We told you so. The slope is indeed slippery.

[Mountain Man]

You self righteously claimed that conservative outlets are forced to cover stories that liberal outlets bury.

I made no such claim, you liar. Here's what I actually said:

"The problem with stories like this is that liberals tend to bury them, so you're most likely only going to find it being reported by conservative sources, which of course allows skeptics to suggest some undue bias is influencing the reporting."

If you want to make the opposite claim about certain stories as they pertain to conservative news sources then be my guest, but stop lying about what I said.

[JimL]

Yeah, he was rather passionately defending both IGLA and NAMBLA --- there for anybody to see, in spite of his denials.

No, I was defending IGLA, a human rights organization for the LGBTQ community which you and rogue tried to smear with the charge of pedophilia by associating them with Nambla. I never once defended pedophilia. You sir are obviously just a jackass who, as you said, carefully words your insinuations.

[Cow Poke]

I posted a pretty good sample of Jim's rants, along with the proper quote hyperlinks, so anybody interested can check for themselves.

He, of course, can whine about it all he wants, and pretend it's not what it is, and call names, but it's there for anybody to see.

[Mountain Man]

No, I was defending IGLA, a human rights organization for the LGBTQ community which you and rogue tried to smear with the charge of pedophilia by associating them with Nambla. I never once defended pedophilia. You sir are obviously just a jackass who, as you said, carefully words your insinuations.

You were never accused of defending pedophilia, you were accused of defending NAMBLA, which you very clearly did, even to the point of suggesting that maybe they had a different of definition of "boy" that would somehow make them less creepy. Although I concede that there is a very thin line between defending NAMBLA and defending pedophilia.

[Cow Poke]

You were never accused of defending pedophilia, you were accused of defending NAMBLA,

The boy gets confused, and obviously, this is a very touch subject to him for some reason.

which you very clearly did, even to the point of suggesting that maybe they had a different of definition of "boy" that would somehow make them less creepy.

Which is exactly why I posted a bunch (but not all) of his cites.

Although I concede that there is a very thin line between defending NAMBLA and defending pedophilia.

Why else would NAMBLA exist?

[firstfloor]

Making a study of it does not normalise it. That word demonstrates your fear. The difficulty with this sort of sexual behaviour has to do with consent; which children cannot give. But if you understand what it is you have the chance to put protections in place; so it is right that students are taught these things.

[Cow Poke]

Making a study of it does not normalise it. That word demonstrates your fear. The difficulty with this sort of sexual behaviour has to do with consent; which children cannot give. But if you understand what it is you have the chance to put protections in place; so it is right that students are taught these things.

To whom dost thou speak?

[firstfloor]

To whom dost thou speak?

To Sparko about his slippery slope.

[Mountain Man]

Making a study of it does not normalise it. That word demonstrates your fear. The difficulty with this sort of sexual behaviour has to do with consent; which children cannot give. But if you understand what it is you have the chance to put protections in place; so it is right that students are taught these things.

Age of consent can be changed, and that's where the battle will take place. For the pedophile, there is no moral hurdle to overcome, merely a legal one.

[whag]

Age of consent can be changed, and that's where the battle will take place. For the pedophile, there is no moral hurdle to overcome, merely a legal one.

The age of consent in the 1800s in this largely Christian nation was between 10 and 12. So much for liberal atheists causing moral decay.

MAGA must mean make the age of consent 10 to 12 again.

[Juvenal]

It's a long story -- in a thread on IGLA, Jim seemed to be endlessly defending NAMBLA. In fact, he was rather passionate about it.

I see a whole lot of posts defending IGLA, a few supporting 15-year-old boys having sex with whoever they want to have sex with, a couple more that could be called deliberately naive about what NAMBLA might have been long ago ...


1. "IGLAs admission of them"

2. neither org mentioned

3. neither org mentioned

4. "trying to smear IGLA"

5. "possibilities re IGLA"

6. neither org mentioned

7. "[IGLA] either saw the light"

8. "How does NAMBLA define "a boy?"

9. "doesn't mean that [NAMBLA] supported pedophilia"

10. ...

... and not a single post defending NAMBLA as a pedophile org.

That's a whole lot of posts to support something that's not true:

Jim seemed to be endlessly defending NAMBLA.

