufferers should therefore be free to act as they wish.

On the contrary: The piece draws attention to the fact that some people live with these abominable proclivities — “a curse of the first order” and “a massive handicap,” the author calls them — and yet manage successfully to suppress them. Whatever one might reasonably think of the man and his afflictions, to draw the opposite lesson from his admission than the one he intended seems to me unjust.
It's fascinating to see how NRO is always willing to bend over backwards to view all statements from the other side in the best possible light, while being the first to heap anathema on any right-wing figure who dares to cross what they consider to be a line.

Derbyshire's frank talk about blacks merited permanent banishment into utter darkness. Providing a sympathetic platform to a pedophile, well, that's just good Christian behavior, at least according to this particular non-Christian.

(Seriously, what is with non-Christians who keep trying to lecture Christians about Christian theology. Don't even go there; you wouldn't tell Jews how to keep kosher, would you?)

The truth is that neither National Review nor NRO are on our side. They're moderates and they're down with Salon, the SJWs, the cucks, and the pedophiles.

Labels: ,

120 Comments:

Blogger Nate November 05, 2015 8:03 AM  

Look how reasonable we are. Don't you see how reasonable we are? Isn't it amazing that we're so reasonable?

So you like us now? Huh? do ya? Huh? Pleeeease?

Blogger Alexander Thompson November 05, 2015 8:09 AM  

The problem is that no one who doesn't act on these impluses calls themself a pedophile. So coming out and saying 'I'm a good pedophile' probably means they've done very bad things.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 05, 2015 8:16 AM  

My favorite was the comment placing Cooke with Derbyshire, castigating both as "not conservatives."

Talk about tortured logic.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 8:17 AM  

What do y'all think about this section?

How should we treat such a person’s decision to talk about his affliction in public? Honestly, I have no idea. Social taboos are important, of course. But I do know this: Unless you believe that people “choose” to become pedophiles — and I don’t — the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.

Anonymous Lukas Brunnor November 05, 2015 8:18 AM  

Defenders of pedophilia need to be added to the same list as those who encourage invasion through immigration; all of them people who would see their nation raped and then destroyed. Let there never be enough sheepskins for these wolves to hide under.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 05, 2015 8:21 AM  

What should be done with people who openly admit to a dangerous predilection?

Public stoning would have the appropriate social effect, which is to remind nascent predators that it's always hunting season with no bag limit, and said predator's picture is on the flyer.

Blogger CM November 05, 2015 8:25 AM  

Counseling... a private entity bound by confidentiality to discuss this with... a priest, perhaps?

A private confidant.

We have, as a society, provided so many outlets to struggling people... why not use them? Not everything belongs in the public sphere.

Anonymous Viidad November 05, 2015 8:27 AM  

@ Alexander Thompson

Good point. A person would have to have worn down their internal moral workings to a point where they think self-labeling as a perverted monster might be acceptable to others. They're no longer able to smell their own stench in the noses of the non-sick.

Blogger Alexander November 05, 2015 8:28 AM  

If you have such desires, there is absolutely no reasons to air it publicly. If you recognize it as a bad thing, good, but seek medical and professional help. The only reason to air it publicly is in a deliberate attempt to gain public sympathy.

Which is wholly unacceptable. A good stoning, as prescribed by dc.sunsets seems an appropriate course of action.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 8:31 AM  

The whole "he's admitting that's who he is, but he's not acting on his urges" line of thinking reminds me of the celibate gay priest argument in the Catholic church, which ended up with a lot of priests acting on their urges.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian November 05, 2015 8:33 AM  

One of the top comments for the article:

Matt Parrott • a month ago

1. Organize
2. Humanize
3. Legalize
4. Legitimize
5. Litigate
6. Repeat

Stage Two doesn't seem too unreasonable, does it? How many bloody times do we have to get rope-a-doped by the same shtick before we recognize that it's part of a much larger campaign which has been going on for generations, now?

Priests, pastors, and psychiatrists receive special training to lovingly and thoughtfully help people with terrible issues like this one who need help. Privately. There's absolutely NO reason for anybody to work through this problem publicly. There's absolutely no reason to challenge the one hysterical taboo the American people have which is fully justified.

And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed? It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Blogger Ron November 05, 2015 8:34 AM  



While not as smooth as Trump. This sort of conjoined imagery is exactly how he attacks his competitors. For example he initially implied that Rubio was uncouth, not real bright, and immature, painting the image that he would later give a name to calling him Little Rube, or referring to him as such a rube. Thereby, creating as natural link in the listener's mind between Rubio and Rube.

Whether intentional or not this "blacks...banishment into utter darkness" paints a vivid word picture that does the same thing. It links the wouldbe destroyers of society with the evil of hell. On another level it shows that Derb's supposed allies threw him out amongst the very enemies he was railing against, showing NRO to be in league with the enemy.

Well done.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian November 05, 2015 8:35 AM  

Another of the top comments for the article even better that Parrott's:

Dingus Rattenberg • a month ago

Step one is chipping away at the legal and social norms associated with pedophilia. Our attention is deflected carefully away from the monstrosity of adult-child sexual attraction (calling it an "orientation," for example), and redirected toward pity for the offender. Do our laws really need to be so harsh? Is the extreme social stigma really justified? After all, look at these poor fellows. They're very sad.

Step two. Graphic tales of violence done against pedophiles or suspected pedophiles, usually by vigilantes (to shock comfortable bourgeois liberals) but also law enforcement (to shock civil libertarians), are rubbed in our noses. These cases will be easy to find, since reactionary pushback to step one is practically guaranteed. People who really hate pedophiles are nasty and evil and violent bigots will be the implied message. Meanwhile, "studies" conducted at state-sponsored universities will "find" that adult-child sexual contact really isn't all that psychologically harmful to children. Rather, our superiors will inform us, the reason children suffer post-contact depression is because of the "social stigma" attached to such relationships. We will be encouraged to be supportive and understanding "allies" of pedophilic relationships, since, after all, a simple attitude change on our parts will prevent depression and suicide.

