Daniel:
"Pvb- Defend each other?
"Are you a fellow pedophile to this man in your thoughts Pvb?"
Actually, I was was referring to Freed's comment. He didn't like Oranges defending me from him "stepping on [my] toes." So, this refers to non-christians defending each other, not pedophiles. But I expect you know this.
"I feel that it is a perfectly logical conclusion to be suspicious that you are. Not to accuse you, but to suspect you of it, as you doth protest too much."
No, you are accusing. And I expected that a denial of your accusation would meet with your "doth protest too much" line. That is why I considered the question dishonest and why I didn't answer. I didn't like your bait.
"Comments are closed on this thread."
Yeah, that's the way to show you weren't making an accusation. Block responses.
Now, let me tell you something about protesting too much. It is when someone who does something tries to hide it by bashing anyone and everyone who does the same thing. He is trying, preemptively to deflect suspicion. No reaction to an actual accusation could be protesting too much. And a refusal to answer it is certainly not protesting too much.
Issuing a challenge and then blocking responses says a great deal about the master you say you serve. I don't know if you will read this. But it would do you some good to take a good look at yourself. Do you like what you see?
------------------------------
Well, anyone else who may be reading this, the link goes back to his thread. I leave it to you to judge whether making an accusation and blocking replies is representative of christian love and honesty.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Labels
- "Expelled" suit (1)
- "satan" (1)
- a prediction (2)
- beliefs (2)
- bible (1)
- christianity (4)
- christians (1)
- comment spam (1)
- correction (1)
- defending hell (1)
- definitions (1)
- distractions in arguments (1)
- evidence (1)
- excuses (1)
- fairness (1)
- false-convert label (1)
- food for thought (1)
- free will (1)
- freethought (1)
- god (4)
- goodbye false prophet (1)
- government (1)
- hell (1)
- imposter (1)
- intelligent design (2)
- is evolution a theory (1)
- judgement (1)
- justifying the flood (1)
- lying (1)
- man up (1)
- morality (2)
- my poll (1)
- objectivity (1)
- omniscience (1)
- pascal's wager (1)
- perspectives (2)
- politics (2)
- poll results (1)
- possibilities (1)
- presuppositional apologetics (1)
- prophecy (1)
- reliable (1)
- religion (1)
- replies (1)
- reply (2)
- respect (1)
- ridicule (1)
- salt of the earth (1)
- science (1)
- story I wrote (2)
- thinking (1)
- understanding (1)
- voting (1)
- work (1)
About Me
- Pvblivs
- I am a skeptic. There is very little that I believe uncritically. <I exist. Other minds exist. My perceptions are generally meaningful and useful (they can successfully predict actions likely to lead to other perceptions.) Pleasure good; pain bad (this applies to other minds as well.)> Pretty much anything else, I will consider what it would mean if it were not true, even if I personally believe it to be true.
25 comments:
Out of topic, I posted this on Comfort's post, dealing with his reply to you:
-----
As usual, Ray isn't being quite truthful here.
Ray Comfort said...
"Pvblivs said...
"Let's ask the question as to which of God's 'rules' is unfair? Is it the one that says it's wrong to lie? Steal? Murder? Adultery? Perhaps it's the one that says that we should love Him above all things."
I would start with the "all have sinned" rule. Then there is the "anger is the same as murder" nonsense. But any being who would make a rule/law requiring that we love him is truly despicable."
Pvblivs . . . Where did you get "anger is the same as murder"?
It's not in the Bible. You are creating a straw man.
The bible does say that "hatred" is the same as murder...
1 John 3:15
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Ok Pvb-
Let's settle this.
It should be easy.
Yes, I am strongly suspicious that you lust after children due to your zealous defense of a man who photographs children in the park, posts them online, and boasts of his lust for them.
You have said that there is nothing wrong or evil about this, but that it is simply "unusual".
And that those who are following this creep, photographing and monitoring his movements, exposing him etc are unfairly "persecuting" an innocent man and are themselves evil/wrong.