Looks to me like you owe Jim an apology.

And just btw, what you've done there is called "hurling an elephant," an old discussion trick where you post enough to be just about guaranteed nobody will check it all out. It's not honest, and this time, I'm pretty sure you knew it wasn't honest when you posted it. Too much effort spent on too many reposts where nobody's being defended for this to be an accident.

I'm calling you out on the lie. You've put him on blast with a 9th commandment violation. I expect better of preachers, in general. Southern Baptists, maybe not so much. Not that I'm complaining. I like a church with low standards. It makes it easier to ante up.

God bless ya, pilgrim.

[Cow Poke]

I see a whole lot of posts defending IGLA, a few supporting 15-year-old boys having sex with whoever they want to have sex with, a couple more that could be called deliberately naive about what NAMBLA might have been long ago ...


1. "IGLAs admission of them"

2. neither org mentioned

3. neither org mentioned

4. "trying to smear IGLA"

5. "possibilities re IGLA"

6. neither org mentioned

7. "[IGLA] either saw the light"

8. "How does NAMBLA define "a boy?"

9. "doesn't mean that [NAMBLA] supported pedophilia"

10. ...

... and not a single post defending NAMBLA as a pedophile org.

That's a whole lot of posts to support something that's not true:

Jim seemed to be endlessly defending NAMBLA.

Looks to me like you owe Jim an apology.

Yeah, well, I don't believe I actually said he was defending pedophilia -- if you can find where I said that, I'll be happy to apologize.

And just btw, what you've done there is called "hurling an elephant," an old discussion trick where you post enough to be just about guaranteed nobody will check it all out. It's not honest, and this time, I'm pretty sure you knew it wasn't honest when you posted it. Too much effort spent on too many reposts where nobody's being defended for this to be an accident.

Yeah, well, it was Jim's elephant poo, and he flung it first.

I'm calling you out on the lie. You've put him on blast with a 9th commandment violation. I expect better of preachers, in general. Southern Baptists, maybe not so much. Not that I'm complaining. I like a church with low standards. It makes it easier to ante up.

And, again, if you can show me where I actually accused him of defending pedophilia....

He was defending IGLA's decision to include NAMBLA, then pretending that NAMBLA wasn't about pedophilia, but was about age of consent. Do YOU believe NAMBLA is "only about age of consent"?

God bless ya, pilgrim.

He does, every day, and I'm very grateful.

So, let's look at what I actually said, in response to Whag's question about Jim that got your panties in a bunch....

Not in so many words, no --- but his adamant defense of NAMBLA as more about age of consent and "what is a boy" was really odd.

Well, let's be really clear - I was very careful how I worded it, and never suggested he was arguing for pedophilia....

Now, since you "called me out on the lie" --- accused me of lying --- it's incumbent upon you to prove the lie --- not just your own elephant hurl.

[Mountain Man]

And, again, if you can show me where I actually accused him of defending pedophilia....

And like I said, a very thin line separates "defending NAMBLA" and "defending pedophilia", so any confusion on this point is understandable, and Jimmy's "maybe they have a different definition of boy" rationalization doesn't really clarify things.

[Cow Poke]

And like I said, a very thin line separates "defending NAMBLA" and "defending pedophilia", so any confusion on this point is understandable, and Jimmy's "maybe they have a different definition of boy" rationalization doesn't really clarify things.

I think what happened is that he jumped in to support Tassman's idiocy, and it spiraled down. I don't think Jim was actually defending pedophilia per se, but in his own inept way, he got so wrapped up in defending IGLA's horrible decision to include NAMBLA that he ended up sounding like he was defending NAMBLA, as well, constantly making excuses for them. And, yes, his now infamous taunt "what is a boy?"

[rogue06]

Yeah, well, I don't believe I actually said he was defending pedophilia -- if you can find where I said that, I'll be happy to apologize.


...



And, again, if you can show me where I actually accused him of defending pedophilia....

He was defending IGLA's decision to include NAMBLA, then pretending that NAMBLA wasn't about pedophilia, but was about age of consent. Do YOU believe NAMBLA is "only about age of consent"?

Yeah, little jimmy was adamantly defending NAMBLA -- which in turn defends pedophilia. So I guess the confusion is sorta understandable.