Step three. At about this time, the real legal push to lower statutes of limitation begins. New "studies" show that children in fact benefit, in some very loosely-defined way, from early sexual contact with adults. The most progressive and forward-thinking parents in the most progressive and forward-thinking states begin lending their children for "play dates" with pedophiles, framed as mutually beneficial arrangements whereby children are therapeutically socialized into sexual maturity. Why risk letting some stranger take your child's virginity in a drunken haze, when it can all be done with the help of a vetted accomplice in the comfort of one's own home? Win-win.

Step four. Pedophiles will begin to emerge more frequently in pop culture and mass media. A record label, for instance, may promote an otherwise wild, hard-headed rapper's soulful ballad mourning society's unequal treatment of what is really the "same love." Mainline protestantism (if it still exists at this point) will ordain open pedophiles. The Catholic Church will be praised for its leading role. Cases involving the "rights" of pedophiles will have trickled up to the Supreme Court. You can fill in the rest.

Blogger Desiderius November 05, 2015 8:36 AM  

"they're down with Salon, the SJWs, the cucks, and the pedophiles"

When it is in their (perceived) interests to do so. Neither perception nor interest is set in stone.

I took the piece as signalling a willingness to (re)consider homosexuality an "abominable proclivity" that can be successfully suppressed, given sufficient cover for that (re) consideration. Yes, he lacks Vox's courage to strike out on his own, but after all many more Indians are needed than chiefs.

Blogger Stingray November 05, 2015 8:50 AM  

How should we treat such a person’s decision to talk about his affliction in public?

They should be treated with derision. Mostly because of what Alexander Thompson @2 says. People who do not act on this impulse do not call themselves pedophiles. I do not believe even for one second that the author of the original article truly wants to help people with this affliction, because if he did, he would be setting up some kind of real counseling for them. Something that is very private yet slightly more visible than what is available today.

People who truly want to help understand that it must remain utterly taboo and offer them help. They don't work to being it into the open. It is deeply understood by SJWs that bringing it into the open merely makes the action ok. It serves to help because it brings acceptance. Acceptance always means, in the end, that it is okay to be this way and act upon it. It never means acceptance of the sufferer like they like to say.

In the end, this is about acceptance of the behavior and not the person. Just like it has been every single time in the past.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy November 05, 2015 8:53 AM  

@11: And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed?

Do you really want me to stop reminding people that “turn the other cheek” did not mean “bend over and take it like a slut”?

Blogger Shimshon November 05, 2015 8:55 AM  

"[Y]ou wouldn't tell Jews how to keep kosher, would you?"

Or the Muslims how to...

Hmm.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 05, 2015 9:00 AM  

NRO also refused to run ads for Caliphate when it first came out.

Blogger bob k. mando November 05, 2015 9:02 AM  

VD
Seriously, what is with non-Christians who keep trying to lecture Christians about Christian theology.



it's the same method as Feminism:
control via social intimidation.

Anonymous Swiggy Gee November 05, 2015 9:03 AM  

There will be no acceptance of pedos.

It is NOT like homosexuality. Pedos HAVE to victimize someone in order to be successful.

You guys are just looking for something to bitch about

Blogger Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery November 05, 2015 9:03 AM  

It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Fuckin' LOL

Anonymous Homesteader November 05, 2015 9:10 AM  

In the beginning of my awakening to the Red Pill, I would start my day with NRO. As absurd as it may sound, I actually felt a bit daring- I actually read a CONSERVATIVE news outlet! Back then, it was mostly for Stein and Derb. They made NRO. I actually sent a donation once. Corresponded with K.J-L.

How quaint it seems now.

When I read "The Talk", my only thought was, "yeah, sounds right."

(I found Taki's through Derb.)

When I read Lowry's defenestration of Derb, I thought, "What a gutless prick. So afraid for his Manhattan invites."

Lowry and the rest at NRO are the Traitors in moderate's clothing. At this point, the genteel moderates cucjservatives ARE worse than the enemy, because they
soften the beachheads for the vile left.

In the porn shoot of Leftism, Cuckservatives are the fluffers.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2015 9:13 AM  

@10 Josh,

Yes, it's exactly the same. And the people making that argument are often people who attacked the Catholic Church so vociferously -- in some cases are still attacking her -- for the same careful parsing out of urges from behavior that they're doing now. But I no longer expect them to be logically consistent.

I remember hearing the argument back before the scandal broke: "It doesn't matter what a priest's sexual preferences are, because he has to be celibate either way." But allowing homosexuals into the priesthood caused an explosion of abuse and broken vows because it's not just a different preference; it's a deviancy. Same thing will happen if they're able to normalize pedophilia with this "I just feel it, I don't do it" stuff: eventually people will have a hard time taking common-sense precautions against it.

Anonymous daddynichol November 05, 2015 9:19 AM  

The same acceptance path was done with homosexuality. For decades, psychologists and psychiatrists treated it as a mental illness, then over the course of a few months, it was removed from the DSM and shortly thereafter, being a homosexual was not only accepted, but approved, then celebrated. The very same will happen with pedophilia and the process will be far shorter.

Blogger JDC November 05, 2015 9:24 AM  

How should we treat such a person’s decision to talk about his affliction in public? Honestly, I have no idea. Social taboos are important, of course. But I do know this: Unless you believe that people “choose” to become pedophiles — and I don’t — the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.

For sin shall no longer become be your master, because you are not under the law but under grace. Rom 6:14

The devil's lie is that we are powerless in the face of sin, and we, a sinful humanity are only too open to this suggestion. It absolves us from wrong, because we can't control ourselves. There's a big difference between confessing one is a sinful being in need of forgiveness and openly embracing sinful activity with no desire or effort to change.

The devil's second lie is that ( insert sin here ) is actually not sinful at all.

Liberal Christianity: Acting out on homosexual urges is not sinful, and the bible does not condemn this type of sexuality. The bible only condemns homosexual rape. A loving, life-long committed homosexual relationship is equally as valid as a marriage between a man and a woman.

Secularist: If it feels good do it. Indulge your sexual appetites - it's good for the soul. Religion is a joke anyway. People are born the way they are and you must accept it (adding that they may change their identity at will, and this too must be accepted).

Vox posted a sermon by Sy Rogers a few months back, and I think his application applies here - Acceptance, Accountability and Affirmation.







Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2015 9:24 AM  

What do y'all think about this section?

It's a nicely done shift of the goalposts. He starts the paragraph asking what we should think about the fact that the guy wrote publicly about it, but by the end of the paragraph commends him for trying to control himself. That's a separate issue, but it has the effect of implying approval of his public statement that was the original topic of the paragraph, without saying that outright.

I don't know the writer to guess whether that was intentional; he may have tricked himself.

Anonymous Soga November 05, 2015 9:26 AM  

It is NOT like homosexuality. Pedos HAVE to victimize someone in order to be successful.

You're clearly very ignorant about how most homosexuals report their first experience. There's a suspiciously common thread.

Of course, they didn't interpret it as being victimized. Hard to do that when you've been brainwashed into believing it was OK.

Likewise, when children are taught it's OK for adults to touch them in that way, nobody will be considered a victim...

Your problem, Swiggy Guy, is that you believe for something to either be wrong or actionable, it needs to have a publicly declared "victim".

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer November 05, 2015 9:28 AM  

And can we impose a permanent moratorium on atheists needling Christians on how their faith is supposed to be expressed? It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

I am stealing this.

Anonymous Cash November 05, 2015 9:35 AM  

It will go something like this:

"Um really? Pedophobic much? Yeah because having your daughter have sex for the first time with some drunk redneck high school football player is so much better than having her first sexual experience with a loving, mature, adult that can guide her into new sexuality.... shitlord."

Anonymous Killitwithfire November 05, 2015 9:38 AM  

The guy defends men who want to fuck children, you justify the actions of Europeans who kill children (so long as the children are brown). Both of you are disgusting. Kill it with fire.

Blogger David-093 November 05, 2015 9:40 AM  

The author of the Salon pedophile piece, Todd Nickerson is worse than you think. It turns out he's not an "innocent" and if NRO had done even a quantum of research they would have found out that it was all a ruse.

Evil unveiled.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell November 05, 2015 9:40 AM  

NRO aren't moderates. They're liberals.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 05, 2015 9:42 AM  

It's fascinating to see how NRO is always willing to bend over backwards to view all statements from the other side in the best possible light, while being the first to heap anathema on any right-wing figure who dares to cross what they consider to be a line.

Reminds me of how at mass, a priest will offer prayers for the "refugees" but nothing for Europeans who are suffering from the onslaught of those refugees.

PA

Blogger Jakeithus November 05, 2015 9:42 AM  

The normalization will start victimless; acceptance of pedophilia in art and literature, supporting a pedophiles right to possess and create graphic depictions of underage sex, etc. Then a promotion of "virtuous" pedophiles who don't "act" on their urges. Those people are "victims" too being given an orientation they never asked for, and deserve our respect and support. Then when one of these virtuous pedos is caught diddling a kid, the push will be for leniency and further support because it was a momentary lapse of judgement and they've been so virtuous for so long with something they can't control. Then it will be you're bigoted and dsicriminatory if you believe these pedos should be kept away from roles where they're in contact with children. Then the question will be raised, "Maybe we're being too harsh with out antiquated rules about...the harm isn't as bad as we once thought...the Christian thing to do is love and you're not being very loving...is a child reports wanting to have sex with an older member of the same sex, who are we to tell them otherwise..."

If you don't see all this as a possibility you're too dumb to be having this conversation to begin with.

Anonymous Cash November 05, 2015 9:42 AM  

I could see this becoming the ultimate "home school or die" topic.
Imagine some nasty male teacher wanted to show your sons and daughters how "it should feel" etc?

Plus with the SJWs and their useful idiots having very low birth rates, there could be a lot of people in just the next two years who hop on the pedophile bandwagon so they can get a head start on being on the "right side of history."

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 November 05, 2015 9:47 AM  

Reason is the tool of the civilized man.

But our enemies ceased being civil long ago. Hell, I doubt they were civil to begin with, given the history of Karl Marx.

Anonymous Soga November 05, 2015 9:49 AM  

Case in point... "yes means yes".

Women didn't consider themselves victims until they were taught to consider insufficient consent-seeking sexual behavior as victimizing.

So, either it wasn't rape before women were taught to consider it rape or it was always rape regardless of the "victim" designation.

If you pick either option, you're mentally and morally retarded.

Blogger Rabbi B November 05, 2015 9:51 AM  

What else should we expect from the most therapeutic culture in the history of the world where nothing is considered a sin let alone an abomination? Where ministers and priests are nothing more than psychologists who went to seminary, where they are trained to counsel, comfort, and coddle, rather than to preach repentance and address these spiritual maladies as the Scriptures direct.

Do we really think that G-d has not anticipated and addressed every sin to which our evil hearts are inclined? How do we respond to temptations? It is written. If it was good enough for the Messiah, Who was tempted in every way that were are and yet remained without sin, then it's good enough for me. It is written. We wouldn't even know what sin was, let alone how to address it, if it wasn't written.

How does a young man keep his way pure? By hiding your Word in His heart. (cf. Psalm 119)

No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And G-d is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (cf. I Corinthians 10)

There's always a way out. May we always remain naive enough to simply take G-d at His Word. I suspect that He may be much smarter than us.

Blogger bob k. mando November 05, 2015 9:51 AM  

20. Swiggy Gee November 05, 2015 9:03 AM
There will be no acceptance of pedos.
It is NOT like homosexuality. Pedos HAVE to victimize someone in order to be successful.



while i agree that pedos require someone to victimize ... you are amazingly ignorant.

the queers are correct; there have been, and are RIGHT NOW, many societies in which man-boy relationships are considered either normal or are at least tolerated.

that you would assume that "it can't happen here" when the psychiatric community has been trying to normalize it for decades is ... boggling.

you're either willfully ignorant OR you're in favor of child molestation and are simply trying to lull us to sleep.



30. Killitwithfire November 05, 2015 9:38 AM
you justify the actions of Europeans who kill children (so long as the children are brown).



... so long as the children are footsoldiers in an invasion army, they are legal targets. combatants always have been ... even when they're white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children_in_World_War_II#SS_Youth_Division

Blogger Doom November 05, 2015 10:06 AM  

Isn't NRO/NR dead? What does it take to kill these things. I thought vampires and werewolves where difficult. Having no readers... how does that not destroy a magazine? Or is it a think-tank? Perhaps Soros is keeping them afloat, for a little quid pro quo?

