How I Taught A Jury About Trolls, Memes And 4Chan -- And Helped Get A Troll Out Of Jail

from the interesting-experiences dept

A few weeks ago, CNN had a story on how a jury failed to convict Peter Wexler, an unemployed IT worker, who had been arrested and spent nearly a year in jail (without bail) for writing some mean stuff on his blog. He was literally arrested for five blog posts (which came with 20 criminal charges, as they had multiple charges on each post) and was facing up to 15 years in jail for those posts. Ken "Popehat" White blogged briefly about it, noting that it was a huge First Amendment win in a case where the defense team included one of his partners, Caleb Mason (along with lawyer Marri Derby, who was appointed by the court to represent Wexler through the Criminal Justice Act). It's also a case that involved... me. I was an expert witness in the case, brought in to explain to the jury the nature of internet discourse, including how trolls quite frequently say outrageous things to get attention, and how it's (for better or worse) not that uncommon to see people post angry rants on the internet, or to talk about how certain people should die, or to photoshop famous people into weird scenarios.

I've avoided writing about the case up until now, mostly because of my involvement. And since Wexler was found not guilty on some charges, while the other charges resulted in a hung jury (the jury foreperson said that they voted 8 to 4 to acquit on those other charges), there's a chance there may be a second trial. So recognize that it's a case that I may still have future involvement in -- and where I'm choosing my words carefully (the prosecutors in the case tried to take some of my posts on Techdirt out of context to attack my credibility, and it's possible that could happen again -- though I will admit to some confusion over being asked, twice, on the stand if I consider myself "an advocate for internet freedom," as if that were a bad thing).

What I will say is that I was asked to review Wexler's blog -- and while I certainly don't agree with much of what he wrote there, I didn't see anything that seemed out of character in many internet forums. Much of it seemed straight out of 4chan's /pol/ honestly. Wexler cheered on ISIS beheadings and cop shootings. He blasted US politicians and US policy both at home and abroad. He's not a fan of the mainstream media. He's not a fan of any "establishment" politician, and would mock them all, while cheering on both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In short, he had opinions and he expressed them, sometimes angrily and in ways that were clearly designed to get people to react. At one point, responding to the news that the online troll Joshua Goldberg had been arrested (a story we wrote about, in part because of my own interactions with Goldberg), Wexler declared himself to be an "ISIS SUPPORTING ONLINE TROLL" (echoing the language being used to describe Goldberg):
Even an FBI special agent, Voviette Morgan, noted to others in the Bureau that "everything we have reviewed to date [on Wexler's blog] falls into the category of First Amendment protected speech." But the FBI still sent some agents to visit him. And that led him to post some fairly angry rants against the FBI and the FBI's top agent in Southern California, David Bowdich (who has since moved up to a new position in DC), including the one in the image above.

After a few more posts calling out Bowdich, and photoshopping him into a variety of images -- including taking a picture of a Bowdich press conference and overlaying a forearm and hand holding a gun pointing at Bowdich, overlaying a target on Bowdich's face in a press shot, and photoshopping Bowdich into a still from an ISIS beheading video (something that Wexler did with other people, including Brian Williams and Ben Carson, which the FBI also seemed to think was protected speech), Wexler was arrested, with the charges focusing on his posts about Bowdich, and arguing that statements like what he says above about how he wants "to shove my Fat Man Gadget up David Bowdich's limpwristed West Los Angeles ass, and I intend to!" should be seen as a legitimate threat on Bowdich's life (anyone know what a Fat Man Gadget is?).

Wexler then spent basically the last year in jail for a bunch of angry blog posts, without even the option of being bailed out allowed. There were a number of other issues at play in the trial, some of which I may get to in a future post, but I was there to just explain the nature of online trolling, and how what Wexler said -- while certainly distasteful, and perhaps offensive -- was hardly out of the ordinary in certain online communities, and how many people in those communities recognized that kind of shitposting for what it was, and would laugh at those who "fell" for such extreme and offensive statements. I got to explain 4chan and trolling and even the creation of memes (yes, I explained rickrolling to a jury). I discussed numerous examples of similar blog posts, tweets, Facebook posts and forum posts. I highlighted numerous examples of people declaring publicly that some public figures (and some not so public figures) should be executed. I talked about (and showed examples of) politicians calling for the death of Hillary Clinton. I talked about photoshopping and photoshopping contests -- including ones that involved photoshopping targets or First Person Shooter-style overlays onto images of people. I showed many examples of famous people having targets overlayed on their images.

Basically, I showed the simple fact that in some corners of the internet, posting crazy offensive stuff is pretty commonplace, and it rarely means they're actually planning to go out and do anything. I don't know how useful my testimony was, though the fact that Wexler was not convicted and is now free from jail at least suggests it did not hurt the case. I recognize that what Wexler was saying on his blog is stuff that many people find offensive -- but if what he said was a crime, then a hell of a lot of people spouting off online are criminals too, and I'm pretty sure that's not how the First Amendment is supposed to work.

Once the case is really over, there are some other elements of the case that I'd feel more comfortable discussing, but for now, since a few people had asked about it, I did want to share this part of the story. A guy just spent nearly an entire year in jail because he blogged some (admittedly extreme) things in expressing his anger over the state of things in the world today. I may not agree with Peter Wexler's views on most of those things, but it seems like he should have the right to express himself on a blog without being thrown in jail for a year (or much longer).

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    timlash (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:39am

    Thanks!

    You and Ken do tremendous work fighting for freedom, both internet strains and all other varieties. Thanks!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:44am

    Fat Man Gadget =?

    "Fat Man" sounds a lot like the codename for the first atomic bomb. Especially when it's a "Gadget".

    Dear FBI: Please don't feed the trolls! You are wasting your time and ours. Those who mean it most, say it least, those who mean it least, say it most!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Oblate (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:57am

      Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

      Lucky for him that the troll didn't reference the Little Boy bomb, they would have charged him with child porn!

      Also, wonder what he's going to post about the prosecutor once this is dismissed...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:11am

      Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

      Fat Man Gadget:
      * wheelchair
      * scooter (EMV)
      * cane
      * walker

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:21am

      Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

      Gadget was the name of the device first exploded in the Trinity Nuclear Test in the desert. Fatman was the name of the device dropped on Nagasaki.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Chris Brand, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:42am

        Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:47am

        Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

        "Fat Man" comments/jokes = OK.

        "Fat Woman"/"Fat Pig" comments/jokes = hate speech.

        In just 4 months, I'll sic (sic) the NSA on you!

        -- Hillary Clinton

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:18am

          Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

          I'm not sure what Hillary Clinton has to do with anything we're talking about, and you seem to be deliberately conflating criticizing distasteful speech with banning it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:43am

            Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

            "Fat Man" comments/jokes = OK.

            "Fat Woman"/"Fat Pig" comments/jokes = hate speech.

            -- Hillary Clinton

            > "I'm not sure what Hillary Clinton has to do with anything we're talking about, and you seem to be deliberately conflating criticizing distasteful speech with banning it."

            When *YOU* use a word, it means just what *I* choose it to mean.

            -- Hillary Dumpty

            In 4 months, I'm adding everyone on my enemies list to the drone kill list, including Mr. Comey at #1.

            Ha ha ha ha ha! Cough, cough, cough, cough, cough!

            -- Hillary Rodham (Clinton)

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 1:48pm

              Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

              Overview of the "PC" scam:

              The propagandist seeks to coop social movements by drawing activists attention/actions away from bringing meaningful social change to real/structural inequities and instead focus their attention/actions on primarily addressing 'language' that is said to cause personal trauma or is in some way symbolic of social oppression.

              What the propagandist hopes to achieve:

              1) Distraction from real issues and bringing about meaningful structural change to issues that are more easily controlled, promote the establishment agenda, and do not cut into profits.
              2) Soften language to obfuscate the severity of the issue (i.e., "ghetto" becomes "economically challenged area").
              3) In the case of university, control of staff by micromanagement and chilling effect of critical opinions.
              4) Make activists' arguments so weak as to be easily/rightly dismissed by critics and thus dismiss their legitimate grievances.

              PC terms, "diversity", "inclusion", and "equality" defined:

              Race/Gender/Sexuality-first politics of the sort being pushed today promotes a “moral economy" where it's fair and morally just that 1% of the population controls 90% of the resources, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people.”

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Thad, 29 Sep 2016 @ 1:52pm

                Re: Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

                Sooo I'm guessing you guys came here from a link on Peter Wexler's blog, then.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 1:59pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

                  The PC scam I described is a propagandist tool intended to co-opt/dilute the effectiveness of social movements and suppress free speech. It's unclear to me what that has to do with Peter Wexler?

                  Did you want to make an attempt at addressing the content of my post? ...or just keep on shillin'?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Thad, 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:58am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

                    It's unclear to me what that has to do with Peter Wexler?


                    Me too, Anon. Me too.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    The Wanderer (profile), 2 Oct 2016 @ 5:44am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

                    This thread is about Peter Wexler, or at least it was until you brought Hillary Clinton into things. As such, your posts here are offtopic and look very much like trying-to-provoke-a-reaction trolling, and I've flagged them (other than the one I'm now replying to) on those grounds.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      John Mayor, 2 Oct 2016 @ 2:21pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

