Anti-paedophile demo - Weymouth

[Jonti]

These things happen, and you take it on yourself to pretend otherwise. Whether this is because you are deluded or dishonest, I do not pretend to know.

I do know you need a holiday!

 

[dylans]

So perhaps we should all stop worrying about rape. Perhaps we are all being manipulated eh

You're right. We definitely shouldn't stop worrying about rape. In fact we should panic. Perhaps we should have a demonstration. Perhaps Ratbook will make us some nice Tshirts. We could hold it in Weymouth and shout "Rapoes out" and "something must be done". Maybe we will get 50 idiots, er I mean, concerned citizens, to join us. We could demand a change in legislation or, er, something. Because we all know that something must be done.

 

[Blagsta]

These things happen, and you take it on yourself to pretend otherwise. Whether this is because you are deluded or dishonest, I do not pretend to know.

I do know you need a holiday!

mental

 

[Blagsta]

fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families

 

[Jonti]

You "diagnosed" SAS as suffering from senile dementia (Alzeimer's) didn't you?

 

[Blagsta]

You "diagnosed" SAS as suffering from senile dementia (Alzeimer's) didn't you?

oh dear

 

[Jonti]

fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families

Me too. You mostly agree with me on this issue as well.

It's not always easy to feel that support from you, you do know that?

 

[dylans]

fwiw i mostly agree with dylans here. Media stories about paedophiles have the hallmarks of a moral panic and divert attention from the issue of child abuse within families

Yes, I think we have pretty much been in agreement on this thread. A first I think since I joined this site

(group hug?)

 

[Blagsta]

Me too. You mostly agree with me on this issue as well.

It's not always easy to feel that support from you, you do know that?

Fuck off

 

[Jonti]

Why not take a holiday? I think you need it.

 

[dylans]

Fuck off

Oh well. I guess the group hug is off then

 

[kenny g]

I came on to this thread with my own personal direct experiences of growing up in a town which had a cluster of paedophile scum. You responded by providing various media links to a couple of incidents of attacks on suspected paedophiles.

You then provided a couple of academic "papers" to back up your position. The main "paper" seemed to be a cut and paste job of US statistics.

You are now providing a parody as original as anything shat out by Mark Thomas on a bad day.

It is you whose opinions seem to be clouded by the media. It is you who have resorted to a broadsheet media scare about the effects of a tabloid media scare when responding to a perfectly reasonable proposal.

Now you seem to be suggesting that if people are concerned about rape they are just products of the media.

 

[existentialist]

You know Dylan's it's not even what you're saying, but the way you're saying it that is doing no favours at all to your argument.

I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the flaws in the argument rather nicely.

 

[kenny g]

I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the flaws in the argument rather nicely.

It is a straw man argument. He has pushed his moral panic agenda onto the thread when no-one was engaged in a moral panic. He just believes that anyone who has an opinion on how to tackle paedos that is different to his own is subject to a media induced hysteria.

 

[existentialist]

It is a straw man argument. He has pushed his moral panic agenda onto the thread when no-one was engaged in a moral panic. He just believes that anyone who has an opinion on how to tackle paedos that is different to his own is subject to a media induced hysteria.

Oh, come on. The entire thread is about a particularly numbskulled bit of misinformed moral panic. This thread couldn't be a better example of the idiocy of this hysterical rabble-rousing that the "paedophile question" always descends to. With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.

 

[Jonti]

There's a lot of it about!

I'd suggest that the crude abuse that comes dylans way (and not just dylans) is sufficient evidence of that!

 

[dylans]

Kenny G I came on to this thread with my own personal direct experiences of growing up in a town which had a cluster of paedophile scum. You responded by providing various media links to a couple of incidents of attacks on suspected paedophiles.

Oh dear, we are back to shouting "scum" again

Kenny G You then provided a couple of academic "papers" to back up your position. The main "paper" seemed to be a cut and paste job of US statistics.

Those damn facts and figures, them always get in the way of a good lynch mob don't they?

You are now providing a parody as original as anything shat out by Mark Thomas on a bad day.

Well thank you for the compliment. I wish I was nearly as funny as Mark Thomas but did you like my posters? I can be hired for all moral panic campaigns. PM me for rates.

Now you seem to be suggesting that if people are concerned about rape they are just products of the media.

No. I'm suggesting that if people were to believe there is a growing "rape" problem and started demanding "something be done" and marching around Weymouth screaming "rapoes out" on the basis of sensational tabloid scare stories, they are being manipulated by the media.