Blogger IM2L844 November 05, 2015 10:06 AM  

I'll never buy into the notion that we can't control what we think about. Consider the implications.

Blogger Dexter November 05, 2015 10:09 AM  

Eh I would not call a 17-year-old in the Hitlerjugend a "child soldier".

Blogger Dexter November 05, 2015 10:10 AM  

Isn't NRO/NR dead? What does it take to kill these things.

Sinking all their cruise ships. Right now National Review is a cruise line that also publishes a weak-ass cuckservative magazine.

Blogger darkdoc November 05, 2015 10:10 AM  

Cooke - another unwanted and unappreciated Brit telling Americans how they are supposed to think.

Why don't these guys just stay on their side of the pond? Immigration - I spit on it.

Anonymous Rigel Kent November 05, 2015 10:12 AM  

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody, but this guy has a past of being "pro-contact" (translated to normal English this means pro-molestation) and there's even evidence that suggests he did follow through on it. Steven Crowder did a little digging and here's what he found: http://louderwithcrowder.com/salon-com-pedophile-calls-me-out-but-now-ive-dug-into-his-past/

I remember when I read the Salon the article, I thought, surely everybody can see through this. Right? They have to know that this guy's intentions are anything but good. They have to see that anything except opposition to this scum-ball is evil. Right?!!! Apparently not.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau November 05, 2015 10:23 AM  

I was commenting on the SCOTUS SSM ruling a few months back on Chuck Johnson's twitter saying the next envelope to push would be lowering the age of consent and I got the usual SJW derision. Someone even sent an out of context duck dynasty joke to hint it was Conservatives who wanted to lower the age of consent.

I'm really suprised they've hopped on it as fast as they have. They might get age of consent done away with quicker than legalizing Polygamy.

Blogger YIH November 05, 2015 10:25 AM  

The American Cuckservative has written about religion, politics, film and culture in National Review and National Review Online...
Does he address this topic? Why yes, he does!:
This is fascinating stuff. Repulsive, at first, but I think about what it must be like to live with this tormenting desire, but not be able to act on it, and I pity the man. We are more than our desires. This man needs people to help him bear his cross.

That said, it is worth considering how the way we think and talk about sexuality, desire, and identity in our culture blurs the lines for this man. He says he cannot help desiring who he does, and I believe him. He recognizes that his desire is disordered, and he needs help refraining from indulging it. This VirPed (his word) group is all about helping him live a moral life despite this hated disorder.
{snip}
Are there any grounds — other than consent — on which we can take a firm stand against Todd Nickerson’s sexual desires, and tell him to deny what he desires in the deepest recesses of his brain, and that he considers to be an inextricable part of himself? We have made liberating the sexual self a virtue in the LGBT movement, and before that, in the Sexual Revolution. So where does that leave Todd Nickerson in terms of finding resources with which to deny his sexual desire? If we simply say by fiat “children cannot consent to sex, therefore pedophilia is wrong, does that really take care of the problem?

Dogs, fleas, you know the rest...

Blogger Quadko November 05, 2015 10:28 AM  

Naturally, I am as disgusted...
What do feelings have to do with right and wrong, legal and illegal? Nothing.

Feelings are so easily manipulable, so it's just a bait and switch tactic: "We agree it's disgusting, and illegal. But wait, on further exposure, maybe it's not disgusting, so maybe it shouldn't be illegal!"

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 05, 2015 10:29 AM  

@1 Nate

I hear you.

Although I don't think it's a desire to be liked by the left that is the driving factor here. The real reward that the Left offers is status.

They will briefly point to Cooke for this and say, "he is wrong in many, many things but he is our social equal."

Forgive Cataline for quoting Cataline.

"Free Speech is all and everything to the Libertarian. So you keep around the token lefty (opinion), to prove how inclusive you are. Please note: that libertarians NEVER keep around a token conservative. Their besetting sin is that they view progressives as (by in large) their intellectual and social equals. They do not feel that way about social conservatives. In their pride Libertarians need someone to look down on. I know. I used to be one."

When I finally came over to the Dark Side, I started examining the source of my past opinions. Why did I hold them? The answer I came up with was pride. Pride in my (admittedly limited) intellect. Pride in my (cut rate, Moo-U) college education. Pride in my social status.

Cooke of course is an atheist, pride has devoured his soul.

C. S. Lewis; " Lewis said, "...the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride.

Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere flea bites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind…

...it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began."

Anonymous Alsos November 05, 2015 10:39 AM  

I read the excerpt above and immediately thought of Hugh Hewitt's defense of Muslim outrage against the Mohammad cartoons.

Both cases strike me as attempts to be too-clever-by-half. Hewitt decried the Mohammad cartoons not (I believe) because he was actually offended by the content or the purported insult to Muslims, but because he thought he could use the controversy to stir people up against offensive 'artistic' depictions of Christ in particular and Christian figures and themes in general. Never mind the actual purpose of the cartoons (direct pushback against Muslim attempts to squelch free speech and set their religion outside the boundaries of criticism), Hewitt chose to deliberately distort the controversy to further his own political ends.

Cooke appears to be doing something similar here, but I'm not as familiar with his thinking to know exactly what he's trying to do. It comes across as him opportunistically seizing on Nickerson's assertions that one can have a deviance but not act on it as proof of the argument some conservatives make that homosexuals can and should simply refrain from acting on their same-sex urges, but I don't know him well enough to be sure that's his angle.

Whatever the actual ends, the means in both cases amount to playing with fire. In attempting to score advantage for their own interests, they blindly risk legitimizing the other side's actions and ideas.