                      Peter Wexler's MAIN online crime-- if you've been paying CLOSE ATTENTION to Mike's thread!-- was to challenge the FBI Agent Bowdich in such a manner, that the FBI deemed his comment not only an "afront" to the FBI (and, to the "greater internet community"!), but also, a "THREAT" to the FBI (and presumably, to the "greater internet community!)!
                      .
                      My challenge in MY RESPONSE... here!... and not in defence of Wexler's views (or approach!) was to point out the inherent "THREAT" posed by the FBI to us, in their treatment of a particular "theme" the FBI (and others!) has pursued... namely, CHILD PORN!
                      .
                      Wexler's Comment Logging/ Clogging was designed-- is designed!-- to "get the goad" of the FBI (and others!) by merely offering up "OUTLANDISH STATEMENTS" about specific persons, and situations! His "tone" in his approach, is a "REACTION" to the world!... as Mike has pointed out!... and is made simply to PROVOKE A RESPONSE!
                      .
                      To sum up... I-- on the other hand!-- have denoted a number of approaches made by the FBI to sundry issues confronting our respective communities (CHILD PORN, being but one!), which... by virtue of the inherent flaws in the premises the FBI have used to tackle these issues!... has resulted in a host of further "COLLATERAL IMPACTS", which have made-- and are making-- matters W-O-R-S-E! And in the treatise/ treatment I've offered up, the issue of UNCONSTITUTIONAL Age of Majority and Age of Consent Laws, is in dire need of redress!
                      .
                      For!... not only are adults being WRONGFULLY CAUGHT in scenarios being "CONTRIVED" by members of the FBI (and other "defenders of the status quo"!)... but!... likewise!... CHILDREN (i.e., so-called!)! And!... simply put!... unless these "pseudodefenders of the public good" address their injustices, these "CHILDREN" will continue to SUFFER at the hands of an IMPLACABLE and OUTDATED "C-H-I-L-D P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N S-Y-S-T-E-M"! In other words!... these!... and theirs!... H-A-V-E B-E-C-O-M-E T-H-E A-B-U-S-E-R-S!
                      .
                      Again!... and as stated elsewhere!... it's one thing to champion the fight against TRUE VICTIMIZATION, and to offer aid to those who are in NEED of "DEFENCE (and e.g., babies, toddlers, and 'CERTAIN' 'QUASI-SENTIENT' preteens and early teens/ youth!)"!... and, who, CANNOT defend themselves!... but, it's quite another, to INTERFERE in the NORMAL AFFAIRS of 'SENTIENT' others! And others, WHO ACCEPT THEIR MUTUALLY-AGREED UPON RELATIONSHIP, AND LOVE! AND!... WHO ARE FULLY AWARE OF!... AND AGREE TO!... THEIR DIFFERENCES IN AGE!
                      .
                      B-U-L-L-Y-I-N-G "CHILDREN (i.e., so-called!)" into CAPITULATING to the "interpretation" of/ by "certain adults" as to W-H-A-T their intimacy is all about!... A-N-D W-I-T-H-O-U-T T-H-E-I-R R-I-G-H-T T-O T-H-E-I-R E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N O-F "S-E-X-U-A-L A-G-E-N-C-Y (LOOK IT UP!)"!... is to A-B-U-S-E these "CHILDREN"!... P-E-R-I-O-D!!
                      .
                      Please!... no emails!

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Thad, 29 Sep 2016 @ 1:50pm

              Re: Re: Fat Man Gadget =?

              Somebody's off his meds again, I see. I'll go find the men with the nets.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glen, 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:48am

    though I will admit to some confusion over being asked, twice, on the stand if I consider myself "an advocate for internet freedom," as if that were a bad thing).

    It would be fascinating to ask the prosecutor if he feels differently and why.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Freedom of Speech, 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:54am

    Free speech is beautiful even when it's ugly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:00am

    "Fat Man Gadget" is probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARES_FMG

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Quiet Lurcker, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:02am

    On the Gripping Hand

    I can see some of those posts, if taken out of context, appearing to be quite threatening. Even though I know the poster was/is an internet troll, I still wondered. If only for a moment.

    This is one of those rare-as-hens-teeth moments, when I'm going to speak in (faint - very faint) praise of PC. If someone would have taken just a short moment to look at the whole context, (s)he would have understood that this was intended as either hyperbole or sarcasm (is there even a difference there?).

    Agreed, maybe the FBI might have had a few quiet words with the individual, because - as I said above - even to someone who is familiar with internet-based hyperbole, I wondered myself. But a couple of the right questions would have lead to the conclusion this was trolling, and maybe a quiet word or two about toning it down, should have sufficed in this instance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:54am

      Re: On the Gripping Hand

      I can see some of those posts, if taken out of context, appearing to be quite threatening.

      Uh, they are intended to be threatening. But they are an expression of a threatening stance, not anything amounting to a concrete tangible threat.

      Yes, there are Bob Ewells whose diffuse threats condense into concrete action at some point of time. But that more often than not requires opportunity, and the distances on the Internet appear closer than they usually are.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:06am

      Re: On the Gripping Hand

      I can see some of those posts, if taken out of context, appearing to be quite threatening. Even though I know the poster was/is an internet troll, I still wondered. If only for a moment.

      Current law is pretty clear on this... you can say lots of threatening stuff. You can "endorse violence," but if you're not making an actual threat that you intend or have the likelihood of carrying out... it's protected speech.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/20/local/la-me-0720-obama-threat-20110720

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:27am

    I got to...

    "shove my Fat Man Gadget"
    LOL c'mon now, that's funny.

    So, how many of you have trolled online before? (Be truthful.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 10:40am

    Reminds me somewhat of Justin Carter, though Justin Carter also spent time in solitary, wasn't being a troll, and has been going at it with Texas police for three years now. Utterly insane and also very much a free speech case.

    Are you familiar with the details of it, Mike?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thad, 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:21am

    Thanks for fighting the good fight, Mike. Just because Wexler is an asshole doesn't mean he deserved to be locked up; what happened to him was a travesty and without your help it could have gone even worse for him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 11:35am

    Social-Emotional Competence-Incompetence

    Emotional Competence is awareness and management of one's own emotions.

    Social Competence is awareness and management of the emotions of others.

    For example, an example of emotional competence would be:
    I am angry. I will - let it go, communicate, react, file a lawsuit, have you arrested.

    An example of social competence would be:
    I see that you are upset. I am sorry. What can I do to make it up?

    An example of social incompetence would be:
    Govt.-funded Counselor says to victim, "I hear you were victimized as a child and had a crime committed against you as an adult. How does that make you feel?"

    Being socially incompetent is not a crime.
    It a required qualification for running for public office.

    Socially incompetent people are not responsible for the emotional incompetence of others.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:00pm

    A fat man is a portable nuclear gun in the fallout series

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:13pm

    Unreasonable Bail???

    Mike, when I first read the Constitution (shortly after it was ratified), I seem to recall provisos prohibiting unreasonable bails and imprisonment. Is it possible that the actions of those involved would run afoul of those provisos?

    (BTW, I AM REALLY OLD!)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Digitari, 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Unreasonable Bail???

      The fact that you state you "read" already made it obvious you are old. Youngins and IP maximalist react to words, they don't read them.

      (I read a lot too, as I am also old :) )

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 12:21pm

    Keep fighing the good fight, Mike

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 1:19pm

    Mike, maybe you should also have described what the Streisand Effect entails.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 3:18pm

    Going by his type, I'm thinking "mangadget" should be one word.. and it's between his legs.. ..but no clue if it really is fat.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Mayor, 29 Sep 2016 @ 5:50pm

    CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

    In a 2015 "EduNet Webinar" presented on Thursday, May 14th, 2015, by Kenneth V. Lanning, former Supervisory Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (retired), titled, "Compliant Child Victims: Confronting an Uncomfortable Reality", Mr. Lanning states (in his synopsis of his presentation)...
    .
    "In this presentation, the term compliant will be used to describe those children who in any way, partially or fully, cooperate in or 'consent' to their sexual victimization without the threat of use of force or violence. Because children cannot legally consent to having sex with adults, this compliance should not in any way alter the fact that they can be victims of serious crimes. The primary purpose of this discussion is to being out into the open possible reasons for this compliance (i.e., grooming and seduction) and to discuss its complexity and significance for child victims and professional interveners."
    .
    Mr. Kenneth V. Lanning, is described as an M.S., and a consultant in the area of crimes against children. He was a Special Agent with the FBI for more than 30 years and was assigned to the FBI Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy for 20 of those years. Mr. Lanning is the 1990 recipient of the Jefferson Award for Research from the University of Virginia, the 1996 recipient of the Outstanding Professional Award for Research from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, the 1997 recipient of the FBI Director’s Annual Award for Special Achievement for his career accomplishments in connection with missing and exploited children, and the 2009 recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Service from the National Children’s Advocacy Center. He has lectured before thousands of criminal justice professionals.
    .
    For my purposes here, let me begin by revisiting Mr. Lanning's synopsis... and his synopsis alone!... to determine whether this "Expert (so said!)" is on sure footing, re his "rationale" for his "synoptic assertions"! So... to reiterate... Mr. Lanning states...
    .
    "In this presentation, the term compliant will be used to describe those 'CHILDREN' who, IN ANY WAY!... PARTIALLY or FULLY!... 'COOPERATE IN (and I'll add here... maybe INSTIGATE?)', or 'CONSENT' to their 'SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION', without the threat of use (I believe he meant, 'of the use') of force or violence. Because 'CHILDREN' CANNOT 'LEGALLY CONSENT' to having sex with adults (and I'll add here... due to UNCONSTITUTIONAL Age of Majority, and Age of Consent Laws!), THIS COMPLIANCE SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE 'FACT', THAT THEY CAN BE 'VICTIMS' OF SERIOUS 'CRIMES'. The primary purpose of this discussion is to being out (I believe he meant, 'bring out') into the open, POSSIBLE 'REASONS' for this COMPLIANCE (i.e.... and by way of Mr. Lanning's intimation!... THE POSSIBLE REASONS WHY 'CHILDREN' AGREE TO BE 'GROOMED' AND 'SEDUCED'!) and to discuss its 'COMPLEXITY (CODE FOR!... LET'S ALL AGREE TO CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION IN ASSESSING THE DYNAMICS OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!)' and significance for 'CHILD VICTIMS (I.E., THE 'SIGNIFICANCE'!... AND 'VICTIMIZATION'!... AS PROFFERED BY MR. LANNING!)' and professional interveners (AND AGAIN!... THE 'SIGNIFICANCE', AS PROFFERED BY MR. LANNING!... and... I believe he meant, 'professional intervenOrs'!)."
    .
    What unbelievable SOPHISTRY!... and one wonders why there is so much strife in America!... AND AROUND THE WORLD!
    .
    Again... he begins by asserting-- and unequivocally (i.e., without prequalifications!... or setup!)-- that ALL OF THOSE to be discussed (his said "VICTIMS"!) are "CHILDREN (i.e.-- and in his view!-- ARE NOT 'ADULTS'!... AND!... ARE NOT TO BE VIEWED AS HAVING A 'RIGHT' TO 'SEXUAL AGENCY'!... I.E., A 'RIGHT' TO ANY 'AUTONOMOUS POWER OF SEXUAL SELF-DETERMINATION'!)"! He then goes on to state, that the term "COMPLIANT" will be used to describe those "CHILDREN", who... "IN ANY WAY"!... "PARTIALLY", or "FULLY"!... "COOPERATE IN", or "CONSENT TO" their "SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION (I.E., AS MR. LANNING WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE!)" without the threat of use of force or violence.
    .
    Wow!... what a MIND-F--T (to coin a phrase!)!
    .
    So!... and to clarify Mr Lanning's position!... Mr. Lanning's perspective thus far, is... if these "CHILDREN" "COMPLY"!... "IN ANY WAY (but... maybe!... 'PROMULGATE'!)"!... "PARTIALLY", or "FULLY!"... "COOPERATE IN", or "CONSENT" W-I-T-H-O-U-T T-H-E T-H-R-E-A-T O-F U-S-E O-F F-O-R-C-E O-R V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E (and e.g., with 'CHILDREN'S' words such as, 'Sure!... let's get it on!'... or... 'Let's do it!')!... "S-E-X-U-A-L V-I-C-T-I-M-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N", WILL-- N-E-V-E-R-T-H-E-L-E-S-S!-- BE MR. LANNING'S PREFERRED VIEW!... AND "CATCH PHRASE"!... FOR SUCH "COMPLIANCE"!
    .
    He then adds... in continuation of Mr. Lanning's psychobabel!... "...because 'CHILDREN' CANNOT 'LEGALLY CONSENT' to having sex with adults (i.e., until such 'UNDERAGERS' give Mr. Lanning, and his minions, a swift kick to somewhere unpleasant!... through a series of Constitutional challenges!), this 'COMPLIANCE' SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE 'FACT (i.e., his PERVERSE VIEW of the 'FACTS' of many!... if not, MOST!... of the scenarios he is depicting!)' THAT THEY CAN BE 'VICTIMS' of SERIOUS 'CRIMES (I.E., IF SUCH PERVERSE VIEWS IN MANY!-- IF NOT, MOST!-- OF THE SCENARIOUS HE IS DEPICTING ARE VIEWED, IRRESPONSIBLY, AS 'CRIMES'!)'."
    .
    He concludes his synopsis by stating, that the primary purpose of the "DISCUSSION", is to... and again, I'll correct his "verbiage"!... "bring out" into the open, "POSSIBLE REASONS" for this "COMPLIANCE (i.e.-- and in his view!-- 'GROOMING AND SEDUCTION'!... and-- I'm guessing-- he means, by way of the 'adult'!)", and to discuss its "COMPLEXITY (i.e., CODE FOR!... 'Let's not say it's mutually agreed upon sex!'... or... 'Let's not say it's sex initiated by way of CHILDREN!')" and "SIGNIFICANCE" for "CHILD VICTIMS (i.e., CODE FOR!... 'SIGNIFICANCE' AS VIEWED BY MR. LANNING!... AND... IN CONTRAST TO THAT VIEWED BY HIS PROFFERED, 'CHILDREN'!; AND... IN MANY INSTANCES!... IF ANY 'CHILD VICTIMS'-- INDEED!-- EXIST!; AND... IF ANY 'CHILDREN' AREN'T BEING 'FORCIBLY CONNED' INTO VIEWING THEMSELVES AS 'VICTIMS'!-- THROUGH THREATS OF IMPRISONMENT, AND/ OR OTHER ACTS OF 'SOCIOPSYCHOPATHIC INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE'!)" and professional intervenOrs (i.e., and-- IN MY VIEW!... and again, in many instances!... "PROFESSIONAL BUSYBODIES!"... OR!... "PSEUDO-PROFESSIONAL 'SOCIO-SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS'"!).
    .
    WOW! WOW! WOW! If it wasn't for NONSENSE, this chap wouldn't have much sense at all! And it kind of reminds me of the 60s and 70s war... now recognized as a FAILED WAR!... on drugs (see, America’s Top Cops Just Called the War on Drugs 'A Tremendous Failure')!
    .
    It's one thing to champion the fight against TRUE VICTIMIZATION, and to offer aid to those who are in NEED of "DEFENCE (and e.g., babies, toddlers, and 'CERTAIN' 'QUASI-SENTIENT' preteens and early teens/ youth!)"!... and, who, CANNOT defend themselves! But, it's quite another, to INTERFERE in the NORMAL AFFAIRS of 'SENTIENT' others!... and others, WHO ACCEPT THEIR MUTUALLY-AGREED UPON RELATIONSHIP, AND LOVE! AND!... WHO ARE FULLY AWARE OF!... AND AGREE TO!... THEIR DIFFERENCES IN AGE!
    .
    Porn by males or females under the age of 18 (although, respective communities have raised this age restriction higher!) is not allowed on the Internet. There are, however-- CLEARLY!-- "COMMERCIAL EXCEPTIONS" to this dictum (i.e., if there is a profit to be made, and "ELITE ENJOYMENT" to be had, certain URLs... e.g., those on the Dark Web!... will remain wholly unaffected!)... and!... despite International and National Laws, International and National Courts, International and National Policing efforts, Internet and Social Protocol, Child Advocacies, and "RESPONSIBLE SEARCH ENGINES"!
    .
    The horrendous sexual abuses against children notwithstanding (and e.g., THE MURDER OF CHILDREN FOR "SEXUAL ENTERTAINMENT"!), there are a few sound reasons for abandoning what I call, "THE PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA (i.e., 'THE PAM DOGMA'!... OR!... 'THE HOMOGENEOUS ENILIKAS/ ADULT DICTUM DOGMA'!)", on the Net!... and!... in Society! THAT IS TO SAY!... IF NET PORN, IS TO CONTINUE TO EXIST ANY FURTHER!
    .
    Let me begin by pointing out, that females under the age of 18 throughout the world (and one-- reportedly!-- as young as 5 years of age!) can-- BIOLOGICALLY!-- have babies! Moreover-- AND MOST IMPORTANTLY!-- many who are pre 18, have CHOSEN to have babies (which is their granted Human Right, under various International, and National Constitutions!... and other Legislated frameworks!)! "A COMPLETELY NATURAL FUNCTION!... AND PHENOMENON!" In other words, we (or at least, females under the age of 18!), are "BORN THIS WAY (i.e., are able to give birth!)"!
    .
    The question-- though!-- is whether... as an "UNDERAGE" female individual!... one is "ENTITLED" to one's own "SEXUAL AGENCY (see, Sexual Agency_Making Decisions!)"! But further... and again!... and as an "UNDERAGE" female individual!... does one have the RIGHT (HUMAN RIGHT!) to "FREELY CHOOSE" THE AGE OF THE PARTNER WITH WHOM ONE HAS DETERMINED TO COPULATE WITH (and not by way of the "AGENCY" of one's "adult parents"!... "other adults!"-- e.g., Guardians!)"!... and/ or!... the "AGENCY" of "non-familial institutions, and organizations"!)! And yea... and yet further!... does such an individual (unless, and of course, such is not to be viewed as an individual!) have the Right to "ENJOY"!-- AND WITH "GUSTO"!-- THE ACT OF GIVING LIFE (and!... GOD FORBID!... should "UNDERAGE" female "SEXUAL ENJOYMENT" ever be "ALLOWED"-- for the simple sake of sexual enjoyment, or, during procreation!-- we "GRANT" the corollary foreplay, so often accompanying "NORMAL SEX ACTS" usually associated with "ADULT SEX"!)!
    .
    Thus, are we (us adults) to say: "OMG!... How perverse is God, nature-- or both!-- in permitting the minds and bodies of these 'poor young things' to bear, and to give birth, to yet smaller children?" "What was God-- and/or nature-- thinking?" "Has God-- and/ or nature (individually!... OR IN SOME 'GRAND CONSPIRACY'!)-- set out to 'P-SS US OFF (i.e., 'WE'... 'ADULTS!'... WHO KNOW BETTER THAN GOD, AND/ OR NATURE!)'?"
    .
    But some will say, that:... "Unlike sleeping, breathing, eating, drinking and waste elimination, 'WE (i.e., those adults speaking on behalf of all 'TRULY' 'MATURE ADULTS'; and, on behalf of the 'MISGUIDED' 'UNDERAGE FEMALES' of the world!-- but, usually 'PROFFERING'!)' CAN SIMPLY 'CHOOSE' NOT TO GIVE BIRTH TO YET 'UNDER-UNDERAGE CHILDREN'!" Inasmuch-- these continue-- as "WE (and... again!... 'AS IF' on behalf of all 'TRULY' 'MATURE ADULTS'... and!... all 'MISGUIDED' 'UNDERAGE FEMALES' of earth!) CAN 'CHOOSE' TO 'ACCEPT' THAT 'IMMATURE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS' ARE 'UNHEALTHY!'!... AND 'UNWISE (but!... CODE FOR!... 'OUR' 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM' SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER GOD, NATURE-- OR BOTH!)'!" "After all, it's 'WE (THE VOICES OF WISDOM!)' who can, and 'WHO MUST' 'DICTATE', the lives of the 'MISGUIDED' of the world (i.e., ALL 'OTHER ADULTS' WHO DO NOT VIEW THINGS AS THESE DO; ALL 'UNDERAGE FEMALES'; AND-- OF COURSE-- GOD, NATURE, OR BOTH!)!" Albeit, BY FORCE! And-- these add (and, in a pretense to spirituality!)!... "LET US NEVER FORGET THIS!"... "AMEN!"
    .
    Now-- of course-- young souls of just 10 years (e.g.), would find it quite difficult to bring into the world... and to care for!... babies! H--l!... even adults of 50 years of age have found this tasking! Indeed!... "SOME ADULTS" have been unable to care for plants, or animals!... or, even THEMSELVES! And, as a consequence, such lacks in "THESE ADULTS", have meant that their progeny are EQUALLY INEPT in caring for plants, or animals!... yea, THE WORLD! And hence, the reason-- "I" feel!-- that "CERTAIN ADULTS" may disallow "FREE REIGN" by "OTHERS", over "THEIR" "WORLD ORDER (and!... even by way, of 'THEIR OWN' FLESH AND BLOOD!)"!
    .
    In others words!... as "THESE" "ADULTS" haven't been able to figure out the "NURTURE THING"-- AT LEAST!-- "THESE" feel!... YEA, ARE CERTAIN!... THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN!... AND/ OR HAS!
    .
    But who (or what) is to be held to account for any lack in "Domestic Skills"-- let alone, "Self-sufficiency", and "Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Behavioral Competency"-- within those who are beneath the Age of Majority, when our views at home!... and within our educational systems!-- but, etc.!... would preclude any entrenchment of such skills for those who are beneath the age, of our Age of Majority dictum (see, The Death of Psychiatry, by Dr. Edwin Fuller Torrey!)? If one doesn't view "UNDERAGE SEX"!... AND "COROLLARY RELATIONSHIPS"!... as "NORMAL", one isn't inclined to be "PROACTIVE" in giving those deemed "UNDERAGE", the skill sets afforded to those deemed "AGEWORTHY"! And if these skill sets are not to be put within our schools... despite the gaps (and "MADNESS"!) in home settings!... and other "would-be"/ "should-be" "TRUSTED" institutions!... THEN WHERE IS SUCH PREPAREDNESS TO BE FOUND? And so!... explaining-- in part!-- why "CERTAIN ADULTS" view the world, in the manner these do!
    .
    And so!... who?... then!... (and/ or, what!) is to blame, if a child of 10 (e.g.) CHOOSES to defy/ challenge the "ADULT SOCIAL NORM (i.e., INDEPENDENT of any 'GROOMING' by adults!... and as proffered by the likes of Kenneth Lanning!)"? Is it the child?... God?... nature?... or all three? SURELY!... it can't be any insidious juxtaposed interpolative ascribed "INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORAL CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION" on the part of "ADULTS (i.e., 'CERTAIN ADULTS'!)"!... and/ or!... "THEIR" consequent "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"!
    .
    Let us now look at another set of truths!... in our "HONEST ATTEMPT" to examine the Rights, we (as "MATURE ADULTS"!) should "BESTOW UPON"-- or, remove from!-- our "CHILDREN"!... AND!... THE "CHILDREN" OF OTHERS! TRUTHS to be found, in the writings of our Judaic/ Christian heritage!
    .
    One example, is a quote attributed to Jesus Christ!... and, which states: "TRULY I TELL YOU, UNLESS YOU CHANGE, AND BECOME LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN, YOU ('ADULTS'!... my emphasis!) WILL NEVER ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!" [Matthew 18:3 - NIV]
