Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beth · 05-22-2003, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pat Kelly
I know I responded to this before but while I was taking a shower this morning I was thinking about your self-righteous attitude that would enable you to call the FBI or claim to call the FBI regarding the nude images of children I have decided are appropriate content on my website. As you can imagine, I get a lot of this and I doubt you and your family could withstand the same level of scrutiny mine has likely endured and still remain out of prison. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that while the FBI and many others are busy running around chasing after all the child porn, lots of kids are getting killed who could be saved if police resources were put to better use.

I seriously doubt that I was the only one who made a report, but I thought I should 'fess up to it. I also think you should make people aware that your site has these images. I have no desire to be prosecuted simply because I look at someone's web site.

Quote:

Contrary to the opinion of many, this is not really an issue of females protecting children from all the sex hungry drooling males out to rape and murder children.

You're wrong! We want to protect our children from depraved, child molesting fiends.

Quote:

We males have no exclusivity rights when it comes to killing and harming children. In fact, I was just reading another case where another mother killed her three kids perhaps so she too could pursue another love affair. I am not sure of the statistics but someone must have done a study based upon gender to see who is really killing all our kids. I�ll look into it and see if I can find something.

True. There are some women who are ill. Usually a relative or someone close to the family is guilty of murdering a child.

Quote:

Now please do not misunderstand me. I love you females just as much as the next guy. But it seems to me that part of the problem with all this pedophilia and child sex stuff can be traced back to the fact many females have eaten themselves so far out of sexual attractiveness that you now feel threatened and are actually competing with children for the affection of males.

And I say that you are full of shit. Competing with kids?...that's freaking sick! I feel no threat from little kids. I feel no threat as to my attractiveness to the oposite sex, either. But I have absolutely no desire to attract a male who desires children. I have no desire to couple with a sociopath.

Quote:

From this perspective the alleged desire to protect children from sex might actually have more to do with protecting your position within the family against those you view as a threat to your femininity if not potential competition.

No. If my husband screwed around with my kids, his ass would be in jail and then when he got out, I wouldn't care anything about preserving my position in the home. He'd also be lucky if a few relatives didn't mysteriously make him disappear. But I'm fortunate, my husband is just as repulsed by pedophiles as I am.

Quote:

I will bet there is a direct statistical relationship between increased obesity at a societal level and increased instances of adult/child sex. I am sure no one has done that study but I for one would find the results very interesting. Just some food-for-thought and try not to overeat.

Is that an insult? If you are implying that I am a fat, ugly prig, think what you want.

As to your earlier post. I would wake up praying to die because I had such a horrible secret and I would go to bed praying not to wake up and I would cry myself to sleep. I thought it was my fault. I didn't realize that I was victimized by a sick man. My suicide attempts were related to several complex issues, but the abuse was always the root of these issues. You are delusional if you think that an adult abusing a child has no ill effect on them in childhood and later, in adulthood.

keyser_soze · 05-22-2003, 06:38 AM

Quote:

I seriously doubt that I was the only one who made a report, but I thought I should 'fess up to it. I also think you should make people aware that your site has these images. I have no desire to be prosecuted simply because I look at someone's web site.

Not by a long shot...

The Other Michael · 05-22-2003, 07:26 AM

If the general tone of the posts from both sides of this discussion doesn't improve, you're going to see this thread locked as unsalvageable.

The moderator resources only stretch so far, and if we've got to spend an inordinate amount of time in one thread editing out insults (or trying to decide on which side of the line someone's cleverly-worded innuendo is skating) we'll lock that thread to reduce the load.

Attack arguments, not individuals. Civil discourse is a requirement, not an option.

There isn't going to be another warning - you've received a more than sufficient number of them already.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

dangin · 05-22-2003, 07:43 AM

Lock it. PK has nothing new to add, he hasn't since page one.