Blogger bob k. mando November 05, 2015 10:46 AM  

42. Dexter November 05, 2015 10:09 AM
Eh I would not call a 17-year-old in the Hitlerjugend a "child soldier".



a - i don't care whether you "would" or not, they meet the definition of the term

b - 17 was not the lower bound of combatants. AND there are plenty of other whites who have fought as children, not just the Germans. i'm using the Aryan example as a specific refutation of the racism slander. after all, it was US troops killing the hell out of all the young ( and elderly decrepit ) German dregs at the end of WW2.

did you forget that the little bitch was whining because we were "happy to kill brown children"? he's using the same social shaming that they us against us in the States: all crimes are permitted to non-white children because to hold them accountable means *we* are ( supposedly ) racist and cruel.

therefore, throw the borders open and let the hordes march right in.

hey, that guy looks 45. oh well, he claims to be a mature 16, wave him on through.



48. Quadko November 05, 2015 10:28 AM
Feelings are so easily manipulable



as witnessing the little faggot who wants to accuse us of being "child killers".

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2015 10:48 AM  

There will be no acceptance of pedos.

I know this is a troll, but it's worth pointing out: there already is considerable open acceptance of it on the left. Much of it is still couched in the same "naturally I don't approve of it but..." wording we're seeing here. But it's already generally thought on the left that it's okay sometimes. What do you think that Lena Dunham story about playing with her sister was for? Has she been pilloried by the left?

Go to the Hugo ceremony in KC next year and take a poll: "Is sexual contact between adults and children always wrong in all circumstances?" Who thinks you'd get a majority in the affirmative?

Blogger Jakeithus November 05, 2015 10:50 AM  

Alsos,

I had a similar thought. If he is putting forward the suggestion that homosexuals can refrain from acting on their urges in the same way pedos can, he doesn't understand the enemy at all. The way it works is that it's immoral to ask that people refrain from acting upon inborn sexual urges, so pedos should be given legal outlets to act as their orientation suggests

If you really want to keep people from acting on harmful urges, you don't discuss the urges constantly, publicly and in a way that minimizes them.

Blogger LonestarWhacko November 05, 2015 10:52 AM  

This whole thing is going to end up with folks on both sides shot in ditches. Civil wars happen when push comes to shove. I believe that a lot of what the government is doing is designed to do just that.

Blogger haus frau November 05, 2015 10:54 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger haus frau November 05, 2015 10:54 AM  

What should be done with people who openly admit to a dangerous predilection?

The fact that the author called himself a pedophile is reason enough to gather the pitchforks and light the torches. As pointed out, a person who has those urges but doesn't want them, won't march his predilections out for public view.
This guy defending the Salon piece has to be stubbornly, willfully ignorant to not see the pattern of leftists introducing and then mainstreaming perversion. Probably because once it's mainstreamed it sounds so perfectly reasonable and normal they can't remember a time when questioning the new narrative was reasonable and normal. It's the George Orwell school of pop culture historical revisionism.

Blogger bob k. mando November 05, 2015 10:55 AM  

Ken White / Popehat demonstrates his rather poor judgment ... again:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/how-copyright-lawyer-marc-randazza-got-famous-lost-friends-and-went-broke/

Blogger Dug November 05, 2015 10:57 AM  

Cail,

I know this is a troll, but it's worth pointing out: there already is considerable open acceptance of it on the left. Much of it is still couched in the same "naturally I don't approve of it but..." wording we're seeing here. But it's already generally thought on the left that it's okay sometimes.

You generally get it in this form:

"Well, see, I find pedophilia horrible and revolting. But... *hand wringing* Well, what about 3D generated pedophile porn? Now, *I* think that's disgusting. But... well, you see, it doesn't harm anyone. And it could be therapeutic, it could give them a way to satisfy their urges so they don't harm actual children. I don't know, I don't know. So maybe, possibly...?"

With the next step being, openly admitting that one enjoys that isn't problematic. Popularizing it isn't problematic. (Remember, 'it harms no one.') In fact, criticizing it is doing harm.

And on and on and on it goes.

Anonymous Alsos November 05, 2015 11:00 AM  

Jakeithus - "The way it works is that it's immoral to ask that people refrain from acting upon inborn sexual urges, so pedos should be given legal outlets to act as their orientation suggests" is an excellent summation of the fire being played with in this case. Cooke, in attempting to manipulate and massage Nickerson's claims to further some other agenda, in fact is accomplishing nothing more than adding legitimacy to the argument you describe.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 11:13 AM  

Does he address this topic? Why yes, he does!

You neglected to quote this:

Nickerson describes pedophilia as an “orientation.” No, I’m not saying that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia. It is not. What concerns me, though, is that the language and concepts we have accepted to sweep away the old Christian objections to homosexuality — in particular, the sacrosanct way we see sexual desire as at the core of identity and personhood — can easily be manipulated to legitimize pedophiles. The only reason Nickerson sees his sexual desire for children as illegitimate is because society tells him he cannot act ethically on it.

Blogger Rabbi B November 05, 2015 11:14 AM  

There will be no acceptance of pedos.

Wishful thinking at best which ignores the utter depravity of humanity. We will engage in practices that not only did G-d not command, but which never entered His mind.

They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. (cf. Jeremiah 19)

From the article:

I am not a practicing Christian, but, as far as I can recall from my instruction as a child, the author is taking precisely the approach that Christians are supposed to take when they find themselves tempted toward sin. I suppose that it is possible that I am seriously mis-remembering the core tenets of the faith, but don’t followers of Jesus believe that everybody is born with impulses that lead them toward unacceptable behavior? And don’t they also believe that they are called to act chastely — that is, to avoid indulging those impulses and instead to seek a way to be freed from them? It was a while ago, I accept, but I cannot recollect any caveats being attached to these rules.

(Seriously, what is with non-Christians who keep trying to lecture Christians about Christian theology. Don't even go there; you wouldn't tell Jews how to keep kosher, would you?)

Yeah, we who love His Word know what the Good Book says. Are we going to let someone who has never handled a gun instruct us on how to use one? How much more when it comes to the weapons of our warfare which have divine power to demolish strongholds and with which we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of G-d, while taking captive every thought to make it obedient to the Messiah? (cf. II Cor. 10)

Pro tip for Mr. Cooke, the confessed non-Christian who tacitly approves of "abominable proclivities":

[J]ust as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of G-d, so G-d gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, G-d-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know G-d’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (cf. Romans 1)

Solution:

“Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the one
whose sin the L-rd will never count against them.”

G-d will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Y'shua our L-rd from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (cf. Romans 4)

Baruch Hashem!