    .
    Now... is Christ saying, that we ("adults"!... generally speaking!) must literally become "CHILDREN"?... AGAIN? Of course not! He is speaking about manifesting the PURE, and GENTLE NATURE that children possess!... about becoming, "CHILDLIKE"! And so!... the question for us "CHRISTIAN ADULTS", is: "How does this 'CHILD-LIKE MENTALITY (AND 'SPIRIT'!)' translate-- for example-- in intimate situations?... when it comes to our intimacy with our partner!... intimacy, in the bedroom (or wherever!)!" If "CHRISTIAN ADULTS" are to become LIKE CHILDREN!... and in the bedroom (or wherever!)!... are we not then treating our sexual partner (IN CHRIST!) in the bedroom-- or wherever!-- as if our partner was a "CHILD"? And, if your partner is to be as if a "CHILD" to you (and you a "CHILD" to your partner!... IN CHRIST!), then what's the difference between that, and being intimate with-- say!-- someone "UNDERAGE (i.e., someone who has initiated... or, who has 'KNOWLEDGEABLY', and 'FREELY' accepted, such mutual intimacy!... and!... who has ACCEPTED CHRIST!)"? Or, is it-- simply!-- that by mere difference in age (and possibly, physical stature!)", the "CHILD-LIKE" intimacy between an "ADULT" and an actual "CHILD (IN CHRIST!)", must be looked upon as an "UN-ADULT_E-RATED EVIL"!... AND!... AN "UNHOLY" THING!
    .
    And here, I'm reminded of the words of St. Paul, who stated: "TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPTED, AND DO NOT BELIEVE, NOTHING IS PURE! IN FACT, BOTH THEIR MINDS, AND CONSCIENCES, ARE CORRUPTED!" [Titus 1:5 - NIV] And also, the words of Christ... who said: "VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, AND BLASPHEMIES WHEREWITH SOEVER THESE SHALL BLASPHEME: BUT HE THAT SHALL BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION (i.e., and to paraphrase... and in the context of the just aforegoing!... ONE WHO ACCUSES SOMEONE IN CHRIST OF HAVING A 'PERVERSE SPIRIT' BY VIRTUE OF A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE CONVENTIONS OF 'THE WORLD', MAY BE JUDGED BY GOD, AS BEING IN BREACH OF GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT!)!" [MARK, 3:28/29 - KJV]
    .
    Therefore, is one ready to say... WITH ALL CERTAINTY!... that the intimacy that one might encounter between souls who are "BEYOND THE ADULT SOCIAL NORM (and between-- potentially!-- those who've accepted Jesus Christ, and his Holy Spirit!)", is-- ACTUALLY!-- INDICATIVE OF "EVIL"?... and rather, than an intimacy-- INDEED!-- SANCTIONED BY GOD! And, will "WE" find (i.e., "CERTAIN ADULT PURVEYORS"!... past, and present!... OF THE "ADULT SOCIAL NORM", AND "PAM DOGMA"!), that the "INTERFERENCE" in which (AND BY REPROBATE LIVES!... WHO HAVE NO SEMBLANCE OF THE TRUTH!... AND!... WHO'VE REJECTED GOD'S LOVE!... AND/ OR GOD!), may-- one day!-- owe a hefty price, for having judged so unwisely! And-- INDEED!-- will "CERTAIN ADULTS" be judged among those who have caused the deaths of both adults and children (in isolated incidents!... OR IN CONCERT WITH "SOCIAL POLICY"!) who have strayed from the "DICTATES" of the "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"?
    .
    On another theme... if one is a Jewish male, and 13, then one gets to become an "OFFICIAL ADULT" through what is known, as a Barmitzvah! Similarly, if one is a Jewish female, and 13, then one gets to become an "OFFICIAL ADULT" through what is described as a Batmitzvah!
    .
    Simply said, it would be a sad jest to say to a Jewish female "ADULT" of 13, or Jewish male "ADULT" of 13: "You are 'recognized' through Jewish custom as an 'ADULT' Jew at 13 years of age!... but!... GOD FORBID, that you should-- 'EVER!'-- become sexually intimate with another 'ADULT' of 13!... or-- worse!... GOD FORBID, that you should-- 'EVER (AND, 'DOUBLE-DOSE' THE GOD FORBIDDANCES!)'!-- become sexually intimate with someone that the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM' has deemed, is 'BEYOND THE AGE OF MAJORITY'!"
    .
    And so... simply said... when a Jewish male or female became an "ADULT" through his/ her Jewish faith, and Synagogue, this meant that such "REALLY BECAME" an "ADULT"!... and!... not just "SYMBOLICALLY"!... "CEREMONIALLY"!... or "METAPHORICALLY"! Otherwise, such a Rite-- in my view!-- would be tantamount to CHILD ABUSE (i.e., in leading a "CHILD" to believe in one's "ADULT RITE OF PASSAGE"!... but then!-- at once!-- stating, that such is not to be taken SERIOUSLY!)!
    .
    But what about the rest of us? Do we not have equal status under the law? And, if a Jewish male of 13, or a Jewish female of 13, were found making out with a person over the stated Age of Majority, would such not suffer the consequences of our Age of Majority laws?... and just like the rest of us? And, if such "UNDERAGE TEENS"/ "CHILDREN" were found in violation of our laws, wouldn't our laws be in conflict with THEIR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS"? Or, could it be, that such "Religious Freedoms" are in conflict with our laws?... and "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"/ "PUBLIC MORALITY"? It begs the question! And as a final footnote to the just aforesaid, I should/ would have you note, that "PRETEENS (i.e., souls younger than 'UNDERAGE TEENS'!)" once ruled Israel! God!... go figure! OR!... G-O F-I-G-U-R-E G-O-D!
    .
    But further, and on yet a different theme, there are a significant number of young teens (UNDER the "Age of Majority"!) who are a part of sundry GRADUATE PROGRAMS in Medicine, Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, and many other highly specialized, and professional fields of endeavour (see, Why This 14-Year-Old Kid Built a Nuclear Reactor...!). And so!... are we to say-- and for example-- to a gal of 15 in a 3rd year GRADUATE MEDICAL PROGRAM (and, who, in a couple of years, could be treating you-- or I-- in some regional hospital!)... "You can become a doctor!... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... but!... 'KEEP YOUR PANTIES ON'!" And... "If you!... 'LITTLE GIRL!'... are found having sex with that graduate of 22 in Computer Science across town, 'WE (i.e., the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM', and AUTHORS OF THE 'PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA'!)', will place him behind bars!-- 'FOR RAPE'!... and communicate (WITH AMPLE 'SELF-RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION'!... AND IN THE SPIRIT OF 'RIVER CITY', IN THE MOVIE, 'THE MUSIC MAN'!) your 'EVIL ACT', and the 'EVIL' of your 'SICK CLAN', to as many (UNWITTING!) souls as we can find!... and jeopardize (IF THESE CAN!) your hopes, and dreams!" "After all... such little 'sex maniacs'!... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... would be viewed by us as dim witted 'little ijits', for even considering having sex with 'AGE OF MAJORITY' grad students (SAY!... THE AUTHORS OF THE 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM'!... AND 'PAM DOGMA'!)... and... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... 'WE' WILL HAVE NONE OF SUCH 'FILTH', IN 'OUR' 'WORLD SOCIAL ORDER'!" "AND!... 'LITTLE GIRL!'... DON'T MASTURBATE!"
    .
    Now... imagine the abovenoted hypothetical "potential tryst" between this "LITTLE GIRL" and the grad student, with the following added features! The gal and young man of which I speak, are Jewish. Now add, that these have recently become Christian! Now, also include, that the parents of both of these young people have all agreed to their charges' relationship!... and, have offered, that whatever resources the two so desire, and need-- all being professionals themselves!-- will be made available to their charges!... and... should their charges' relationship grow!... and the young female becomes pregnant! I ask you: "Is it the role of the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM'... afterupon the finding of some deemed breach of the community's Age of Majority law/ Age of Consent Law!... to now DEMAND (AND WITH AS MUCH ZEAL AS THE HUNT FOR FINANCIAL WRONGDOING BY THE BANKING COMMUNITY, IN THE 2008 BANKING SCANDAL!) that these 'WAYWARD PARENTS' pay some 'PENALTY' for this 'FILTHY BEHAVIOUR' that these have allowed into the lives of their offspring?... and!... in addition to the price to be paid by these 'IMMATURE IMMORAL DEGENERATE OFFSPRING'!... AND THREATS TO SOCIETY'!" "I THINK NOT!" Indeed, CURSED IS/ BE THE SPIRIT, AND THE GOD OF THE SPIRIT, THAT CALLOUSLY!-- AND UNLOVINGLY!-- SUGGESTS OTHERWISE! And furthermore, IT IS MY BELIEF, THAT THE "AGE OF MAJORITY LAWS/ AGE OF CONSENT LAWS (AND THROUGHOUT NORTH AMERICA!-- AT LEAST!)" SHOULD BE EITHER DRAMATICALLY CHANGED TO REFLECT THE "REALITY" OF THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB!... OF JESUS CHRIST!... OF NATURE!... OF "MATURE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES (THE GAINSAYING, 'PSEUDO-ADULTS', NOTWITHSTANDING!)"!... OF THE RIGHTS OF OUR "UNDERAGE (SO-CALLED!)" FEMALE AND MALE POPULATIONS!... AND!... OF LOGIC!... OR SUCH BE THROWN OUT, ALTOGETHER!
    .
    Lastly, some might contend that to allow such a "CHRISTIAN", "NATURAL", and "LOGICAL" Sexuality to flourish today, would be to open the floodgates of "UNDERAGE PORN EXPRESSION" on the Net's Web!
    .
    Let me ask the obvious: "Has society removed the 'Age of Majority Porn' from the Internet?... despite the 'feigned Judaic/ Christian principles 'FLOURISHING' in our said 'CIVILIZED COMMUNITIES'?" "Do YOU!-- READER!-- watch 'Age of Majority Porn'?... but!... then suggest, that 'other types' of 'INTIMACY' are 'forboden'?" Maybe one's contestation... YOUR contestation!... should be, that "Age of Majority Porn" should be removed from the Internet, ALTOGETHER! (A MOVE, I'D BE GLAD TO SUPPORT!) And rather, than contend, that individuals have NO RIGHT to express some "sanctified", "natural", and "logical sexuality"! If "Age of Majority Porn" is ALRIGHT with YOU!... AND SOCIETY!... then the question (AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE!) becomes, one of simple "AGE DISCRIMINATION"! But, if "Age of Majority Porn" is NOT ALRIGHT with YOU!... AND SHOULD NOT EXIST IN SOCIETY ("FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" NOTWITHSTANDING!)!... then the question ("LOGICAL QUESTION!") becomes: "HOW HAVE SUCH 'UNDERAGE ACTS OF CONSENTUAL INTIMACY (AND WHEREIN, SUCH IS INDEED THE CASE!)', BECOME EQUATED WITH 'ACTS OF PORN'?... AND 'DEGENERACY'?" And, let us not forget, that it wasn't too long ago that having sex-- at least!-- with someone of a different race, was considered "DEGENERATE (i.e., by 'CERTAIN ADULTS'!)"! But!... the list of discriminations have been many!... and!... continues!
    .
    It is said, that, "...THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!" [John 8, 31-32]... and... that, "...God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind..." [2 Timothy, 1:7].
    .
    Well... for some (and even for those professing Christ!) BEING BOUND IS A PREFERRED STATE OF EXISTENCE!... AND LIVING IN FEAR, IS DESIRED OVER THE POWER OF LOVE!... AND, OF POSSESSING A SOUND MIND!
    .
    JESUS CHRIST CAME INTO THIS WORLD TO SAVE SINNERS!... AND TO ERADICATE SIN! AND A FACTION OF SUCH SINNERS ARE THOSE BOUND BY SEXUAL IMMORALITY!... AND!... OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION! BUT!... WOE TO THOSE WHO WOULD IMPUNE THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THOSE, WHOSE INTIMACY IS BEYOND THE SOCIAL NORM (A.K.A., THE WORLD'S NORM!)!... AND, IN THE GUISE OF DEFENDING THE "WEAK", AND THE "DEFENCELESS"! AS MATTHEW 7:21-23 STATES:... 21) "NOT EVERYONE WHO SAYS TO ME, 'LORD, LORD,' WILL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN WILL ENTER." 22) "MANY WILL SAY TO ME ON THAT DAY, 'LORD, LORD, DID WE NOT PROPHESY IN YOUR NAME, AND IN YOUR NAME CAST OUT DEMONS, AND IN YOUR NAME PERFORM MANY MIRACLES?'" 23) "AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, 'I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" [NIV]
    .
    In other words, there will be many who will have shown the "SIGNS" of having followed God!... and TRUTH!... but!... who-- IN REALITY!-- NEVER KNEW GOD!... NEVER ACCEPTED THE TRUTH!... AND NEVER ACCEPTED GOD'S AGAPE LOVE! AND!-- IN PARTICULAR!-- NEVER ACCEPTED THE LOVE OF HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON! AND YEA!... WERE REVEALED AS HAVING DESTROYED OTHERS, WHO WERE FAITHFUL!
    .
    Adam's nakedness was not filth before God's eyes!... nor, was King David's, when King David danced before the Lord!... in praise! Indeed, it wasn't Adam's nakedness that displeased God!... it was Adam's disobedience! And punishment ensued, for the critic of David's praise!
    .
    For Christians, it is clear, that we are to be subject to that which is in authority (see Romans, Chapter 13:1-3). But!... it is also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country-- at least!-- is a country's respective national constitution!... AND, WHICH-- INVARIABLY!-- CONTAINS RIGHTS, AND FREEDOMS! And so, to resist such!... and in keeping with Romans 13:1-3!... IS TO RESIST GOD'S AUTHORITY!... AND SPIRIT!
    .
    WITH HOPE!... FAITH!... AND "AGAPE LOVE (I.E., TRUE 'CHRISTIAN LOVE'!)"!...
    .
    "A BANE TO AGE OF MAJORITY HYPOCRITES!... AND!... THEIR HYPOCRISY!"
    .
    Please!... no emails!
    .
    P.S.: The FBI "raided" a message board in late 2012 (so we're led to believe!), that was distributing child porn!... AND THEN!... "DECIDED" THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO RUN IT FOR TWO WEEKS (or!... were simply CAUGHT IN THE ACT of running it!) to see who else they could "catch (so we're led to believe!)". Over that time period, more than 10,000 images were confirmed shared to approximately 5,600 users.
    .
    Out of those 5,600 people, the FBI managed to identify and catch ONE of them!... AND CHARGES AGAINST WHOM, HAVE YET TO BE LAID (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/playpen-story-fbis-unprecedented-and-illegal-hacking-operation ... and... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160921/06451335583/another-judge-declares-fbis-playpen-warrant-i nvalid-suppresses-all-evidence.shtml) Great job guys!... NOT!!
    .
    To sum up my postscript... in James 1:13, we read... "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil!... AND HE, HIMSELF, DOES NOT TEMPT ANYONE." Therefore... how much more so, should those who proclaim Christ!... and abide by his words!... and Spirit!... ABSTAIN FROM THE VERY APPEARENCE OF EVIL (see, 1 Thessalonians, 5: 22)!... AND, AVOID TEMPTING NETIZENS TO SIN (IN THE GUISE, OF "CATCHING THE BAD GUY"!)! AND!... PROMULGATING HYPOCRISY, IN THE GUISE OF DEFENDING THE WEAK, AND DEFENCELESS! And... as an Agency of Government!... the FBI, should do no less!
    .
    And!... if the just aforenoted wasn’t revealing enough!... you might find the ensuing URL of added interest... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-investigators-apologize-deleting-evidence-paedophile-rin g/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 2:43am

      Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

      Dude....

      You have real issues.. go get help

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:01am

        Re: Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

        A few pages of issues >.>

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

          Ninja!... or should I say NITWIT!... why don't you stealthfully get your sorry *ss out of here! And maybe you and Cookie Monster can get yourselves ready for Halloween!
          .
          Please!... no emails!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 6:15pm

        Re: Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

        Dipstick!...
        .
        Yeah!... I do!... I keep running into Nettrollian morons!
        .
        Please!... no emails!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Mayor, 29 Sep 2016 @ 5:58pm

    CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

    In a 2015 "EduNet Webinar" presented on Thursday, May 14th, 2015, by Kenneth V. Lanning, former Supervisory Special Agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (retired), titled, "Compliant Child Victims: Confronting an Uncomfortable Reality", Mr. Lanning states (in his synopsis of his presentation)...
    .
    "In this presentation, the term compliant will be used to describe those children who in any way, partially or fully, cooperate in or 'consent' to their sexual victimization without the threat of use of force or violence. Because children cannot legally consent to having sex with adults, this compliance should not in any way alter the fact that they can be victims of serious crimes. The primary purpose of this discussion is to being out into the open possible reasons for this compliance (i.e., grooming and seduction) and to discuss its complexity and significance for child victims and professional interveners."
    .
    Mr. Kenneth V. Lanning, is described as an M.S., and a consultant in the area of crimes against children. He was a Special Agent with the FBI for more than 30 years and was assigned to the FBI Behavioral Science Unit at the FBI Academy for 20 of those years. Mr. Lanning is the 1990 recipient of the Jefferson Award for Research from the University of Virginia, the 1996 recipient of the Outstanding Professional Award for Research from the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, the 1997 recipient of the FBI Director’s Annual Award for Special Achievement for his career accomplishments in connection with missing and exploited children, and the 2009 recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Service from the National Children’s Advocacy Center. He has lectured before thousands of criminal justice professionals.
    .
    For my purposes here, let me begin by revisiting Mr. Lanning's synopsis... and his synopsis alone!... to determine whether this "Expert (so said!)" is on sure footing, re his "rationale" for his "synoptic assertions"! So... to reiterate... Mr. Lanning states...
    .
    "In this presentation, the term compliant will be used to describe those 'CHILDREN' who, IN ANY WAY!... PARTIALLY or FULLY!... 'COOPERATE IN (and I'll add here... maybe INSTIGATE?)', or 'CONSENT' to their 'SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION', without the threat of use (I believe he meant, 'of the use') of force or violence. Because 'CHILDREN' CANNOT 'LEGALLY CONSENT' to having sex with adults (and I'll add here... due to UNCONSTITUTIONAL Age of Majority, and Age of Consent Laws!), THIS COMPLIANCE SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE 'FACT', THAT THEY CAN BE 'VICTIMS' OF SERIOUS 'CRIMES'. The primary purpose of this discussion is to being out (I believe he meant, 'bring out') into the open, POSSIBLE 'REASONS' for this COMPLIANCE (i.e.... and by way of Mr. Lanning's intimation!... THE POSSIBLE REASONS WHY 'CHILDREN' AGREE TO BE 'GROOMED' AND 'SEDUCED'!) and to discuss its 'COMPLEXITY (CODE FOR!... LET'S ALL AGREE TO CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION IN ASSESSING THE DYNAMICS OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!)' and significance for 'CHILD VICTIMS (I.E., THE 'SIGNIFICANCE'!... AND 'VICTIMIZATION'!... AS PROFFERED BY MR. LANNING!)' and professional interveners (AND AGAIN!... THE 'SIGNIFICANCE', AS PROFFERED BY MR. LANNING!... and... I believe he meant, 'professional intervenOrs'!)."
    .
    What unbelievable SOPHISTRY!... and one wonders why there is so much strife in America!... AND AROUND THE WORLD!
    .
    Again... he begins by asserting-- and unequivocally (i.e., without prequalifications!... or setup!)-- that ALL OF THOSE to be discussed (his said "VICTIMS"!) are "CHILDREN (i.e.-- and in his view!-- ARE NOT 'ADULTS'!... AND!... ARE NOT TO BE VIEWED AS HAVING A 'RIGHT' TO 'SEXUAL AGENCY'!... I.E., A 'RIGHT' TO ANY 'AUTONOMOUS POWER OF SEXUAL SELF-DETERMINATION'!)"! He then goes on to state, that the term "COMPLIANT" will be used to describe those "CHILDREN", who... "IN ANY WAY"!... "PARTIALLY", or "FULLY"!... "COOPERATE IN", or "CONSENT TO" their "SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION (I.E., AS MR. LANNING WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE!)" without the threat of use of force or violence.
    .
    Wow!... what a MIND-F--T (to coin a phrase!)!
    .
    So!... and to clarify Mr Lanning's position!... Mr. Lanning's perspective thus far, is... if these "CHILDREN" "COMPLY"!... "IN ANY WAY (but... maybe!... 'PROMULGATE'!)"!... "PARTIALLY", or "FULLY!"... "COOPERATE IN", or "CONSENT" W-I-T-H-O-U-T T-H-E T-H-R-E-A-T O-F U-S-E O-F F-O-R-C-E O-R V-I-O-L-E-N-C-E (and e.g., with 'CHILDREN'S' words such as, 'Sure!... let's get it on!'... or... 'Let's do it!')!... "S-E-X-U-A-L V-I-C-T-I-M-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N", WILL-- N-E-V-E-R-T-H-E-L-E-S-S!-- BE MR. LANNING'S PREFERRED VIEW!... AND "CATCH PHRASE"!... FOR SUCH "COMPLIANCE"!
    .
    He then adds... in continuation of Mr. Lanning's psychobabel!... "...because 'CHILDREN' CANNOT 'LEGALLY CONSENT' to having sex with adults (i.e., until such 'UNDERAGERS' give Mr. Lanning, and his minions, a swift kick to somewhere unpleasant!... through a series of Constitutional challenges!), this 'COMPLIANCE' SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE 'FACT (i.e., his PERVERSE VIEW of the 'FACTS' of many!... if not, MOST!... of the scenarios he is depicting!)' THAT THEY CAN BE 'VICTIMS' of SERIOUS 'CRIMES (I.E., IF SUCH PERVERSE VIEWS IN MANY!-- IF NOT, MOST!-- OF THE SCENARIOUS HE IS DEPICTING ARE VIEWED, IRRESPONSIBLY, AS 'CRIMES'!)'."
    .
    He concludes his synopsis by stating, that the primary purpose of the "DISCUSSION", is to... and again, I'll correct his "verbiage"!... "bring out" into the open, "POSSIBLE REASONS" for this "COMPLIANCE (i.e.-- and in his view!-- 'GROOMING AND SEDUCTION'!... and-- I'm guessing-- he means, by way of the 'adult'!)", and to discuss its "COMPLEXITY (i.e., CODE FOR!... 'Let's not say it's mutually agreed upon sex!'... or... 'Let's not say it's sex initiated by way of CHILDREN!')" and "SIGNIFICANCE" for "CHILD VICTIMS (i.e., CODE FOR!... 'SIGNIFICANCE' AS VIEWED BY MR. LANNING!... AND... IN CONTRAST TO THAT VIEWED BY HIS PROFFERED, 'CHILDREN'!; AND... IN MANY INSTANCES!... IF ANY 'CHILD VICTIMS'-- INDEED!-- EXIST!; AND... IF ANY 'CHILDREN' AREN'T BEING 'FORCIBLY CONNED' INTO VIEWING THEMSELVES AS 'VICTIMS'!-- THROUGH THREATS OF IMPRISONMENT, AND/ OR OTHER ACTS OF 'SOCIOPSYCHOPATHIC INSTITUTIONAL VIOLENCE'!)" and professional intervenOrs (i.e., and-- IN MY VIEW!... and again, in many instances!... "PROFESSIONAL BUSYBODIES!"... OR!... "PSEUDO-PROFESSIONAL 'SOCIO-SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS'"!).
    .
    WOW! WOW! WOW! If it wasn't for NONSENSE, this chap wouldn't have much sense at all! And it kind of reminds me of the 60s and 70s war... now recognized as a FAILED WAR!... on drugs (see, America’s Top Cops Just Called the War on Drugs 'A Tremendous Failure')!
    .
    It's one thing to champion the fight against TRUE VICTIMIZATION, and to offer aid to those who are in NEED of "DEFENCE (and e.g., babies, toddlers, and 'CERTAIN' 'QUASI-SENTIENT' preteens and early teens/ youth!)"!... and, who, CANNOT defend themselves! But, it's quite another, to INTERFERE in the NORMAL AFFAIRS of 'SENTIENT' others!... and others, WHO ACCEPT THEIR MUTUALLY-AGREED UPON RELATIONSHIP, AND LOVE! AND!... WHO ARE FULLY AWARE OF!... AND AGREE TO!... THEIR DIFFERENCES IN AGE!
    .
    Porn by males or females under the age of 18 (although, respective communities have raised this age restriction higher!) is not allowed on the Internet. There are, however-- CLEARLY!-- "COMMERCIAL EXCEPTIONS" to this dictum (i.e., if there is a profit to be made, and "ELITE ENJOYMENT" to be had, certain URLs... e.g., those on the Dark Web!... will remain wholly unaffected!)... and!... despite International and National Laws, International and National Courts, International and National Policing efforts, Internet and Social Protocol, Child Advocacies, and "RESPONSIBLE SEARCH ENGINES"!
    .
    The horrendous sexual abuses against children notwithstanding (and e.g., THE MURDER OF CHILDREN FOR "SEXUAL ENTERTAINMENT"!), there are a few sound reasons for abandoning what I call, "THE PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA (i.e., 'THE PAM DOGMA'!... OR!... 'THE HOMOGENEOUS ENILIKAS/ ADULT DICTUM DOGMA'!)", on the Net!... and!... in Society! THAT IS TO SAY!... IF NET PORN, IS TO CONTINUE TO EXIST ANY FURTHER!
    .
    Let me begin by pointing out, that females under the age of 18 throughout the world (and one-- reportedly!-- as young as 5 years of age!) can-- BIOLOGICALLY!-- have babies! Moreover-- AND MOST IMPORTANTLY!-- many who are pre 18, have CHOSEN to have babies (which is their granted Human Right, under various International, and National Constitutions!... and other Legislated frameworks!)! "A COMPLETELY NATURAL FUNCTION!... AND PHENOMENON!" In other words, we (or at least, females under the age of 18!), are "BORN THIS WAY (i.e., are able to give birth!)"!
    .