Buddrow_Wilson · 05-22-2003, 09:09 AM

I'm disgusted that people are reporting this guy to the FBI or other authorities. I haven't been to his site, but from what I gather, the images are not legally child pornography. So apparently you people would have this man's life ruined because of his beliefs? Let alone that such an outspoken person is very likely already under scrutiny.

AquaVita · 05-22-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
I haven't been to his site, but from what I gather, the images are not legally child pornography.

Ok. If you haven't been to his site, and you feel that the images are not child pornography, then what are you so upset about? If they aren't child pornography, the FBI will see that and not be able to touch him.

Quote:

So apparently you people would have this man's life ruined because of his beliefs?

I'm sure none of us wish to ruin anyone's life. We only wish to keep those who would ruin the lives of others, where they belong.(I'm saying that PK belongs anywhere, just that it's up to the FBI and the courts to determine such things)

If one is not breaking the law, then one has nothing to worry about, no? But if one is, then why should we worry about what happens to them? If the law is broken, there are penalties.

I make no apologies for such a system.

christ-on-a-stick · 05-22-2003, 10:41 AM

In addition, I think it should be pointed out that those who did the reporting HAD visited the site and believed that the images in question were possibly in violation of the law. As AquaVita pointed out, that will be for the authorities to determine and if they don't find the images illegal then so be it.

Hedwig · 05-22-2003, 12:06 PM

I think that many of good points have been made by Koy, bg, and others who have attempted to engage Pat Kelly in discussion but so far Kelly has avoided really answering any of them. Doesn't seem like he will.

I refuse to go to Kelly's website based on what I've already heard about it but it sounds like those who did report it were perfectly within their rights to do so.

The AntiChris · 05-22-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hedwig
I refuse to go to Kelly's website based on what I've already heard about it but it sounds like those who did report it were perfectly within their rights to do so.

This is exactly how mass hysteria and witch-hunts start.

I briefly visited Pat Kelly's site and saw nothing I'd call "pornographic".

Chris

beth · 05-22-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The AntiChris
This is exactly how mass hysteria and witch-hunts start.

I briefly visited Pat Kelly's site and saw nothing I'd call "pornographic".

Chris

You probably didn't turn the self sensor off. Also, there is one page that links to many questionable images. If it is child porn and it is already being investigated, I could be in trouble for viewing such things without reporting it.

05-22-2003, 07:26 AM	#143
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	This is a public service announcement If the general tone of the posts from both sides of this discussion doesn't improve, you're going to see this thread locked as unsalvageable. The moderator resources only stretch so far, and if we've got to spend an inordinate amount of time in one thread editing out insults (or trying to decide on which side of the line someone's cleverly-worded innuendo is skating) we'll lock that thread to reduce the load. Attack arguments, not individuals. Civil discourse is a requirement, not an option. There isn't going to be another warning - you've received a more than sufficient number of them already. Michael MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2003, 07:43 AM	#144
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Lock it. PK has nothing new to add, he hasn't since page one.

05-22-2003, 09:09 AM	#145
Buddrow_Wilson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arkansas Posts: 1,589	I'm disgusted that people are reporting this guy to the FBI or other authorities. I haven't been to his site, but from what I gather, the images are not legally child pornography. So apparently you people would have this man's life ruined because of his beliefs? Let alone that such an outspoken person is very likely already under scrutiny.

05-22-2003, 10:41 AM	#147
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	In addition, I think it should be pointed out that those who did the reporting HAD visited the site and believed that the images in question were possibly in violation of the law. As AquaVita pointed out, that will be for the authorities to determine and if they don't find the images illegal then so be it.

05-22-2003, 12:06 PM	#148
Hedwig Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,921	I think that many of good points have been made by Koy, bg, and others who have attempted to engage Pat Kelly in discussion but so far Kelly has avoided really answering any of them. Doesn't seem like he will. I refuse to go to Kelly's website based on what I've already heard about it but it sounds like those who did report it were perfectly within their rights to do so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.