Anonymous 334 November 05, 2015 11:15 AM  

What Cooke doesn't get -- or rather, doesn't WANT to get -- is that the ONLY possible purpose of the article is normalizing the act by humanizing a horrible inclination.

Society does not punish people who define themselves as pedophiles on the basis of their thought life because society has no idea what's in their minds -- until they act on it. Society may stigmatize such a person but that's a feature, not a bug.

Blogger YIH November 05, 2015 11:16 AM  

@40 Doom:
Isn't NRO/NR dead?
Nope, still alive and cucking.

Blogger Dexter November 05, 2015 11:18 AM  

"There will be no acceptance of pedos."

Did you forget we live in a world where sodomy, mothers killing their own babies, divorce, and drug use are accepted as normal, and even admirable?

Blogger IM2L844 November 05, 2015 11:24 AM  

One only has to look at the trajectory of what has become socially acceptable over the last 100 years to see that the slippery slope argument is perfectly valid. The moral decay can't be stopped with mollycoddling as faux understanding. People who are unable to control their thoughts are a danger to society and should be treated as such.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 11:25 AM  

So does this mean Josh Duggar is no longer History's Greatest Monster?

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 05, 2015 11:27 AM  

I see some people are confused about pedophilia.

WebMD Says
What is a pedophile?
A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says.

Wikipedia, says
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.[1][2] As a medical diagnosis, specific criteria for the disorder extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years of age, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]

An adult having sex with, say a 16 year old, is probably a crime, but it is not pedophilia.

Blogger pdwalker November 05, 2015 11:28 AM  

It's hard to be an atheist when you are forced to look at the devil and his work daily.

These pedo apologists are evil.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 11:28 AM  

Y'all...the "Well actually..." sperging about the definition of pedophilia will always be creepy...

Blogger TheRedSkull November 05, 2015 11:32 AM  

I want to kill SJWs, but I don't act on it.

Blogger Josh November 05, 2015 11:41 AM  


I want to kill SJWs, but I don't act on it.


So brave. Thanks for this.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 05, 2015 11:42 AM  

@7 CM
Counseling... a private entity bound by confidentiality to discuss this with... a priest, perhaps?
---

A priest? XD That's where i first heard of this particular type of evil...

Blogger Were-Puppy November 05, 2015 11:52 AM  

@21 Steve, the Dark Ninja of Mockery
It's not like we go around telling atheists how they're supposed to tip their fedoras and embed cheese crumbs in their neckbeards.

Fuckin' LOL
----

Seperated at birth?

Blogger Were-Puppy November 05, 2015 11:57 AM  

@30 Killitwithfire
The guy defends men who want to fuck children, you justify the actions of Europeans who kill children (so long as the children are brown). Both of you are disgusting. Kill it with fire.
---

I doubt you could muster up a wet fart, much less a spark for a fire.

Anonymous BigGaySteve November 05, 2015 11:59 AM  

The guy defends men who want to fuck children, you justify the actions of Europeans who kill children (so long as the children are brown)

Killitwithfire came up with a great solution. After we kill the brown kids we can embalm them and sell them to pedos so they don't touch yellow/white kids. ?sarc

Yet, I’m not the monster you think me to be. I’ve never touched a child sexually in my life and never will, nor do I use child pornography
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424373/salons-much-maligned-pedophilia-piece-charles-c-w-cooke

Translation: I go with Congressman Menendez to places that consider 12yos to be adult.

Derbyshire's frank talk about blacks merited permanent banishment into utter darkness. Providing a sympathetic platform to a pedophile

How did they treat vibrant pedos like Kanye West, Congressman Menendez and Michael Jackson?

So coming out and saying 'I'm a good pedophile' probably means they are willing to pay for McDonalds first.

[Y]ou wouldn't tell Jews how to keep kosher, would you? You could point out to the godless cocksucking jew that cordon blue has ham

The normalization will start victimless; acceptance of pedophilia in art and literature,

Common core approved middle school http://www.teaparty.org/common-core-6th-graders-taught-use-strap-dildo-55644/

There will be no acceptance of pedos. Gaypatriot has trolls James Edwards, & Mikey that argue pro pedo.

Anonymous Bz November 05, 2015 12:01 PM  

"Reminds me of how at mass, a priest will offer prayers for the "refugees" but nothing for Europeans who are suffering from the onslaught of those refugees."

Pray for Christendom or don't pray at all, Padre.

Blogger Anthony November 05, 2015 12:02 PM  

Sam vfm #111 exposes the path by which pedophilia will be normalized. What's the age limit? 13? 11? We have a diversity of ages of consent in the U.S. already. There will be campaigns to lower the age of consent, and they'll feature people who were mature enough to handle sex at 16 or 14, etc.

Then there will be general "clean up" of the penal code, reducing sentences across the board (because prisons are overcrowded) and "rationalizing" sentences because there will always be some hard to justify discrepancy.

And soon enough, pedophiles are getting 3-month sentences and DAs aren't bothering to prosecute them.

OpenID Jack Amok November 05, 2015 12:03 PM  

I have a theory that the most common male sexual fetish is actually exhibitionism, but it manifests itself in various ways. I think that because obtaining sex is a challenge for most men, the desire to be seen as a sexual being is strong and, when it overwhelms a man unable to control it, he will resort to outrageous public behavior. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm doing something sexual!"

Men desperate for public attention to their sexuality will go to great lengths to get it. Witness Bruce Jenner. The freak who wrote the Salon piece fits this mold too. Once the publicity from the piece dies down, he'll do something else to get attention, and it almost certainly will involve hurting a child.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2015 12:07 PM  

Y'all...the "Well actually..." sperging about the definition of pedophilia will always be creepy...

So true, and it's counterproductive, too. This isn't the occasion for making distinctions between different -philias or having intellectual and historical arguments about where the age of consent should be. Those things only serve to confuse the issue and give the other side cover. This is an occasion for keeping it simple: this is sick and evil and anyone who sympathizes with it should get hammered.

