• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler

The Official EADD Paedo Discussion Thread v3 -Nonce-tastic

Again, a universal law surpasses a human law. For instance, the law currently says it's ok to have sex with as many 16 year old girls as I like. Be a real man-whore. I choose not to however, because in my heart I feel it is not right. It is not true to a universal law.

That doesn't really answer the question though. If there is a universal law which all people "know in their heart" presumably that has always been the case, yes? Or certainly since whenever it is you believe humanity was made aware of such a thing. If people have always known this on some level why did they not enshrine these things in laws and societal norms from the start? Why is there so much variation from one country to the next, one culture to the next, one time to the next? Have people been aware of this universal law but just not mentioning it or following it? Or were people not aware of this fact (although it existed in some other sense) and at some point they did become aware of it but also chose to ignore it? Why would that be the case?

Are those 17th Century people all wicked and deliberately going against what they know to be right? This was a very religious period so seems unlikely people would knowingly choose en masse to have laws and societal norms and traditions (like marrying pre-teen girls for example) that they knew in their hearts was wrong because people truly were in mortal fear of their soul to a far greater extent than is common now. If this cardiac knowledge is so clear why is it not clear to so many? There are countless variations on morality and views of absolute right and wrong and they change all the time. How do you know your heart is the one that got it right?
 
Debates like this are partly why i like this place, interesting insight stuff

Totally agree with you Dan, I have just read through the last few pages and it has been full of interesting and insightful posts, great stuff.
 
Or you could just say they are the population of the UK in the seventeenth century. Because that was the law then.

Morals are not science. Laws are culturally specific to fit in with the dominant culture (the rulers) of any particular time. There is no 'universal law'.


Of course there is a universal right and wrong. It's just for a human right and wrong become a matter of recognition, and as it becomes more complex it becomes harder to recognise and we become divided.

Yes, I guess you could say there is a "science" behind morals - some kind of formula; a structure: Does it upset anyone? how much so? Does it violate someones rights? Is the amount of suffering caused to some worth the benefits reaped by another?

The civil law is nothing but a human depiction of right and wrong, subject to corruption.

But there is a universal right and wrong and as individuals we differ in how closely we recognise it. A small percentage of peeps will violate it completely if it means they're gaining in some way - and that means the suffering of innocent children for some. Hence the fact we consider them scum, disgusting people - and this isn't applicable to opiate addicts, jews and other people who have falsely been hated.

Using our scientific formula, we can see that the peado's are causing more suffering to others than the jews.

This is why you can justifiably resent peadophiles more than jews and opiate addicts, and why it's completely unfair to compare them, as they have been previously.


Shambles said:
That doesn't really answer the question though. If there is a universal law which all people "know in their heart" presumably that has always been the case, yes? Or certainly since whenever it is you believe humanity was made aware of such a thing. If people have always known this on some level why did they not enshrine these things in laws and societal norms from the start? Why is there so much variation from one country to the next, one culture to the next, one time to the next? Have people been aware of this universal law but just not mentioning it or following it? Or were people not aware of this fact (although it existed in some other sense) and at some point they did become aware of it but also chose to ignore it? Why would that be the case?

Conformity and influence of others. Interest lies in the acceptance of others, rather than absolute truth. For instance our current government sanction many unethical practices, because not enough people complain about them. Party's that stand for what they deem absolute ethical truth, don't tend to get so many votes.

I see your point though, what we feel right in our hearts, may not necessarily coalesce with absolute truth due to our own ignorance and misunderstanding.




Think this discussion has gone far too elaborate.

Essentially children are beautiful and there existence precious. If a person has the incentive to disturb or ruin this, just for some kind of gratification... and reason to themselves they are ok in doing so, it really suggests something about that person. You are right to consider them wicked in heart, a negative energy, a complete cunt, or whatever expression you deem suitable.

How to deal with that wicked person, is the controversial issue...

 
Last edited:
Of course there is a universal right and wrong. It's just for a human right and wrong become a matter of recognition, and as it becomes more complex it becomes harder to recognise and we become divided.

...This is why you can justifiably resent peadophiles more than jews and opiate addicts, and why it's completely unfair to compare them, as they have been previously.