So by this, yes I suspect you of having the same thoughts, or even acting on them by similar means.
You can settle this by simply denying that you do.
So do you Pvb?
Do you lust after children?
Yes or No?
After Pvblivs is done smacking you down Dan, you psycho, would you mind terribly if I made a reservation for you in the funny farm?
You are well and truly f****d in the head.
You claim to have met Satan, you brag about harrassing Prince Charles, then you make a martyr of yourself when the authorities wise up enough to toss your ass in jail.
What they should do with you is toss you into the loony bin.
Maybe once your "prophecy" fails, you'll wake up.
I doubt it though.
I've noticed that my comments don't get onto your site anymore, Dani'El...
So, I'll deal with you on these other sites.
Hey Reynold,
I let your comments thru if they are not full of foul language and slanderous rants.
You can set off stink bombs all over if you like, but you only make yourself look bad.
I've answered every charge you made on my blog, but you just want to go round and round, repeating the lie loudly and long enough that it is believed by any who come by without knowing the full story.
BTW. I was arrested before I had said a word to anyone.
1 Week after my eyes were opened in Aug 05, I had not done a thing.
And if you read the comments on the prince Charles post, I defend myself against all those charges there as well.
If you have any thing new to add, without all the gratuitous foul language your weak arguments require, then I'll let them through.
Read through the comments carefully first. I've probably already answered them.
And if you want to join in defending this pedophile, go ahead.
What say you?
Is it wrong to lust after children?
To photograph them in the parks and post them online?
or is it just "unusual"?
That's the topic, it you are capable of being on topic.
I doubt it, you are simply set on attack mode and railing and ranting like one preparing to shoot up a church.
You are the dangerous one, and your kind are killing people every week nowadays.
Daniel:
Specificly, I said that you and Freed were persecuting him, as evidenced by the fact that you think there should be no defense. There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of normal playground activity. The only thing I have zealously defended is the law and the principles behind it. This man simply falls under the aegis of those principles. The people following this person, photographing, and monitoring his movements are engaging in criminal activity. Specificly, they are stalking him. Many of your blog posts are about how you feel you are being stalked. You should be able to relate. That's one reason I don't believe your testimony.
"You can settle this by simply denying that you do."
Not in your mind. You were ready with your "protest too much" line and would have used it the moment I made a denial. I have explained this. If anyone is protesting too much, it is you. Perhaps you are a child molestor and wrote your post as a pre-emptive measure to throw anyone who might be suspicious off the scent. I've read that many "gay bashers" were closet homosexuals. It's the same idea, really. So, no, there is no reason for your "suspicion" nor any reason for me to give it any weight.
"That's the topic, it you are capable of being on topic."
By the way, right now, my thread, my blog, my topic. The topic is your baseless, false accusation against me and your inappropriate use of "protest too much." You are in no position to criticize anyone for being off topic.
More intentional deception on your part.
The pedophile goes beyond simply taking photos, he takes them with evil intent, and follows that evil intent by posting them along with open statements about his lust for them.
Other pedophiles frequent his site and can use his photos to stalk children.
The parents are fully justified in returning the favor.
If the pedophile's actions are legal, the parent's are just as legal.
And your refusal to deny your own lust for children is strange as it clearly incriminates you, making you dishonest for not confessing it, and yet strangely honest enough to not simply lie and deny it.
You are a twisted and confused man Pvb.
By condemning the pedophile's and your own vile lusts, we are not "persecuting" we are simply denouncing his/your evil deeds and desires.
I've got news for you Pvb, before any creep molests a child, he lusts after them.
So that lust always proceeds the actions and this man has even gone beyond simply lusting, but actually taken action in photographing, posting, moving from town to town, because in one case, "there were not enough children" to satisfy his lusts.
I agreed to post here if you would leave it alone elsewhere, and since you did not agree to that, but made your pitiful demand for an apology (what a douche) I am not bound to go any further.
You are a vile snake Pvb.
And you deserve what you got coming to you.
