Pedophile identifies as 9 year old

a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: jjkenobi

What is inexcusable and should be punished is any kind of abuse of another human being.

What is hard to understand about that?

For once, we agree.

But what are unacceptable insanity defenses?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

The question has become "what can we not identify as?" There is no discernbble end to this madness.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

But in today's world, that wouldn't garner as much sympathy as pretending to be a 9 year old.

What support has this bull# defense garnered? None? So in effect, you're saying it wouldn't have garnered as much sympathy as no sympathy at all?

It's irrelevant (to them), there is absolutely zero "support," for this, I have yet to see a single post "supporting," or "defending," this, yet it will not stop folks from telling lies about how people "will," defend this and how awful these people are... and it's all bundled in with identity politics used to smear an entire demographic.

It's ATS, what do you expect? It's an echo chamber, no one is actually defending or supporting this, but certain people will claim otherwise because it's concrete reinforcement of confirmation biases.

Oh well. The people who claim that "Dems will have pedo support on their ticket," are emotionally charged and can't see the forest.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

The question has become "what can we not identify as?" There is no discernbble end to this madness.

If there are rules as to what you can and cannot define yourself as, then wouldn't that imply that this type of self identification is artificial?

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

But in today's world, that wouldn't garner as much sympathy as pretending to be a 9 year old.

What support has this bull# defense garnered? None? So in effect, you're saying it wouldn't have garnered as much sympathy as no sympathy at all?

It's irrelevant (to them), there is absolutely zero "support," for this, I have yet to see a single post "supporting," or "defending," this, yet it will not stop folks from telling lies about how people "will," defend this and how awful these people are... and it's all bundled in with identity politics used to smear an entire demographic.

It's ATS, what do you expect? It's an echo chamber, no one is actually defending or supporting this, but certain people will claim otherwise because it's concrete reinforcement of confirmation biases.

Oh well. The people who claim that "Dems will have pedo support on their ticket," are emotionally charged and can't see the forest.

Oh course no one on ATS will openly support this. Its about people not on this forum that might.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: ketsuko

What a crock of sh@t

No it's not.

My entire point throughout this thread has been the same as DB's above only on a much more devil's advocate level.

Whenever it is convenient for them, the left will defend to the death someone who comes out and says they are a yellow-winged dragonkin and an overly ornate expansive building, both at the same time, and since this person works at Google, they get to give seminars to their coworkers about what it's like to be a dual person and how others should address them because they are two persons at once.

Yes, this is in James Damore's legal complaint, documented as actually happening there.

This "people" has every right, according to the current MO of leftist, SJW identity politics to exist and demand the rest of the world play along with their fantasies of exactly who and what (how many what's in fact) they choose to believe they will be, even if it means they are traveling through life in the physical, biological body of an adult male and also choose to identify as female and therefore get to use the little girls' rooms and locker and dressing rooms. It would be hateful and bigoted for *anyone* to suggest otherwise or refer to them in any way other than what they personally demand according to many on this thread.

You see, just because that people has trangressed beyond our personal bounds of what we are prepared to consider does not mean that social progress for progressives will cease.

However, when this 9-year-old manchild does it, and it violates man of these same people's personal bounds ... you don't stop to consider what has just happened. You've been left behind by the social progressive wave, my friends.

Stop and ask yourself why you suddenly have stopped bending over backward to accommodate this person in his fantasy of who and what he chooses to believe he will be, and ask yourself why is he so different from the people I described above. And then go one step further ... if you are unwilling to demand that you personally accommodate him in this, then why do you go so far as to pillory those who are not quite ready to fully accommodate yellow wingless dragonkin who also identify as expansive ornate buildings in every way?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

The question has become "what can we not identify as?" There is no discernbble end to this madness.

If there are rules as to what you can and cannot define yourself as, then wouldn't that imply that this type of self identification is artificial?

So are you saying I am not an attack helicopter?

I'm gonna need a minute to process..

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

The question has become "what can we not identify as?" There is no discernbble end to this madness.

If there are rules as to what you can and cannot define yourself as, then wouldn't that imply that this type of self identification is artificial?

Absolutely. We are at the point in our society where the natural flow of social theoritical frameworks are now being taken and reworked.

Its like replacing all the parts of an already built house.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

But in today's world, that wouldn't garner as much sympathy as pretending to be a 9 year old.

What support has this bull# defense garnered? None? So in effect, you're saying it wouldn't have garnered as much sympathy as no sympathy at all?

It's irrelevant (to them), there is absolutely zero "support," for this, I have yet to see a single post "supporting," or "defending," this, yet it will not stop folks from telling lies about how people "will," defend this and how awful these people are... and it's all bundled in with identity politics used to smear an entire demographic.

It's ATS, what do you expect? It's an echo chamber, no one is actually defending or supporting this, but certain people will claim otherwise because it's concrete reinforcement of confirmation biases.

Oh well. The people who claim that "Dems will have pedo support on their ticket," are emotionally charged and can't see the forest.

Oh course no one on ATS will openly support this. Its about people not on this forum that might.

Not might, do. Google "pedosexual support groups".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jjkenobi

Because it deals with children.