On right and wrong, in the messy world there are obviously situations where something that's usually 'wrong' becomes 'right' in some people's eyes (like shooting a terrorist about to detonate a bomb (in the myth)) - this requires human judgement, which can obviously come to different views according to culture, viewpoint, place in history, class position etc. You're idea i guess is that there is a right path through all this which god knows, but we can only try to match through being 'godly'. The problem is we've still only ever got humans to do the final decisions, whether they say they're getting it from god or not, so we're back in the same situation of humans deciding.

In the obvious case (watkins et al) it's easy to have simple morals - it's where there are grey areas that it becomes harder to sustain (and in reality it's always a grey area at some level of resolution).

And again no-one compared jews opiate addicts and paedophiles anywhere; they just used them as examples to compare people's reactions to different crimes and (i think) to illustrate that some forms of 'justice' are inherently unjust regardless of the crime (which is often only obvious when transplanted to something you don't think is a crime). (still not hearing much of jesus here (who had so much time for sinners and forgiving))

as you edited... Raas: "You are right to consider them wicked in heart, a negative energy, a complete cunt, or whatever expression you deem suitable. "

Ok, but as sinners, do you (or jesus) love or forgive them? (sorry ;) -see you in theo)
 
Last edited:
I love the way the sun has max in the front page rather than one of his stories. Remember the woman pregnant withr
eight babies,
Interesring reading lads. Horrible folk in positions of power alright.
 
Reading through this thread, I was listening to a podcast a few weeks back that some of you may find interesting if you have time to kill. It's a discussion with a young "self-confessed" (non-practicing) peadophile and some other general comment on what is a really delicate subject. Was fairly interesting. You can listen to it here
 
On right and wrong, in the messy world there are obviously situations where something that's usually 'wrong' becomes 'right' in some people's eyes (like shooting a terrorist about to detonate a bomb (in the myth)) - this requires human judgement, which can obviously come to different views according to culture, viewpoint, place in history, class position etc. You're idea i guess is that there is a right path through all this which god knows, but we can only try to match through being 'godly'. The problem is we've still only ever got humans to do the final decisions, whether they say they're getting it from god or not, so we're back in the same situation of humans deciding.

I'm actually trying very hard to leave religious concepts out of this. There is right and wrong, regardless of what we think or God knows. It is our perception that gives it existence, but it is a law of it's own outside of our control. It's just a case of discovering it, as you would discover a law of physics, or a mathematical equation. The problem with morality as a law amongst humans, is personal agenda and influence of others distorts our reception of it.

Vurtual said:
And again no-one compared jews opiate addicts and paedophiles anywhere; they just used them as examples to compare people's reactions to different crimes and (i think) to illustrate that some forms of 'justice' are inherently unjust regardless of the crime (which is often only obvious when transplanted to something you don't think is a crime). (still not hearing much of jesus here (who had so much time for sinners and forgiving))

Yes they did compare them - in terms of how people can hate all of them. It's a shockingly bad argument, as obviously hate can be misplaced. Peadophillia ruins lives so the hate has a structural basis, unlike the other examples.

Vurtual said:
as you edited... Raas: "You are right to consider them wicked in heart, a negative energy, a complete cunt, or whatever expression you deem suitable. "

Ok, but as sinners, do you (or jesus) love or forgive them? (sorry ;) -see you in theo)
make it the im fucked thread, more suitable for this time and it'll wind up inflo' ;)
 
There is a universal law of what is right or wrong, just like there is a law of physics, a law of attraction, a law of decimal equations etc. It's above human perception

Above
human perception sounds a lot to me like how you would describe the word of God. The laws of physics aren't above human perception. Perception is the interpretation of sensory information. And because it is interpretation, this is why the laws of physics are subject to constant change and evolution. Much like the laws of human society then.

Yes, I guess you could say there is a "science" behind morals - some kind of formula; a structure: Does it upset anyone? how much so? Does it violate someones rights? Is the amount of suffering caused to some worth the benefits reaped by another?

A small percentage of peeps will violate it completely if it means they're gaining in some way
- and that means the suffering of innocent children for some. Hence the fact we consider them scum, disgusting people - and this isn't applicable to opiate addicts, jews and other people who have falsely been hated.