    The question-- though!-- is whether... as an "UNDERAGE" female individual!... one is "ENTITLED" to one's own "SEXUAL AGENCY (see, Sexual Agency_Making Decisions!)"! But further... and again!... and as an "UNDERAGE" female individual!... does one have the RIGHT (HUMAN RIGHT!) to "FREELY CHOOSE" THE AGE OF THE PARTNER WITH WHOM ONE HAS DETERMINED TO COPULATE WITH (and not by way of the "AGENCY" of one's "adult parents"!... "other adults!"-- e.g., Guardians!)"!... and/ or!... the "AGENCY" of "non-familial institutions, and organizations"!)! And yea... and yet further!... does such an individual (unless, and of course, such is not to be viewed as an individual!) have the Right to "ENJOY"!-- AND WITH "GUSTO"!-- THE ACT OF GIVING LIFE (and!... GOD FORBID!... should "UNDERAGE" female "SEXUAL ENJOYMENT" ever be "ALLOWED"-- for the simple sake of sexual enjoyment, or, during procreation!-- we "GRANT" the corollary foreplay, so often accompanying "NORMAL SEX ACTS" usually associated with "ADULT SEX"!)!
    .
    Thus, are we (us adults) to say: "OMG!... How perverse is God, nature-- or both!-- in permitting the minds and bodies of these 'poor young things' to bear, and to give birth, to yet smaller children?" "What was God-- and/or nature-- thinking?" "Has God-- and/ or nature (individually!... OR IN SOME 'GRAND CONSPIRACY'!)-- set out to 'P-SS US OFF (i.e., 'WE'... 'ADULTS!'... WHO KNOW BETTER THAN GOD, AND/ OR NATURE!)'?"
    .
    But some will say, that:... "Unlike sleeping, breathing, eating, drinking and waste elimination, 'WE (i.e., those adults speaking on behalf of all 'TRULY' 'MATURE ADULTS'; and, on behalf of the 'MISGUIDED' 'UNDERAGE FEMALES' of the world!-- but, usually 'PROFFERING'!)' CAN SIMPLY 'CHOOSE' NOT TO GIVE BIRTH TO YET 'UNDER-UNDERAGE CHILDREN'!" Inasmuch-- these continue-- as "WE (and... again!... 'AS IF' on behalf of all 'TRULY' 'MATURE ADULTS'... and!... all 'MISGUIDED' 'UNDERAGE FEMALES' of earth!) CAN 'CHOOSE' TO 'ACCEPT' THAT 'IMMATURE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS' ARE 'UNHEALTHY!'!... AND 'UNWISE (but!... CODE FOR!... 'OUR' 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM' SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER GOD, NATURE-- OR BOTH!)'!" "After all, it's 'WE (THE VOICES OF WISDOM!)' who can, and 'WHO MUST' 'DICTATE', the lives of the 'MISGUIDED' of the world (i.e., ALL 'OTHER ADULTS' WHO DO NOT VIEW THINGS AS THESE DO; ALL 'UNDERAGE FEMALES'; AND-- OF COURSE-- GOD, NATURE, OR BOTH!)!" Albeit, BY FORCE! And-- these add (and, in a pretense to spirituality!)!... "LET US NEVER FORGET THIS!"... "AMEN!"
    .
    Now-- of course-- young souls of just 10 years (e.g.), would find it quite difficult to bring into the world... and to care for!... babies! H--l!... even adults of 50 years of age have found this tasking! Indeed!... "SOME ADULTS" have been unable to care for plants, or animals!... or, even THEMSELVES! And, as a consequence, such lacks in "THESE ADULTS", have meant that their progeny are EQUALLY INEPT in caring for plants, or animals!... yea, THE WORLD! And hence, the reason-- "I" feel!-- that "CERTAIN ADULTS" may disallow "FREE REIGN" by "OTHERS", over "THEIR" "WORLD ORDER (and!... even by way, of 'THEIR OWN' FLESH AND BLOOD!)"!
    .
    In others words!... as "THESE" "ADULTS" haven't been able to figure out the "NURTURE THING"-- AT LEAST!-- "THESE" feel!... YEA, ARE CERTAIN!... THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN!... AND/ OR HAS!
    .
    But who (or what) is to be held to account for any lack in "Domestic Skills"-- let alone, "Self-sufficiency", and "Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Behavioral Competency"-- within those who are beneath the Age of Majority, when our views at home!... and within our educational systems!-- but, etc.!... would preclude any entrenchment of such skills for those who are beneath the age, of our Age of Majority dictum (see, The Death of Psychiatry, by Dr. Edwin Fuller Torrey!)? If one doesn't view "UNDERAGE SEX"!... AND "COROLLARY RELATIONSHIPS"!... as "NORMAL", one isn't inclined to be "PROACTIVE" in giving those deemed "UNDERAGE", the skill sets afforded to those deemed "AGEWORTHY"! And if these skill sets are not to be put within our schools... despite the gaps (and "MADNESS"!) in home settings!... and other "would-be"/ "should-be" "TRUSTED" institutions!... THEN WHERE IS SUCH PREPAREDNESS TO BE FOUND? And so!... explaining-- in part!-- why "CERTAIN ADULTS" view the world, in the manner these do!
    .
    And so!... who?... then!... (and/ or, what!) is to blame, if a child of 10 (e.g.) CHOOSES to defy/ challenge the "ADULT SOCIAL NORM (i.e., INDEPENDENT of any 'GROOMING' by adults!... and as proffered by the likes of Kenneth Lanning!)"? Is it the child?... God?... nature?... or all three? SURELY!... it can't be any insidious juxtaposed interpolative ascribed "INTRAPERSONAL AND INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORAL CIRCUMLOCUTORY OBFUSCATION" on the part of "ADULTS (i.e., 'CERTAIN ADULTS'!)"!... and/ or!... "THEIR" consequent "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"!
    .
    Let us now look at another set of truths!... in our "HONEST ATTEMPT" to examine the Rights, we (as "MATURE ADULTS"!) should "BESTOW UPON"-- or, remove from!-- our "CHILDREN"!... AND!... THE "CHILDREN" OF OTHERS! TRUTHS to be found, in the writings of our Judaic/ Christian heritage!
    .
    One example, is a quote attributed to Jesus Christ!... and, which states: "TRULY I TELL YOU, UNLESS YOU CHANGE, AND BECOME LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN, YOU ('ADULTS'!... my emphasis!) WILL NEVER ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN!" [Matthew 18:3 - NIV]
    .
    Now... is Christ saying, that we ("adults"!... generally speaking!) must literally become "CHILDREN"?... AGAIN? Of course not! He is speaking about manifesting the PURE, and GENTLE NATURE that children possess!... about becoming, "CHILDLIKE"! And so!... the question for us "CHRISTIAN ADULTS", is: "How does this 'CHILD-LIKE MENTALITY (AND 'SPIRIT'!)' translate-- for example-- in intimate situations?... when it comes to our intimacy with our partner!... intimacy, in the bedroom (or wherever!)!" If "CHRISTIAN ADULTS" are to become LIKE CHILDREN!... and in the bedroom (or wherever!)!... are we not then treating our sexual partner (IN CHRIST!) in the bedroom-- or wherever!-- as if our partner was a "CHILD"? And, if your partner is to be as if a "CHILD" to you (and you a "CHILD" to your partner!... IN CHRIST!), then what's the difference between that, and being intimate with-- say!-- someone "UNDERAGE (i.e., someone who has initiated... or, who has 'KNOWLEDGEABLY', and 'FREELY' accepted, such mutual intimacy!... and!... who has ACCEPTED CHRIST!)"? Or, is it-- simply!-- that by mere difference in age (and possibly, physical stature!)", the "CHILD-LIKE" intimacy between an "ADULT" and an actual "CHILD (IN CHRIST!)", must be looked upon as an "UN-ADULT_E-RATED EVIL"!... AND!... AN "UNHOLY" THING!
    .
    And here, I'm reminded of the words of St. Paul, who stated: "TO THE PURE, ALL THINGS ARE PURE, BUT TO THOSE WHO ARE CORRUPTED, AND DO NOT BELIEVE, NOTHING IS PURE! IN FACT, BOTH THEIR MINDS, AND CONSCIENCES, ARE CORRUPTED!" [Titus 1:5 - NIV] And also, the words of Christ... who said: "VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, AND BLASPHEMIES WHEREWITH SOEVER THESE SHALL BLASPHEME: BUT HE THAT SHALL BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, BUT IS IN DANGER OF ETERNAL DAMNATION (i.e., and to paraphrase... and in the context of the just aforegoing!... ONE WHO ACCUSES SOMEONE IN CHRIST OF HAVING A 'PERVERSE SPIRIT' BY VIRTUE OF A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE CONVENTIONS OF 'THE WORLD', MAY BE JUDGED BY GOD, AS BEING IN BREACH OF GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT!)!" [MARK, 3:28/29 - KJV]
    .
    Therefore, is one ready to say... WITH ALL CERTAINTY!... that the intimacy that one might encounter between souls who are "BEYOND THE ADULT SOCIAL NORM (and between-- potentially!-- those who've accepted Jesus Christ, and his Holy Spirit!)", is-- ACTUALLY!-- INDICATIVE OF "EVIL"?... and rather, than an intimacy-- INDEED!-- SANCTIONED BY GOD! And, will "WE" find (i.e., "CERTAIN ADULT PURVEYORS"!... past, and present!... OF THE "ADULT SOCIAL NORM", AND "PAM DOGMA"!), that the "INTERFERENCE" in which (AND BY REPROBATE LIVES!... WHO HAVE NO SEMBLANCE OF THE TRUTH!... AND!... WHO'VE REJECTED GOD'S LOVE!... AND/ OR GOD!), may-- one day!-- owe a hefty price, for having judged so unwisely! And-- INDEED!-- will "CERTAIN ADULTS" be judged among those who have caused the deaths of both adults and children (in isolated incidents!... OR IN CONCERT WITH "SOCIAL POLICY"!) who have strayed from the "DICTATES" of the "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"?
    .
    On another theme... if one is a Jewish male, and 13, then one gets to become an "OFFICIAL ADULT" through what is known, as a Barmitzvah! Similarly, if one is a Jewish female, and 13, then one gets to become an "OFFICIAL ADULT" through what is described as a Batmitzvah!
    .
    Simply said, it would be a sad jest to say to a Jewish female "ADULT" of 13, or Jewish male "ADULT" of 13: "You are 'recognized' through Jewish custom as an 'ADULT' Jew at 13 years of age!... but!... GOD FORBID, that you should-- 'EVER!'-- become sexually intimate with another 'ADULT' of 13!... or-- worse!... GOD FORBID, that you should-- 'EVER (AND, 'DOUBLE-DOSE' THE GOD FORBIDDANCES!)'!-- become sexually intimate with someone that the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM' has deemed, is 'BEYOND THE AGE OF MAJORITY'!"
    .
    And so... simply said... when a Jewish male or female became an "ADULT" through his/ her Jewish faith, and Synagogue, this meant that such "REALLY BECAME" an "ADULT"!... and!... not just "SYMBOLICALLY"!... "CEREMONIALLY"!... or "METAPHORICALLY"! Otherwise, such a Rite-- in my view!-- would be tantamount to CHILD ABUSE (i.e., in leading a "CHILD" to believe in one's "ADULT RITE OF PASSAGE"!... but then!-- at once!-- stating, that such is not to be taken SERIOUSLY!)!
    .
