Posted: Dec 15, 2016 6:50 pm
Fallible wrote:The_Metatron wrote:Fallible wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:The_Metatron wrote:
You seem to know much more than I about sadism.
Do I? And where did you pull this latest piece of irrelevant nonsense from exactly?Here I was thinking it was about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain.
You were talking about someone taking pleasure from someone else's pain caused by torture. But you added that part later, which is what I just said.Are you, and Rachel apparently, telling us that the method of inflicting that pain matters?
Obviously you are, or why would you have added torture to your story?[Reveal] Spoiler:No, I'm telling YOU, singular, that you just shifted the goal posts from your original comment, which in turn you made off the back of the discussion about the Vietnam photo. Torture did not feature in the discussion which led to your comment, and it didn't feature as a part of your desire to murder someone until you introduced it a few pages ago. I really wish you'd stop posting emotionally about this topic, because you're just blindly lashing out quite aggressively at people, and jumping to some quite strange conclusions. No, I don't expect you to respond positively to that wish. I still wish it though.
Well, the likelihood of a sadistic pedophile existing that has the resources and ability to prosecute an entire war just to drop napalm on nine year old girls seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
On the other hand, we do know of instances of sadistic pedophiles who actually did torture girls.
Bring it home. Go have a look at some of the shit Marc Dutroux did. To your little girl.
What the hell are you even talking about? I'm not saying there aren't any paedophiles who torture girls. I know who Marc Dutroux is, I don't need to look him up. I'm saying that you've changed your story.
I didn't think you to be so easily confused. But, to satisfy your pedantry, you're perfectly right. I originally posted this:
The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.
Not being overly selective about the manner in which the girls' skin was burnt off, I substituted the word torture to describe it. In point of fact, I added that description in reply to Thomas' request for clarification here:
The_Metatron wrote:Thomas Eshuis wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:Let's try again
You Metatron, posted this:The_Metatron wrote:Alternatively, if some motherfucker actually exists that gets sexual gratification from seeing a photo of a naked girl with half her skin burnt off, I will volunteer to remove the burden of further existence from said motherfucker.
This reads to me as that you think that when someone experiences involuntary sexual pleasure from witnessing imagery similar to the Phuc picture, you would like to kill them.
My question is, why?
Now if I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, do clarify.
Not just pedophilia, mind you. Pedophilia mixed with torture.[Reveal] Spoiler:The simple answer is that such a man would be an unacceptable risk to society, a horribly unacceptable risk to the most vulnerable members of society.
Is my reaction over the top? Probably.
Fortunately there are damned few Dutreoux's in the world. My services are wildly unlikely to be needed.
Fallible wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:What's more, you made somewhat of a deal about clarifying that you weren't just wishing to kill any old run of the mill paedophile, no. You clarified:Further, I didn't extend my offer of violence to simply "pedophiles", did I? More of that straw man business? No, I was a fair bit more specific, wasn't I? I'll reiterate for you: torture of girls.
No, you were NOT a fair bit more specific, this is either a lie or a mistake. YOU introduced torture of girls, later. You can't now try to make torture the big difference. It wasn't even spoken about until you added it.
Yes, I did add that word, to explain to one who failed to understand what I originally wrote. And I'm not making it a "big difference", as you claim. As I think about it, the idea of getting sexual gratification from half burnt naked girls, regardless of how they came to be in that situation, is pretty much the same, isn't it? Come to think of it, it was you who pointed it out as if it mattered, wasn't it?
Having now reviewed who wrote what, when, and why, do you still conclude that the intent of my original and subsequently clarified post in any way describes your typicl run of the mill pedophile? Are you now clear?
Fallible wrote:Then tell us how you wouldn't pinch his neck shut if you had the chance.
Hello?? I haven't said I wouldn't. I haven't said I wouldn't think exactly the same as you. That was never my argument. I'm the one who said that WE ALL have unacceptable thoughts, remember? You then decided to tell me that no, you didn't have anything that came close to your burnt girl thing. Surprise, you did.
What you said was this, including my reply to it:
The_Metatron wrote:Fallible wrote:I hope there isn't anyone here who actually believes that they've never had what can be described as a deviant, taboo, disturbing or unacceptable thought that others would find such. Because that would be delusion.
Naked, half burnt nine year old girls isn't among them. Not even close.
Are you now implying that an image as I described gratifies me? Really? Did you really just accuse me of "unacceptable thoughts" when I see a photo of Phuc? That's more than a little uncool.
Fallible wrote:[Reveal] Spoiler:This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're so emotionally involved in this topic that you're just seeing a red mist and aren't bothering to make the distinction anymore between who said what. It's all just a big lump of paedophile loving a-holes to you at this point, isn't it. I manage to have a child, and to have had a number of other experiences, without having dissolved into a pool of incandescent rage at the notion of people who get off on children in pain. I hope you wouldn't argue that that's because I'm a monster of some kind, because that's demonstrably rubbish.