Anonymous BGS November 05, 2015 12:12 PM  

There will be no acceptance of pedos.

http://www.libertynewsnow.com/liberals-defend-teen-who-raped-and-murdered-little-girl/article1908
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/15/watch-little-boy-twerks-at-pride-parade-and-upsets-homophobes/

Lesbian teacher bonanza list http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/23/lesbian-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-sexual-conduct-with-teenage-girl/

There will be campaigns to lower the age of consent, and they'll feature people who were mature enough to handle sex at 16 or 14

They will compare a 14yo smart enough to enter college and an adult black unable to do 2nd grade math.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 05, 2015 12:18 PM  

Pedos should be KOS. There is no reason that a Pedos desires should be allowed to inflict any harm on a young one who has barely gotten a start at life.

Blogger SciVo November 05, 2015 12:21 PM  

Josh @4: What do y'all think about this section?

How should we treat such a person’s decision to talk about his affliction in public? Honestly, I have no idea. Social taboos are important, of course.


I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. What does he mean that he has no idea what to do about it? He immediately admits that social taboos are important!! SO WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THEM, DUH

Making it safe for men to publicly admit their desires for other men -- to come out of the closet -- was a critical step on the path to getting the APA to remove it from the DSM, and then getting the SCOTUS to mandate that we must all celebrate their looooove at penalty of penury if we refuse.

It must never, ever be safe for pedophiles to come out of the closet. Otherwise, next thing you know, you'll be sued into oblivion for refusing to cater their pedo wedding.

OpenID Jack Amok November 05, 2015 12:21 PM  

This isn't the occasion for making distinctions between different -philias or having intellectual and historical arguments about where the age of consent should be. Those things only serve to confuse the issue and give the other side cover.

I have no doubt what-so-ever that the freaks will attempt to use bait-and-switch tactics here, trying to get sympathy form the average dad who has the occasional unwholesome thought about the 16 year old cheerleaders at his son's school. So I do think we should keep the distinction clear in our own heads, and be sure to make a forceful rhetorical point whenever someone tries to blur the lines.

"We're not talking about Jail-Bait here, these are kiddie-diddlers. Stop trying to change the subject."

Anonymous BGS November 05, 2015 12:22 PM  

I should probably have warned you there are pics of lots of ugly lesbians on the lesbian teacher abuser bonanza page.

Blogger David-093 November 05, 2015 12:22 PM  

@66

Not according to Law and Order: SVU.

Maybe next they can do an episode on the Rabid Puppies burning down the Hugos.

Blogger Eric November 05, 2015 12:36 PM  

"The truth is that neither National Review nor NRO are on our side. "
Bingo

Anonymous DJF November 05, 2015 12:44 PM  

NRO has long gone over to the enemy, if it ever was on the good side.

It even says nice things about Trotsky. He was the good mass murdering communist. Here is a link to a 2003 article

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207196/trotskycons-stephen-schwartz

Blogger Sam vfm #111 November 05, 2015 12:51 PM  

@83
"We're not talking about Jail-Bait here, these are kiddie-diddlers. Stop trying to change the subject."

Exactly.

Blogger SciVo November 05, 2015 1:05 PM  

Josh @66: So does this mean Josh Duggar is no longer History's Greatest Monster?

No, he's still a straight white cis-male Southern conservative Christian capitalist patriarch of a bio-intact family. No one on the left wants to de-stigmatize that.

Blogger Eric Castle November 05, 2015 1:20 PM  

Yes, yes... Buckley is the new Rockefeller. It is a sad, yet wholly predictable affair.

It is amazing just how much hell the DSM IV hath wrought over the years...

Blogger Dystopic November 05, 2015 1:21 PM  

No excuses or understand for pedos. Something has to be severely broken in a person's mind to be attracted to pre-pubescent kids. That's a biological fact. So either they require immediate treatment and institutionalization (in the case of the truly mentally ill), or they must imprisoned or eliminated (in the case of those who are purely evil).

No, I'm not talking about the guy who said a 16 year old was hot. I'm talking about the kiddy-diddlers. The sickos like Nyberg who look at 8 year olds as sex objects.

The best that can be said of the guy who wrote the Salon article is that, if he truly hasn't done anything (a premise I am skeptical of), then there may be some evidence that some kind of treatment program might work for some of the mentally ill.

That doesn't change the fact that they are sick in the head, and/or evil.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 05, 2015 1:28 PM  

@61

Wishful thinking at best which ignores the utter depravity of humanity.


So? There's no fixing the folly of people who insist on acting like herd animals. With regards to protecting one's own kids, Job 1 is avoiding the company of anyone who remotely expresses Left-collectivist sentiments (starting with tolerance for the LGBT ugliness.) Such people might as well harbor Plague, TB, HPV and Ebola all at once.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 05, 2015 1:32 PM  

The best that can be said of the guy who wrote the Salon article is that, if he truly hasn't done anything (a premise I am skeptical of), then there may be some evidence that some kind of treatment program might work for some of the mentally ill.

Ah, but it appears he is absolutely open to "gifting" children with the attentions he himself claims to have experienced at age 8.

He surrounds himself with "open-minded, tolerant" (read: Left-collectivist) people whose kids might as well be served up on a platter. Who disgusts you more, the predator or those who obsequiously offer their own children to him as prey?

Blogger Anthony November 05, 2015 1:50 PM  

If Mr. Cooke were truly conservative, or even just truly right-wing, he'd have noted that the call for self-restraint applied to much more than pedophilia, and noted that the Christian belief about homosexuality is that it similarly is a disordered desire and people who have it are called to abstinence, even as the sin of pedophilic behavior is a greater sin than that of homosexual behavior. He might also have commented that it's probably not productive to talk about one's pedophilia in public.

If Mr. Cooke were actually a conservative, that is.

Blogger ZhukovG November 05, 2015 1:52 PM  

"those who obsequiously offer their own children to him as prey?"

Sounds like a description of those who send their kids to public school.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 05, 2015 1:53 PM  

@83 Jack,

Fair enough. Your way of putting it is simple and gets back to the point well. The usual way of delving into dictionary definitions doesn't, and like Josh said, just gives the creepy sense that the speaker is trying to get around something.

Blogger Joseph Maroney November 05, 2015 1:55 PM  

Nate: "Look how reasonable we are. Don't you see how reasonable we are? Isn't it amazing that we're so reasonable?