    But what about the rest of us? Do we not have equal status under the law? And, if a Jewish male of 13, or a Jewish female of 13, were found making out with a person over the stated Age of Majority, would such not suffer the consequences of our Age of Majority laws?... and just like the rest of us? And, if such "UNDERAGE TEENS"/ "CHILDREN" were found in violation of our laws, wouldn't our laws be in conflict with THEIR "RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS"? Or, could it be, that such "Religious Freedoms" are in conflict with our laws?... and "ADULT SOCIAL NORM"/ "PUBLIC MORALITY"? It begs the question! And as a final footnote to the just aforesaid, I should/ would have you note, that "PRETEENS (i.e., souls younger than 'UNDERAGE TEENS'!)" once ruled Israel! God!... go figure! OR!... G-O F-I-G-U-R-E G-O-D!
    .
    But further, and on yet a different theme, there are a significant number of young teens (UNDER the "Age of Majority"!) who are a part of sundry GRADUATE PROGRAMS in Medicine, Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science, and many other highly specialized, and professional fields of endeavour (see, Why This 14-Year-Old Kid Built a Nuclear Reactor...!). And so!... are we to say-- and for example-- to a gal of 15 in a 3rd year GRADUATE MEDICAL PROGRAM (and, who, in a couple of years, could be treating you-- or I-- in some regional hospital!)... "You can become a doctor!... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... but!... 'KEEP YOUR PANTIES ON'!" And... "If you!... 'LITTLE GIRL!'... are found having sex with that graduate of 22 in Computer Science across town, 'WE (i.e., the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM', and AUTHORS OF THE 'PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA'!)', will place him behind bars!-- 'FOR RAPE'!... and communicate (WITH AMPLE 'SELF-RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION'!... AND IN THE SPIRIT OF 'RIVER CITY', IN THE MOVIE, 'THE MUSIC MAN'!) your 'EVIL ACT', and the 'EVIL' of your 'SICK CLAN', to as many (UNWITTING!) souls as we can find!... and jeopardize (IF THESE CAN!) your hopes, and dreams!" "After all... such little 'sex maniacs'!... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... would be viewed by us as dim witted 'little ijits', for even considering having sex with 'AGE OF MAJORITY' grad students (SAY!... THE AUTHORS OF THE 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM'!... AND 'PAM DOGMA'!)... and... 'LITTLE GIRL'!... 'WE' WILL HAVE NONE OF SUCH 'FILTH', IN 'OUR' 'WORLD SOCIAL ORDER'!" "AND!... 'LITTLE GIRL!'... DON'T MASTURBATE!"
    .
    Now... imagine the abovenoted hypothetical "potential tryst" between this "LITTLE GIRL" and the grad student, with the following added features! The gal and young man of which I speak, are Jewish. Now add, that these have recently become Christian! Now, also include, that the parents of both of these young people have all agreed to their charges' relationship!... and, have offered, that whatever resources the two so desire, and need-- all being professionals themselves!-- will be made available to their charges!... and... should their charges' relationship grow!... and the young female becomes pregnant! I ask you: "Is it the role of the 'ADULT SOCIAL NORM'... afterupon the finding of some deemed breach of the community's Age of Majority law/ Age of Consent Law!... to now DEMAND (AND WITH AS MUCH ZEAL AS THE HUNT FOR FINANCIAL WRONGDOING BY THE BANKING COMMUNITY, IN THE 2008 BANKING SCANDAL!) that these 'WAYWARD PARENTS' pay some 'PENALTY' for this 'FILTHY BEHAVIOUR' that these have allowed into the lives of their offspring?... and!... in addition to the price to be paid by these 'IMMATURE IMMORAL DEGENERATE OFFSPRING'!... AND THREATS TO SOCIETY'!" "I THINK NOT!" Indeed, CURSED IS/ BE THE SPIRIT, AND THE GOD OF THE SPIRIT, THAT CALLOUSLY!-- AND UNLOVINGLY!-- SUGGESTS OTHERWISE! And furthermore, IT IS MY BELIEF, THAT THE "AGE OF MAJORITY LAWS/ AGE OF CONSENT LAWS (AND THROUGHOUT NORTH AMERICA!-- AT LEAST!)" SHOULD BE EITHER DRAMATICALLY CHANGED TO REFLECT THE "REALITY" OF THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB!... OF JESUS CHRIST!... OF NATURE!... OF "MATURE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES (THE GAINSAYING, 'PSEUDO-ADULTS', NOTWITHSTANDING!)"!... OF THE RIGHTS OF OUR "UNDERAGE (SO-CALLED!)" FEMALE AND MALE POPULATIONS!... AND!... OF LOGIC!... OR SUCH BE THROWN OUT, ALTOGETHER!
    .
    Lastly, some might contend that to allow such a "CHRISTIAN", "NATURAL", and "LOGICAL" Sexuality to flourish today, would be to open the floodgates of "UNDERAGE PORN EXPRESSION" on the Net's Web!
    .
    Let me ask the obvious: "Has society removed the 'Age of Majority Porn' from the Internet?... despite the 'feigned Judaic/ Christian principles 'FLOURISHING' in our said 'CIVILIZED COMMUNITIES'?" "Do YOU!-- READER!-- watch 'Age of Majority Porn'?... but!... then suggest, that 'other types' of 'INTIMACY' are 'forboden'?" Maybe one's contestation... YOUR contestation!... should be, that "Age of Majority Porn" should be removed from the Internet, ALTOGETHER! (A MOVE, I'D BE GLAD TO SUPPORT!) And rather, than contend, that individuals have NO RIGHT to express some "sanctified", "natural", and "logical sexuality"! If "Age of Majority Porn" is ALRIGHT with YOU!... AND SOCIETY!... then the question (AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE!) becomes, one of simple "AGE DISCRIMINATION"! But, if "Age of Majority Porn" is NOT ALRIGHT with YOU!... AND SHOULD NOT EXIST IN SOCIETY ("FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" NOTWITHSTANDING!)!... then the question ("LOGICAL QUESTION!") becomes: "HOW HAVE SUCH 'UNDERAGE ACTS OF CONSENTUAL INTIMACY (AND WHEREIN, SUCH IS INDEED THE CASE!)', BECOME EQUATED WITH 'ACTS OF PORN'?... AND 'DEGENERACY'?" And, let us not forget, that it wasn't too long ago that having sex-- at least!-- with someone of a different race, was considered "DEGENERATE (i.e., by 'CERTAIN ADULTS'!)"! But!... the list of discriminations have been many!... and!... continues!
    .
    It is said, that, "...THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!" [John 8, 31-32]... and... that, "...God has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind..." [2 Timothy, 1:7].
    .
    Well... for some (and even for those professing Christ!) BEING BOUND IS A PREFERRED STATE OF EXISTENCE!... AND LIVING IN FEAR, IS DESIRED OVER THE POWER OF LOVE!... AND, OF POSSESSING A SOUND MIND!
    .
    JESUS CHRIST CAME INTO THIS WORLD TO SAVE SINNERS!... AND TO ERADICATE SIN! AND A FACTION OF SUCH SINNERS ARE THOSE BOUND BY SEXUAL IMMORALITY!... AND!... OF WHATEVER DESCRIPTION! BUT!... WOE TO THOSE WHO WOULD IMPUNE THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THOSE, WHOSE INTIMACY IS BEYOND THE SOCIAL NORM (A.K.A., THE WORLD'S NORM!)!... AND, IN THE GUISE OF DEFENDING THE "WEAK", AND THE "DEFENCELESS"! AS MATTHEW 7:21-23 STATES:... 21) "NOT EVERYONE WHO SAYS TO ME, 'LORD, LORD,' WILL ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN WILL ENTER." 22) "MANY WILL SAY TO ME ON THAT DAY, 'LORD, LORD, DID WE NOT PROPHESY IN YOUR NAME, AND IN YOUR NAME CAST OUT DEMONS, AND IN YOUR NAME PERFORM MANY MIRACLES?'" 23) "AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, 'I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" [NIV]
    .
    In other words, there will be many who will have shown the "SIGNS" of having followed God!... and TRUTH!... but!... who-- IN REALITY!-- NEVER KNEW GOD!... NEVER ACCEPTED THE TRUTH!... AND NEVER ACCEPTED GOD'S AGAPE LOVE! AND!-- IN PARTICULAR!-- NEVER ACCEPTED THE LOVE OF HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON! AND YEA!... WERE REVEALED AS HAVING DESTROYED OTHERS, WHO WERE FAITHFUL!
    .
    Adam's nakedness was not filth before God's eyes!... nor, was King David's, when King David danced before the Lord!... in praise! Indeed, it wasn't Adam's nakedness that displeased God!... it was Adam's disobedience! And punishment ensued, for the critic of David's praise!
    .
    For Christians, it is clear, that we are to be subject to that which is in authority (see Romans, Chapter 13:1-3). But!... it is also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country-- at least!-- is a country's respective national constitution!... AND, WHICH-- INVARIABLY!-- CONTAINS RIGHTS, AND FREEDOMS! And so, to resist such!... and in keeping with Romans 13:1-3!... IS TO RESIST GOD'S AUTHORITY!... AND SPIRIT!
    .
    WITH HOPE!... FAITH!... AND "AGAPE LOVE (I.E., TRUE 'CHRISTIAN LOVE'!)"!...
    .
    "A BANE TO AGE OF MAJORITY HYPOCRITES!... AND!... THEIR HYPOCRISY!"
    .
    Please!... no emails!
    .
    P.S.: The FBI "raided" a message board in late 2012 (so we're led to believe!), that was distributing child porn!... AND THEN!... "DECIDED" THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO RUN IT FOR TWO WEEKS (or!... were simply CAUGHT IN THE ACT of running it!) to see who else they could "catch (so we're led to believe!)". Over that time period, more than 10,000 images were confirmed shared to approximately 5,600 users.
    .
    Out of those 5,600 people, the FBI managed to identify and catch ONE of them!... AND CHARGES AGAINST WHOM, HAVE YET TO BE LAID (see, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/playpen-story-fbis-unprecedented-and-illegal-hacking-operation ... and... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160921/06451335583/another-judge-declares-fbis-playpen-warrant-i nvalid-suppresses-all-evidence.shtml)! Great job guys!... NOT!!
    .
    To sum up my postscript... in James 1:13, we read... "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil!... AND HE, HIMSELF, DOES NOT TEMPT ANYONE." Therefore... how much more so, should those who proclaim Christ!... and abide by his words!... and Spirit!... ABSTAIN FROM THE VERY APPEARENCE OF EVIL (see, 1 Thessalonians, 5: 22)!... AND, AVOID TEMPTING NETIZENS TO SIN (IN THE GUISE, OF "CATCHING THE BAD GUY"!)! AND!... PROMULGATING HYPOCRISY, IN THE GUISE OF DEFENDING THE WEAK, AND DEFENCELESS! And... as an Agency of Government!... the FBI, should do no less!
    .
    And!... if the just aforenoted wasn’t revealing enough!... you might find the ensuing URL of added interest... http://thefreethoughtproject.com/government-investigators-apologize-deleting-evidence-paedophile-rin g/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Sep 2016 @ 10:21am

      Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

      Well I know who's getting the next visit from the FBI...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:02pm

        Re: Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

        You've got it backwards!... it's the FBI that's getting a visit!... from Christ!
        .
        Please!... no emails!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        John Mayor, 30 Sep 2016 @ 7:09pm

        Re: Re: CHRIST, NATURE, PORN AGE OF MAJORITY DOGMA, THE LAW, AND THE FBI

        GALATIANS 6: 7, "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows, he will reap in return." [NIV]
        .
        Luke 10: 16, "Whoever listens to you (a Christian Messenger!) listens to Me (Jesus Christ!); whoever rejects you (a Christian Messenger!) rejects Me (Jesus Christ!); but whoever rejects Me (Jesus Christ!) rejects Him who sent Me (GOD!)! [NIV]
        .
        Matthew 25: 40, "And the King answering, will say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did it to Me." [Berean Literal Bible]

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Mayor, 29 Sep 2016 @ 6:11pm

    DEJA VU

    P.S. to the P.S.:... I apologize for the repeat message!... but, the initial message failed to appear! In fact!... I received a, "This page can't be displayed", when hitting SUBMIT!... and so, hit the left arrow icon, and resent the comment! And here we are, with two messages! Mike!... feel free to dump the initial comment!
    .
    Please!... no emails!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Sep 2016 @ 6:38pm

      Re: DEJA VU

      Was going to ask about subscribing to your newsletter, but I think I just read it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        John Mayor, 2 Oct 2016 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re: DEJA VU

        My newsletter... if I ever set one up!... would be about "RETOOLING HEALTH FOR THE 22ND CENTURY"! I'm a "dyed in the wool" "GLOBAL HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE MANIFESTO GUY"! I'm about the BIGGEST PICTURE of ourselves that we could EVER possibly construct!... barring ABSOLUTELY and UTTERLY N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
        .
        Please!... no emails!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Sep 2016 @ 9:40pm

    Well what he is doing is protected speech, lets send people to bother him and see if we can get him to step over the imaginary line.
    See we did it, now we'll get a slam dunk conviction because he isn't soft and fluffy...
    wait... someone explained the 1A & memes & outrageous statements?!

    They imagined a problem then used a pattern they have used before to get a response they hoped rose to the level they needed to flex their muscles...

    Of course having been called a hacker, terrorist, identity thief, psychopath, and some other things I am sure I am forgetting by officers of the court on the record when I'm none of those things... I know that sometimes they stretch the truth to get leverage.

    He might say hateful things, but if we don't stand up for his right to say them, we'll all be screwed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FM Hilton, 2 Oct 2016 @ 6:03pm

    There's a candidate here...

    Writing in all caps is annoying as hell..and so is writing in half all caps.

    But you can probably call up Donald Trump's campaign and see if they're in need of someone with your literary skills.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.