I actually pity you as you seem to be so miserable, but you simply ask for it.
There's a point when a Christian is to move on, shake the dust from their feet, and not cast our pearls before swine.
Good bye, Pvblivs.
And may God forgive you.
"More intentional deception on your part."
I do not seek to deceive. The intentional deception is all yours.
"Other pedophiles frequent his site and can use his photos to stalk children."
No, if he tracked their movements, he would have been jailed for stalking. It is quite plain that there can be nothing on his site to facilitate finding anyone he has photographed.
"I agreed to post here if you would leave it alone elsewhere, and since you did not agree to that, but made your pitiful demand for an apology (what a douche) I am not bound to go any further."
I did not call for any apology. I said that if you wanted me to leave it alone that you would have to remove your false accusation against me and all your references to it. I stated that if you did so, I would remove mine. You didn't do that. You wished to retain your slander against while agreeing to talk about it here as long as no one would ever see my response. That is not acceptable.
"You are a vile snake Pvb."
No, Daniel, you describe yourself.
"You can settle this by simply denying that you do.
"So do you Pvb?
"Do you lust after children?
"Yes or No?"
Well, let's test your claim. Loathe as I am to give your followers the impression that your slander has merit by addressing it directly, I think it is useful to expose your lie. No, I do not lust after children. Are you happy?
Sickening dishonesty daniel. You and freed are using the tactics loved by fascists and propagandists throughout history.
Think about it Daniel. The arguments you make are reprehensible - under your way of thinking, a lawyer representing someone accused (but not yet proven) of any heinous crime would themselves be accused of the same crime! You are actually trying to prevent people from thinking and expressing with intelligence.
Argueing someone protests too much to try and associate them with something is right up there with "if you have nothing to hide...." as the most abused phrases to smear or infringe peoples right to free speech and argument. Its YOUR blog that contains posts about pedophilia, bestiality, amongst other bizarre topics. Someone could suggest YOU protest too much, but actually it would be an invalid argument. And so is yours.
I really have to wonder WHO your "god" is Daniel.
If a just god exists, he sure wouldnt be confiding in YOU, of all people.
However, if an evil vengeful "god" exists .... well, actually, yes, he might find you useful, and might whisper instructions in your ear. Maybe you are in fact receiving instructions from some supernatural being.
But no, I think you're just ill, unhappy, and filled with hatred.
Dani' El said...
Hey Reynold,
I let your comments thru if they are not full of foul language and slanderous rants.
Not my more recent ones, no. And as for "slanderous rants", remember you're talking about your "demon-possessed neighbors"?
You can set off stink bombs all over if you like, but you only make yourself look bad.
Kind of like the stink bombs you make by harrassing people after their wife has died, or running around talking about how their neighbors are demon-possessed?
I've answered every charge you made on my blog, but you just want to go round and round, repeating the lie loudly and long enough that it is believed by any who come by without knowing the full story.
Complete lie on your part; all you've done was throw up a wall of stupid excuses as to why you won't take a bet on whether your "prophecy" will come true or not. If you're so certain that "god" did not "lie" to you, it should be a sucker bet. Instead, you dodge.
BTW. I was arrested before I had said a word to anyone.
1 Week after my eyes were opened in Aug 05, I had not done a thing.
And the charge was...not that it's relevent, really, but you did get arrested for harrassement and making a nuisance of yourself after you got saved becasue of stunts like what you did with Prince Charles. You're lucky they didn't bust you then, too.
Since you got arrested before you got saved, it should tell you that it's not "persecution" from the devil, since you weren't "witnessing" at the time. It should tell you that you're just a natural prat!
And if you read the comments on the prince Charles post, I defend myself against all those charges there as well.
I've read them. All you do is excuse your ass-hattery. You went and railed at a grieving man whose wife had died. You're a complete prick.
If you have any thing new to add, without all the gratuitous foul language your weak arguments require, then I'll let them through.
Maybe, if you ever get some new material yourself. By the way, you are the last person to talk about others' "weak arguments". You tell these idiotic stories of your "wrestling matches" with Satan, and how your neighbors are "demon-possessed" and you expect to be taken at face value??
Read through the comments carefully first. I've probably already answered them.
No, you've just dodged.
And if you want to join in defending this pedophile, go ahead.
What say you?
How's about proving the charge???
Pvblvs has already said that it was referring to non-christians defending each other, not pedophiles!
How dare you criticize others for "slanderous statements" when you're making baseless accusations like that??
You idiot! Don't you realize that the onus is on YOU to prove the charge, NOT on Pvblivs to disprove the charge??
Typical religous mindset: Guilty until proven innocent. F**k that!
Is it wrong to lust after children?
To photograph them in the parks and post them online?
What evidence do you have that this guy is "lusting" after children?
Yes, it is wrong to lust after children.
or is it just "unusual"?
Pedophiles are not as rare as I would wish...neither are wackjobs like you.
That's the topic, it you are capable of being on topic.
Yep. Now, let's see you prove your charges.
I doubt it, you are simply set on attack mode and railing and ranting like one preparing to shoot up a church.
You don't get the difference between posting on a blog and going into a church killing people? Are you really that stupid?
Or are you just trying to "poison the well"? Tough. It seems that this blog is populated by skeptics and not gullible believers, Dani'El, so that trick won't work here.
You are the dangerous one, and your kind are killing people every week nowadays.
Don't be a fool. I'm not the one who has wrestling matches with imaginary beings, or harrasses people after their wives have died. I'm not the one who has been arrested and tossed into jail even BEFORE he became a fundy nut.
"My kind"? Who in hell are they supposed to be? The religous believers who do the suicide bombings, or the religous believers who are killing people over some tract of supposed "holy land"?
Oh, I get it: the atheists who kill anyone for believing in fictional gods.
Man, Dan, you're an idiot.
Dan:
"[Pvblivs],
"First, you claim that thoughts are harmless, but even you know how wrong you are being. If a man came up to you and expressed his desires for your 5 year old daughter you would not join in a light conversation with him. If he expressed a desire to murder your child then that is a punishable offense. Can a child express a desire to murder his classroom openly with out any repercussions? You disappoint me a great deal with your words. You are much smarter then that, so I thought but I was wrong I guess.
"Second, you are complaining that thoughts are harmless and you are getting angry at people at this blog for expressing their opinions and thoughts? Hellloooo! Then you are calling it mob rule? What gives? If thoughts against pedophiles are wrong and a person expressing desires of rape and molestation is not, then you are evil in the highest degree.
"You claimed: 'Because I stand on the principle that such mob action is wrong, you wish to portray as that which you were attacking to begin with.'
"Then Dan'El nailed you to a tree with 'You think mob rule is wrong, but fantasizing about raping infants is only unusual, and not wrong.'
"You must understand this hypocrisy that you are engaged in here.
"I must say this calls for a worldwide rebuking until you realize how wrong you are being. It is you who need to humble yourself and reflect on your own thoughts.
"Try an experiment, call the White House and express a desire to murder and rape the Obama family or children and watch the world come down on you. You are being absurd and shame on you for defending such evil. Shame on you Pvblivs, you better change your thinking to be more logical."
Advocating and encouraging illegal acts is, itself, an illegal act. Advocating and encouraging immoral acts is, itself, immoral. But he didn't do that. If he had, he would have been jailed.
When someone expresses a desire, there is reason for wariness, lest the desire become a reality. I do not find fault with people trying to keep their children away from this person. Tracking him down, posting something on the order of "here is his new address" is stalking. Historically, that has generally been part of a campaign to make sure an "undesirable" can't have an address, a job, any ability to keep living. So, yes, I find fault with that.
"Second, you are complaining that thoughts are harmless and you are getting angry at people at this blog for expressing their opinions and thoughts?"
No, they have crossed over into advocating and encouraging certain actions.
Neither is there any hypocrisy on my part. Mob rule is not the domain of mere thought. It is not even the domain of expressing thought. It is generally the domain of oppressing outsiders.