Using our scientific formula, we can see that the peado's are causing more suffering to others than the jews.

This is why you can justifiably resent peadophiles more than jews and opiate addicts, and why it's completely unfair to compare them, as they have been previously.

Hello, I'm from the Daily Mail and I'm here to tell you why the emboldened bit of your quote shows the very opposite of what you say, namely why it shows opiate addicts are scum and need to be exterminated.

Opiate addicts upset any right-thinking person in the land. They are feckless and useless members of a functioning society, totally driven by selfish need rather than the good of all. They cause crime and distress. They mug. They burgle. They leave dirty needles in children's playgrounds. They violate the right to a peaceful existence for the rest of society. They bring guns and violence onto our streets. For the sake of their dirty hit they bring chaos and tears into their own homes, neglecting their children and their spouses. Won't you think of the children, please? The amount of suffering they cause, not just in our country but on a global scale with the wars and instability they bring to other governments, far outweighs what pathetic benefit they seem to think it brings to themselves. By not joining in with society they threaten the very fabric of society itself. As such they are scum. Worse, in fact, than the paedophile scum who at least limit their damage to the odd individual. At least paedophiles work, don't rob. Paedophiles don't bring guns and violence onto the street. Paedophiles don't neglect their children...

Sorry I just spilled semen over my Daily Mail keyboard. But I'm sure you get the picture. Junkies are scum. It's a universal truth.
 
The tabloid media need their scapegoats and "demons"; whether they be "benefit scroungers", "illegal immigrants", "Muslim extremists", paedophiles, "junkies", or jews. The tide of political correctness has turned against open discriminination and anti-jewish propoganda, at least in the mainstream media, at least i have never seen any in my life time. But it doesnt really compute to compare the different "groups" of stereotyped scapegoats and demons. They just need to exist seperately to fuel the endless appetite for peddling ridicilous and ill informed scare-mongering.
 
Yes they did compare them - in terms of how people can hate all of them. It's a shockingly bad argument, as obviously hate can be misplaced. Peadophillia ruins lives so the hate has a structural basis, unlike the other examples.

No they/we didn't compare the crimes (i don't think), they compared people's reactions to them to show the unjustness of capital punishment (or overly vengance-based justice) whatever the crime is - if capital punishment is unjustified for any crime, it's valid to bring any crime in as an example.

And as to what you said above, i can't see how you can conceive of any way that hate is right no matter to who - hate cannot fit with universal love (it's difficult not to relate this to your religious views, but i have that view non-religiously so...). I also think that hate should be nowhere near the mechanisms of justice, or else it's not justice but revenge or something else equally unjust.
 
Last edited:
raas_2012 said:
There is a universal law of what is right or wrong, just like there is a law of physics,

There is no universal law of right and wrong.
 
I'm not talking about shorts and sandals in combination though, am I? Read my post again and notice the 'and / or'.

I'm talking about either one individually. Sandals make you look a tit whichever way you wear them, as do shorts. Never trust men who wear either item.
 
Wow! Third iteration? 8o

I'm wondering whether that says more about EADD or the media's obsession with kiddyfiddlers. Actually, let's not dwell on that.
 
No they/we didn't compare the crimes (i don't think), they compared people's reactions to them to show the unjustness of capital punishment (or overly vengance-based justice) whatever the crime is - if capital punishment is unjustified for any crime, it's valid to bring any crime in as an example.

This Raas. With bells on. What's so hard to understand?
 
Reading through this thread, I was listening to a podcast a few weeks back that some of you may find interesting if you have time to kill. It's a discussion with a young "self-confessed" (non-practicing) peadophile and some other general comment on what is a really delicate subject. Was fairly interesting. You can listen to it here

Jesus man, that voice change thing really creeped me the fuck out last night.
 
Max "the eyebrows" Clifford - an 8 at 71. What a fucking knockback.
 
Fucking hell Raas. Get some reading lessons. And some understanding outside of this good/wicked God bollocks. You're regressing man.

OI. leave raas alone!!!!!!!!
Or I'll permanently ignore you.
raas is the most intelligent person on EADD!
So you can all BACK OFF him ok?!!!!!

Evey
 
Top