Adults can consent, children can't.



Other than that, I thought it was okay (and supported and defended) to identify as anything or as any gender or as any race.

The question has become "what can we not identify as?" There is no discernbble end to this madness.

Is Trans-Black still a thing?

You'd think that would be unacceptable, but that Rachel Dolezal made it OK I guess.

Right side of history and all that I suppose.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Wardaddy454

But in today's world, that wouldn't garner as much sympathy as pretending to be a 9 year old.

What support has this bull# defense garnered? None? So in effect, you're saying it wouldn't have garnered as much sympathy as no sympathy at all?

It's irrelevant (to them), there is absolutely zero "support," for this, I have yet to see a single post "supporting," or "defending," this, yet it will not stop folks from telling lies about how people "will," defend this and how awful these people are... and it's all bundled in with identity politics used to smear an entire demographic.

It's ATS, what do you expect? It's an echo chamber, no one is actually defending or supporting this, but certain people will claim otherwise because it's concrete reinforcement of confirmation biases.

Oh well. The people who claim that "Dems will have pedo support on their ticket," are emotionally charged and can't see the forest.

Oh course no one on ATS will openly support this. Its about people not on this forum that might.

Not might, do. Google "pedosexual support groups".

Oh I meant the average Jane/Joe voter out there.

I wouldn't be surprised if those groups are sending lawyers to this man.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: jjkenobi

What is inexcusable and should be punished is any kind of abuse of another human being.

What is hard to understand about that?

For once, we agree.

But what are unacceptable insanity defenses?

Any defense is “allowed” to be made. One has to prove their defense is true. Insanity pleas usually require substantiation by medical healthcare professionals. Even if insanity is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (and I predict this guy won’t be able to, solely based on his photograph), it doesn’t mean the act is now approved or condoned.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Is Trans-Black still a thing?

You'd think that would be unacceptable, but that Rachel Dolezal made it OK I guess.

Right side of history and all that I suppose.

Denying reality in favor of fantasy causes all sorts of problems.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: ketsuko

What a crock of sh@t

...demand the rest of the world play along with their fantasies of exactly who and what (how many what's in fact) they choose to believe they will be...

Despite the dishonest attempts to curb the conversation another way that's easier for them to attack, this is precisely what the whole point of this thread was. It's not about demonizing anyone who "identifies" as something they're not. I could not care less what someone wants to pretend they are on their own time as long as they're noth bothering anyone else.

The problem is that # like this story is the inevitable evolution of pushing the idea that everyone else needs to bend over backwards to accommodate your self-identification. Laws need to be changed, people need to be forced to participate in your endeavors, force women to wait in longer lines to use the bathroom because of some guy who wants to be a girl and could've gone in the men's room and used the urinal which he is actually equipped to use.

That's the problem. Do whatever you want, just leave the rest of us out of it. And the idea that this is a "bigoted" stance is what enables creeps like this to actually think he has a solid defense here and that people who aren't ok with his actions are the ones in the wrong.

Even if he did identify as a nine year old trapped in a mans body... since when do nine year olds have a right to molesting girls of their own age ? Most normal kids aren’t having sexual encounters at that age unless they’ve been coached or enticed through media or by older teenagers or adults.

This is just more ludicrous reasoning by desperate pervs trying to avoid accountability.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: jjkenobi

What is inexcusable and should be punished is any kind of abuse of another human being.

What is hard to understand about that?

For once, we agree.

But what are unacceptable insanity defenses?

Any defense is “allowed” to be made. One has to prove their defense is true. Insanity pleas usually require substantiation by medical healthcare professionals. Even if insanity is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt (and I predict this guy won’t be able to, solely based on his photograph), it doesn’t mean the act is now approved or condoned.

I know all of that. I'm more just imagining a scenario with a judge scoffing and looking over his/her glasses at the defense lawyer in incredulity.

Wouldn't he just be mentally retarded then, if he was a nine year old on the inside? So even if someone agrees with him it would just mean they'd have to institutionalize him. His birth certificate would show he is not actually 9 years old, if it wasn't obvious already. And being retarded doesn't give you the right to molest children.

Being woman gives you the right to use women's bathrooms, so that's a more complicated issue.

a reply to: face23785

Yeah, well, I spent some unhappy years in my childhood being bullied. I really wished through them that I would suddenly turn into a horse. Who knew that if I'd only been born a few decades later, I could just simply declare that I was one and all my wildest dreams would come true? *sigh*

originally posted by: Sheye
Even if he did identify as a nine year old trapped in a mans body... since when do nine year olds have a right to molesting girls of their own age ? Most normal kids aren’t having sexual encounters at that age unless they’ve been coached or enticed through media or by older teenagers or adults.

This is just more ludicrous reasoning by desperate pervs trying to avoid accountability.

Well the problem is then you get into a different legal situation. An adult male that engages in any sexual activity with a 6 year old girl is committing a serious felony, even if the girl didn't object, because she can't consent. If an actual 9 year old touched a 6 year old girl's parts with or without consent, would he be tried on felony charges in adult court? No. So even allowing any "even if" conversations is dangerous.