I need only reflect on the treatment of Galileo to know the type of repercussions that can ensue from speaking one's mind. The fact is that I am opposed to criminalizing thought. As you express a fear that the world may attempt to criminalize christian thought, you might want to reconsider your stance on "you better change your thinking." Here is something to give you a little perspective. Think about it when you wish to rebuke me for speaking up. Also know that I would speak up for you against an oppressor, even though I don't agree with you most of the time. Would you do the same? Your post suggests not.
Pvblivs,
Here is something to give you a little perspective.
Um the Germans were wrong. In our scenario here it was you advocating the Germans actions. Of course I would defend you if you were on the side of good while being oppressed. I cannot advocate impure thought such as that.
Here I will share with you the case I was a part of. The Jury case was two accusers accusing their father of heinous acts against them. I wanted to be on the Jury to make sure justice was served. We find out all the details during the case and I fought hard to set the man free. Two jury members wanted to charge the man with lesser charges to "play it safe" which was absurd and wrong to me. The mother and police were the criminals in that case. I fought hard for an accused molester to be set free and I can sleep good every night with that decision. It was the right thing to do.
Posting the address for this man is justified and legal. All sex offenders under our Megan's Law has to be exposed and announced to the public where they live so we can protect our children from those people. If you remember the neighbor of Megan brutally raped and murdered that poor girl. So I do not advocate for evil whereas you DO. So what if we all know the guys address, that is how we protect our children. You morals are backwards. I see your intent but you are completely wrong. I love you enough to tell you that you stink and in need of a scrubbing. Pvblivs buddy, you stink!
Your morals are backwards.
No, Dan, I am not advocating the Germans' actions here. The Germans' actions were to track and round up any "deviant thought." Anyone who didn't think in an approved manner was at risk. That is the very thing I am denouncing. It is that denouncement that you say deserves rebuke.
"Posting the address for this man is justified and legal. All sex offenders under our Megan's Law has to be exposed and announced to the public where they live so we can protect our children from those people."
Guess what. Legally, he is not a sex offender. He hasn't committed a sex offense. Megan's Law does not apply. Justified is a matter for debate, although I do not agree with you. Legal is not. As he remains not convicted of any crime, posting his movements is illegal. Now, the people in charge of enforcing those laws might look the other way because, like the Germans in the tale, they want to eliminate any "deviant thought." But the statutes are quite clear.
From the original article-
"McClellan has broadcast his feelings on the Internet, where he has discussed locations to see children in public situations and has even posted photos of girls he liked."
Although I cannot find a capture of his site, the story says he "discussed" locations to see children, meaning he was talking with other pedophiles, posting photos of unsuspecting children who could be ID'd by those photos, so I would say this is incitement on some level.
If the man had simply confessed his evil lusts to someone, and it got out, even then, the neighbors would have just cause to spread the word, but he went far beyond that, and now there are many families out there who live in fear, their children's innocent minds disturbed for life.
They must look over their shoulders and take precautions for the rest of their lives.
Their peace has been STOLEN!
Pvb, you are intentionally avoiding the key issue here.
You said that lusting after children is not wrong/evil, but merely unusual. And that in itself is evil. esp when you even twist it so far as to accuse the victims or those like Freed, Dan and I of being evil for our views.
And now you play the martyr.
It is now you who are being "oppressed".
I had enough of it, and you persisted in calling ME evil on other blogs, while I was prepared to drop it.
So you are the one on the attack, and yet I am the one oppressing you?
You know, your logic is often twisted. God is an evil spirit in your mind, everyone, everyone lies about you (and they say I'm paranoid?) and you cannot sleep except you get an apology.
It's to the point that I go beyond revulsion to pity, as I can clearly see that you are a sad, lonely, bitter man.
I truly pray that God makes a change in you Pvb. I would not want to be in that sorry state.
By the grace of God, I was never in such a state that you are in, but He did remove much iniquity from me. I pray He does so for you as well.
Daniel:
You are only trying to steal my peace. Hey, lying about me was very effective at that, for a while. But remember, "you can settle this by simply denying that you do"? Your lie is exposed. The denial posted to your blog met with delete, or, as you claim, "reject."
But, no, I don't claim that Dan is evil. In my mind, to be evil is to do deliberately that which you consider to be wrong. It is not a word I throw around carelessly. Some of Dan's actions, I consider wrong. I seek to convince him, so that those actions may change in the future. But I believe that Dan thinks that he is doing the right thing. You, on the other hand...
Pvblivs,
he is not a sex offender
I thought he got caught and was. Regardless doesn't he admits that he is indeed a pedophile, or thinks as one, so he is indeed a sex offender. A thief that isn't caught is still a thief right? A predator that targets children is a sex offender whether caught or not. He is innocent until proven guilty but his actions proves his guilt.
You may be right and it isn't legal to post his address but I thought everyone's address is part of public domain. I can get names and numbers for every one of my neighbors, in fact I do have them since I volunteered for the Campaign. I am no Lawyer but I believe posting addresses is not illegal. If it is then you are right, they are wrong for doing so and two wrongs do not make a right.
This is one of those issues that gives me pause. Do I look out for the best interest of children, do I protect children from a pedophile? Or do I protect the rights of the pedophile instead? I don't think this was the intentions of our founding fathers but the law is the law of this land. If it is illegal to post about this man's whereabouts and legal for this man to know the whereabouts of children to stalk them then the Laws need to be changed and or broken. Even peaceful civil disobedience is necessary for change sometimes. Remember whites only restaurants? Man's laws are changeable and wrong sometimes but Gods Laws are not and never will be.
Dan:
"A thief that isn't caught is still a thief right?"
But someone who only fantasizes about it is not. If the laws ever criminalize thoughts, no one is safe. That's what makes the issue so clear to me. From what I gathered, no one objected to the fact that he took pictures. (People take pictures in the park all the time. Photographing the innocence of children at play, presumably from a distance, is quite innocuous.) They didn't object that he included the photos on a website. They objected because he admitted they turned him on, or however he phrased it.
I can understand how uncomfortable such a thought is. But, again, if the laws ever criminalize thoughts, no one is safe. That's part of why I thought "I Didn't Speak" was appropriate. This man's thoughts are, indeed, very uncomfortable. Almost no one is likely to speak up for his rights. And then, it just becomes easier and easier to fall silent.
PVB-
Yes or no.
Is it wrong/evil to fantasize about having sex with infants?
Not talking about what is legal or not, is it wrong/evil to fantasize about having sex with infants?
And is it wrong/evil for me to say such fantasies are wrong/evil?
Not taking any action, legal or otherwise. Is it wrong/evil for me to denounce such fantasies?
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
If your peace is removed when I condemn pedophilia, even in thought, then so be it.
Stay away from my blog and you'll feel better.
Daniel:
"If your peace is removed when I [lyingly accuse you of] pedophilia, even in thought, [and delete your corrections] then so be it.
Stay away from my blog and you'll feel better."
I thought it prudent to identify correctly what you are doing in an attempt to steal my peace.
I asked- "Is sexual lusting after children wrong? or just unusual?"
March 26, 2009 7:57 PM
Pvblivs said...
Since what you have described are only thoughts, just unusual. I suspect a bait-and-switch tactic. Assaulting and molesting children is wrong. Thoughts are neither morally right nor wrong. Only actions are.
And yes, the verbosity is needed to "unload" your question.
-----------------------
That's all I need Pvb.
Good-bye.
Daniel:
Yes, quote-mining to pretend that there isn't a broader principle involved suits your style perfectly.
A question
Wasn't god the one who ordered the Hebrews to slaughter all men women children cattle etc. except for girls that had never known a man. Those they could use.
Now i read somewhere that most girls were married off back then as soon as they started menses. That means the girls that were taken and raped by order of god were children.
Gee that's not good is it Dan'Eel
Post a Comment