So you like us now? Huh? do ya? Huh? Pleeeease?"



That sums it up nicely. The Right wants to be liked by the Left. It fails to despise them, as the Left despises the Right.

Blogger Danby November 05, 2015 2:18 PM  

I'm old enough to remember when National Review was a Conservative rag that tended toward the Catholic and the ex-Commie in its contributors. Buchannan, Sobran, Bozell, and Buckley were all Catholics, Burnham and Whittaker Chambers were ex-commies.

Now it's the home of Atheist Jews and ex-Catholics, obsessed with writing people out of the Conservative side and being "smart" and "reasonable" without going to the bother of actually thinking.

Anonymous Takin' a Look November 05, 2015 2:30 PM  

-Jack Amok

"We're not talking about Jail-Bait here, these are kiddie-diddlers. Stop trying to change the subject."

Short, succint and shiv-worthy.

Blogger Dystopic November 05, 2015 2:33 PM  

@93: "He surrounds himself with "open-minded, tolerant" (read: Left-collectivist) people whose kids might as well be served up on a platter. Who disgusts you more, the predator or those who obsequiously offer their own children to him as prey?"

Tough call. Going with the latter, I think. There's a possibility the monster is the way he is because of mental illness. The latter have no such excuse. They are evil.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 05, 2015 2:49 PM  

@93 There is no such thing as mental illness. There are only behaviors, and they are either inside the boundaries of morality & civilization or they are not. To deny this is to deny all concept that people are able to choose. The fans of mental illness imply that all humans are helpless pawns of their own urges (which cannot be related to anything in neurobiology except in very rare cases of actual brain damage or neoplasm.)

People own the choices they make. I favor personal retribution as opposed to social punishment, because redress in favor of the victim is much more difficult for sophists to explain away.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burnin' Up! November 05, 2015 3:03 PM  

Always fascinating to read NRO's decline. How instructive to also know the self ID'ing pervs.

Beyond that I am repulsed and reject this abuse. Abomination.

Blogger RobertT November 05, 2015 3:24 PM  

Sicko's

Blogger RobertT November 05, 2015 3:27 PM  

This abuse is worse than murder because a formerly healthy child, 2 years old, 7 yo, 12 yo, has to live with absolute horror for the rest of their life. No amount of therapy can fix it.

Anonymous BGS November 05, 2015 6:42 PM  

Who disgusts you more, the predator or those who obsequiously offer their own children to him as prey?

At least Michael Jackson was paying off millions each time he touched a kid. People lined up to have their kids sleep over with him in hopes of a payout.

Anonymous Godfrey November 05, 2015 7:33 PM  

I think I threw the last National Review magazine I purchased in the trash around 1993 or so. I never bought or read it again. I'm surprised it's still around.

Blogger TheRedSkull November 05, 2015 8:26 PM  

@71 Don't hate me for the orientation of my crosshairs.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) November 05, 2015 8:40 PM  

@Takin' a Look
Short, succinct and shiv-worthy.

Second that.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) November 05, 2015 8:45 PM  

How can someone be so broken that they want to be friends with a pedophile and not see anything wrong with it? Not just be friends, but seek their approval.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) November 05, 2015 8:50 PM  

A person would have to have worn down their internal moral workings to a point where they think self-labeling as a perverted monster might be acceptable to others.
Not only that, they need to be immersed in a culture that encourages it. There are communities out there who's values would disgust any civilized person.

Blogger GracieLou November 05, 2015 8:58 PM  

Great vengeance and FURIOUS anger. Boudicca. Judith holding the exsanguinated head of Holofernes. All this and more to the fool so much as hints at this signaling within my sphere.

Blogger LP999/S.I.G. Burnin' Up! November 05, 2015 9:25 PM  

109 Appalling isn't it, many post american neocon or if they are not neocons are warped - what can they possibly see as good in even the slightest association with a abuser is beyond me. Sick.

Blogger Groot November 05, 2015 11:00 PM  

Pedophiles are dishonorable. Honorable men protect women, children, and stand up for their cohort. Dishonorable swine threaten the weak and backstab their brothers. They should frighten those who depend on them because they betray what is precious and needs trust. Condemn them because they will betray you. Fear these perverts because they will harm you and yours. Maybe not today, but the harm they will purvey is irremediable and it will be your fault, and your shame will never be washed away. Ever.

Blogger pdwalker November 05, 2015 11:38 PM  

@113

Dishonourable? That's among the least of their faults. They're damned monsters! Everything else is secondary.

Blogger Groot November 06, 2015 1:03 AM  

I'm working through a theme here. Honor (or honour, for you Old World Neanderthals) is a rhetorical primitive for men. "Monster" elicits elephant-man pity from women. It's a work in progress as I intellectualize it. In real life, it works great. Questioning a man's honor is most easily done by calling him a pussy.

Blogger pdwalker November 06, 2015 1:15 AM  

Interesting.

Do you think such... men... would actually care about being called a pussy, or questioning their honor? (for you new world types).

Their mindset is just so alien to what I can conceptualize I find it very difficult to imagine what they may think.

I doubt I could test it properly. If I were faced with a known pedo, the urge to beat them to a pulp might throw the test results off slightly.

Blogger SciVo November 06, 2015 1:29 AM  

@ pdwalker: Do you think such... men... would actually care about being called a pussy, or questioning their honor? (for you new world types).

Yes and no. They would be afraid to defend an honor that they don't have.

Blogger Groot November 06, 2015 1:32 AM  

You are funny, man (...) who walks pd's. I don't address the pedo (ew!), but the moderate who would empathize with their plight (per the OP). "Pussy without honor" would work, in my experience. YMMV. I applaud your instinct to beat them to a pulp, though.

Blogger Jack Morrow November 06, 2015 10:35 AM  

I get the impression from Mr. Nickerson ("knickers on"?) that he restrains himself because his desires are so taboo. Would he be willing to exercise such restraint if that taboo were to be removed?

One of the commenters after the NRO article says that it goes from tolerance to acceptance to celebration. He should add one: after celebration comes coercion.

Blogger pdwalker November 06, 2015 11:31 AM  

@118 Groot,

*reading comprehension fail*

I got it now, thanks for the explanation.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts