Merged Things that Bubba finds interesting or newsworthy

[carlitos]

Pedophiles in power in Europe and hollywood

Playboy makes their centerfold 1/3 bigger.

A sane person thinks “bigger photo of naked centerfold”

A nut bar thinks it’s to allow would-be pedophiles to view the younger photos from a different page folded up against the centerfold’s stomach or whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Pacal View Post

The juxtaposition of little girl photos and nude photos does not prove in the slightest a pedo purpose. Ms. Reisman is simply engaged in looking for a pattern which of course she will find because it fits her agenda. The idea that this is designed to habituate people to pedo practices is utter bull and something Ms. Reisman pulled from her backside.

Please present the evidence that pedophiles use Playboy for erotic purposes in any numbers.

Yes facts are facts. And the following are also "data points". Ms. Reisman is a liar, distorter and true believer out on a crusade against "evil". She deliberately and coolly lies to advance her agenda has illustrated by her lies about Gay people. She is to use a descriptor a fanatic who does not hesitate to use foul means to destroy her enemies.

Her "research" about Playboy's alleged, fantasized pedo agenda is par for the course for a established liar and falsifier. Ms. Reisman's fantasies regarding the reasons for the juxtaposition is of course just that deranged fantasies.

Please present the "evidence" that pedophiles routinely masturbate to such juxtapositions. ...

...Also present the evidence that Playboy was deliberately playing for the pedo market.

The paper is primarily about sexualization of kids by playboy. Boys and girls.
I would not claim either of your two were (hilited items) I did not see them asserted by anyone. Hence, they remind me of strawmen.

Nope the paper was primarily about fanatic / liar who distorted and falsified to advance an agenda. I have read other pieces of crap by this liar and the insinuations in the paper you refer too are rather clear and they more than just subtly hint that Playboy was playing to the pedo market. Of course if there was no actual plan to corrupt Americas morals by planting pedo propaganda, deliberately in Playboy, then of course Ms. Reisman's grand narrative of a vast conspiracy to corrupt America's morals and turn us over to the Gay Mafia planning another Holocaust. If it just sexualization of children done without such an intent then Ms. Reisman's grand narrative falls apart.

Below is the only appearance, once, of the p-word:

...the new four-fold design creates neuronal pathways that must link innocent children with strong Playboy orgasm-based stimuli. Inevitably this stimuli effects how children inside and outside the home are perceived and treated by pedophiles and/or Playboy users.

God what a collection of addled bull*! I note that it seems to exactly say that pedophiles and others will masturbate to this stimuli. Of course Ms. Reisman presents zero evidence for her neuronal pathways etc., bull.

I posted the paper because it seemed relevant. It seemed to imply that the juxtaposed kid pics could promote pedo like thinking in non pedos. If I am wrong about that, so be it. The sexualization of kids in general is relevant IMO. I think the paper correctly portrays how playboy sexualized kids, and then quit when someone turned a light on it.

You do realize that the sexualization of children in our society is sadly very common. Just look at infant Beauty Pageants, and other crap. Or are Beauty Pageants for kids part of the conspiracy? But you see Ms. Reisman had and has little interest in that. She is a believer in a massive conspiracy to corrupt American morals and lead us down the garden path to a depraved future of totalitarian horror. Thus her writings and "research" are all tailored to prove this point in her battle to impose her vision of proper morality. Thus she demonizes Gay people, focuses on Playboy Magazine and ignores such things as the Purity Balls etc., which don't fit her agenda.

Ms. Reisman is a liar and a certified conspiracy spouting loon. All of which is easily documented. Nothing she says or writes can be taken seriously until proven otherwise.

 

[bruto]

Now I'm ready to entertain the notion, advocated by many, that the Playboy portrayal of femininity is not the best, and that women can be and no doubt are exploited in all sorts of ways, and that the Playboy bunny and centerfold and what not represent something far less than the best in society. But if, as a start, we accept that the nude centerfold pinup sort of image is not itself wrong, then let's get real. Those women did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus or something. They are people who were little girls before they were women, and if one is trying, however feebly, to characterize them as whole people, then one of the rather obvious things to do is to tell their life story as people, and guess what? That story begins with them as little girls. Maybe, just maybe, the craziness is not in the way the story is told, but in the way it is read by misguided mushheads who can't themselves look at a little girl without immersing her in their own fantasy of lewdness.

 

[Marcus]

Now I'm ready to entertain the notion, advocated by many, that the Playboy portrayal of femininity is not the best, and that women can be and no doubt are exploited in all sorts of ways, and that the Playboy bunny and centerfold and what not represent something far less than the best in society. But if, as a start, we accept that the nude centerfold pinup sort of image is not itself wrong, then let's get real. Those women did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus or something. They are people who were little girls before they were women, and if one is trying, however feebly, to characterize them as whole people, then one of the rather obvious things to do is to tell their life story as people, and guess what? That story begins with them as little girls. Maybe, just maybe, the craziness is not in the way the story is told, but in the way it is read by misguided mushheads who can't themselves look at a little girl without immersing her in their own fantasy of lewdness.

One would think this would be obvious to everyone other than dingbats like the author of that piece but evidently not.

 

[Dabop]

Henri, you appear to be eagerly quoting every baseless, ******** witchhunt claim you can find. Is it actually your plan to cry wolf so many times that everyone ceases to believe child molesters even exist?

This point has been made many times about several "satanic pedophile ring" hoax promoters in the UK, one of whom actually hosted a convicted pedophile in her own home, then delayed reporting his disappearance when he fled to escape justice
Others regularly promote extreme views and associate them with the known hoaxes concerning satanic child abuse/murders etc (ie that they happen when no evidence exists that they did happen, some have been investigated and found to be false)

So yes there is considerable speculation that at least some of these people are doing it deliberately in order to promote the idea that anyone who reports child abuse is a nutcase, something that real abusers and pedo's would find very helpful

This in no way validates the 'pedophiles rule hollywood/parliament' narrative the hoaxers often promote, but does make one wonder about their real motives when they continue to associate with known child abusers/molesters IRL....

 

[Dabop]

And seriously...
rense.com???
trash is an insult to real garbage!
(real garbage was at one tme useful, rense.com has never had that distinction)

If rense said the sun rose in the east, I'd be waking up tomorrow and looking west to watch it rise there
because its MUCH more likely the earths rotation stopped and started again going backwards than 'the truth' as appears on rense.com being anything like the truth...

 

[Axxman300]

The paper is primarily about sexualization of kids by playboy. Boys and girls.
I would not claim either of your two were (hilited items) I did not see them asserted by anyone. Hence, they remind me of strawmen.

You don't give a crap about pedophilia, you are only here to troll. Don't lecture us about straw-men when you're the basket weaver here.

Below is the only appearance, once, of the p-word:

...the new four-fold design creates neuronal pathways that must link innocent children with strong Playboy orgasm-based stimuli. Inevitably this stimuli effects how children inside and outside the home are perceived and treated by pedophiles and/or Playboy users.

And it's a lie. A LIE.

This is the kind of BS you get when a layman tries to make a scientific statement with out having the background, nor doing the research, and making a claim based on uniformed observations.

I posted the paper because it seemed relevant. It seemed to imply that the juxtaposed kid pics could promote pedo like thinking in non pedos. If I am wrong about that, so be it. The sexualization of kids in general is relevant IMO. I think the paper correctly portrays how playboy sexualized kids, and then quit when someone turned a light on it.

You can't promote pedophilia. There is no advertising that can take a normal adult and make them comfortable buggering little kids. Playboy included the photos of their centerfold's family photos as part of their "Girl Next Door" narrative (usually showing how they grew out of their awkward phase).

The real causes of pedophilia are many, some are subtle, and a few are tragic. Many predators have suffered brain injuries (concussions) as children, which led to abnormal learned behaviors in puberty which they never grow out of as adults. Example: Playing doctor. Many of us did that as kids. The pedophile did it too, but due to brain injury he never grows out of that first encounter with another naked human, and that age is frozen in their mind. Normal people mature in their desires and expectations while the pedophile never does.

Playboy magazine has nothing to do with this.

The major change in the pedophilia word is the internet. They can now find each other and share their sick pornography with ease, and thanks to the dark web, undetected.

None of the material they share is Playboy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This matter is difficult to detect if Heath's former colleagues all categorically deny it and the victims are regarded by the police as fruitloops. The Mail on Sunday and the Chief Constable of Wiltshire are a bit more sceptical:

www.barthsnotes.com/2017/10/0/mail-...s-of-edward-heath-child-sex-abuse-allegations

Well, for a start, these are unevidenced claims about a report yet to be released, from unknown sources, from a paper notorious for inaccurate and untruthful reporting.
Secondly, the report is a police investigation into the allegations. It should come as no surprise to anyone that this report would mention the allegations. What the article does not say, of course, is whether the allegations were true: it says only that the police would have questioned Heath if he had still been alive.

The Mail is trying very hard to make something out of nothing, methinks.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I hesitate to believe as I am reminded that sometimes investigations can actually be cover-ups. Naturally we sometimes may not know whether or not we are looking at a high level cover up. Trust in media is another issue. Sometimes accusations are false too.

I refer you back to my comment about baseless witchhunting.
Someone is accused of paedophilia. They deny it. "Aha!" scream the witchhunters, "He must be guilty! We don't believe you! Send in the police!"
The police investigate. No evidence is found. "Aha!", cry the witchhunters, "It's a cover-up! The government is protecting their own!"
This is exactly how the witch-hunts of old were conducted. Once accused, there was simply no way to prove your innocence. Most of us look back at this time with a sense of horror and pity, that so many were subjected to mock trials, in a travesty of justice based on hysteria and spite. You, however, appear to be wishing for its return. Do you really want to live in a world in which justice is conductd on a basis of inescapable accusations, rather than evidence?

The world wide cover-up by the black robe pedophiles in power being an example. Although that problem was recently exposed and prosecuted somewhat, it could still be happening somewhere. It was members of the clergy rather than members of the judiciary in robes. As far as I know we have not yet heard of this problem in the judiciary.

And yet it was uncovered, very publicly so. If powerful clergy could not protect themselves from investigation, why do you contend that politicians could?

Then there is the ubiquitous impediment of denial among certain types, other citizens, parents, and peers & colleagues of the pedos. I'd guess police are the least susceptible to this denial. They work the streets. Then there is the information system's record of reliability, and connections to power to consider. Government has placed agents in gatekeeper positions in media for other reasons, a glimpse of the range of possibilities in one arena of corrupted power, and the black arts of deception.

No-one wants to believe their friends/ colleagues/ loved ones could be child abusers. That is entirely natural. It has no bearing on the progress of police investigations. Every mother everywhere has said that about her criminal son or daughter, yet trials and punishments are carried out regardless.

Evidence, please, for this allegation of government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity. Or indeed, for any other purpose.

 

[Bubba]

cosmic yak said

Evidence, please, for this allegation of government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity. Or indeed, for any other purpose.

Surely you have heard of Operation Mockingbird. We were told it was discontinued after it got outed. We were not told whether or not it was re-named and continues to this day.

government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity

I doubt there is any evidence of "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity, like media not reporting JFK's extramarital exploits back then.

I am not btw saying there actually are gatekeepers in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity.

Of course your straw government-placed media pedo protectors never existed. Never will. Thats how good straw is made. Of course there were volunteer pedo protecting gatekeepers back in the day. Could still be.

Off topic musing:

I wonder if there is data on what % of strawmen are created unintentionally vs intentionally. I have been in face to face conversations where I was sure some were made unintentionally, which is interesting. Intentionally placed strawmen are easy to understand and not so interesting. The spontaneous unconscious creation of unintentional strawmen is more interesting, IMO.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah... none of that is the evidence that was being asked for.

 

[Bubba]

Yeah... none of that is the evidence that was being asked for.

Wow. Of course, demand evidence for a made up strawman.

Cute.

It was like this, my bold:

Evidence, please, for this (non-existent) allegation of (non-existent) government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity. Or indeed, for any other purpose.

 

[tinribmancer]

Seriously, does Google not work where you live?

From the last report that we have over here, it would seem that the Bubbalonian empire has never heard of the name "Google" to begin with.

Shouldn't this be in humour?

Not because it's funny, but where else could silly stuff go.

Maybe a new subforum should be made?

 

[Bubba]

The Strawman. Intentional or unintentional

Sometimes when strawman shows up I wonder whether it was was placed intentionally vs unintentionally.

I wonder is the writer serious, or are they intentionally throwing off the discussion, (the latter being the definition of the term of course).

How can one know?

 

[BStrong]

Wow. Of course, demand evidence for a made up strawman.

Cute.

It was like this, my bold:

Evidence, please, for this (non-existent) allegation of (non-existent) government-placed "gatekeepers" in the media whose job it is to protect child abusers from publicity. Or indeed, for any other purpose.

The subject of this thread is full of something but I don't think it's straw.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Sometimes when strawman shows up I wonder whether it was was placed intentionally vs unintentionally.

I wonder is the writer serious, or are they intentionally throwing off the discussion, (the latter being the definition of the term of course).

How can one know?

Is Strawman some kind of shoddy superhero?

 

[Apathia]

Often it's a case of no true strawman.

 

[Bubba]

Often it's a case of no true strawman.

I thought that by definition, introducing a strawman is always less than honest.

Intentional introduction of a strawman seems a measure of character or integrity. No member here would ever do it intentionally of course. Thats why I got to thinking of unintentional strawmen.

 

[William Parcher]

No member here would ever do it intentionally of course.

That statement is a strawman.

 

[Apathia]

Sometimes it comes with the strawmansplaining.