 

[kenny g]

Oh, come on. The entire thread is about a particularly numbskulled bit of misinformed moral panic. This thread couldn't be a better example of the idiocy of this hysterical rabble-rousing that the "paedophile question" always descends to. With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.

YOU are the one whose vision has been distorted. Show me one place where I have argued for paedo beasts to be hurt or killed.

 

[kenny g]

Those damn facts and figures, them always get in the way of a good lynch mob don't they?

Where have I argued for lynching? You are doing yourself a dis-service by resorting to this level of argument. It is you who is resorting to tabloid land by positing anyone who opposes you to being a Viz like stereotype. It is demeaning to your own abilities. AND you are making a lot of assumptions about a few people from a photograph. Probably assumptions that are media fed.

 

[dylans]

paedo beasts

LOL You crack me up Kenny. Bless you mate

It is you who is resorting to tabloid land by positing anyone who opposes you to being a Viz like stereotype.

If the cap fits Kenny.

AND you are making a lot of assumptions about a few people from a photograph.

And a video, don't forget the video. Glad you recognise it is a few people though. So much for community concern. 50 idiots and a Ratbook banner LOL

 

[existentialist]

YOU are the one whose vision has been distorted. Show me one place where I have argued for paedo beasts to be hurt or killed.

I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.

But your posts - and the emotive and dehumanising terminology you use - are perfect examples of the crude techniques that those clinging to that kind of agenda use to paint the situation in dramatic, colourful terms.

Terms which grossly misrepresent the actual situation, and which do nothing to make life easier for the majority of sexually abused children to whom your cartoonish stereotypes of "paedo beasts" means nothing, given that their abuser may well have been a trusted, or admired family member or other connection, and who fear that their own disclosures will result in the same hate and fury being directed at their abuser.

You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you will conspicuously fail to produce any number which show other than that all but a small part of the abuse committed against children is carried out by people unrecognisable from your crude stereotypes.

But, hey, why let's bother about facts when we've got invective instead?

 

[dylans]

I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.

But your posts - and the emotive and dehumanising terminology you use - are perfect examples of the crude techniques that those clinging to that kind of agenda use to paint the situation in dramatic, colourful terms.

Terms which grossly misrepresent the actual situation, and which do nothing to make life easier for the majority of sexually abused children to whom your cartoonish stereotypes of "paedo beasts" means nothing, given that their abuser may well have been a trusted, or admired family member or other connection, and who fear that their own disclosures will result in the same hate and fury being directed at their abuser.

You can quibble about the numbers all you like, but you will conspicuously fail to produce any number which show other than that all but a small part of the abuse committed against children is carried out by people unrecognisable from your crude stereotypes.

But, hey, why let's bother about facts when we've got invective instead?

This sums it up in a nutshell.

 

[_angel_]

I beg to differ. I think dylans' parody of the moral panic about paedophiles is a very elegant way of making the point. Obviously, it won't persuade those who are truly wedded to their moral panics and folk devils, but I think it highlights the flaws in the argument rather nicely.

fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.

 

[kenny g]

I never said anything about you arguing for "paedo beasts" to be hurt or killed.

With anyone advocating anything short of flaming torches being personally attacked and shouted down, as ever.

What does that mean then?

And yes, I make no apologies for calling evil beasts evil beasts. What would you call them?

 

[dylans]

What does that mean then?

And yes, I make no apologies for calling evil beasts evil beasts. What would you call them?

Criminals

 

[dylans]

fine if you want to look like a know it all hammering home a point in a very obvious fashion.

More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.

 

[_angel_]

Are "flaming torches" "lynch mobs" and "pitchforks" are to this argument, as to what "Jeremy Kyle" and "plasma screen tvs" are to lazy right wingers who think they're being hilarious about the "whey faced chavs" on council estates.

 

[_angel_]

More celebrating ignorance. This anti intellectualism you are so fond of is incredibly tedious. Thinking isn't bad.

Celebrating ignorance -- where?????
Or is that simply disagreeing with you, how incredibly arrogant.

 

[dylans]

Are "flaming torches" "lynch mobs" and "pitchforks" are to this argument, as to what "Jeremy Kyle" and "plasma screen tvs" are to lazy right wingers who think they're being hilarious about the "whey faced chavs" on council estates.

And what "pedo beasts" in the park handing out bags of sweets are to those blinded by moral panics

 

[_angel_]

And what "pedo beasts" in the park handing out bags of sweets are to those blinded by moral panics

I believe "handing out bags of sweets" and "blinded by moral panics" are two more of yours.