Re: What a riot

Scott Gardner said:

> >> I've also never
> >> bought into this whole "proven pedophile" crap - which is what it is.
> >> That's bullshit too.  
> >
> >No, it's proven fact. 
> >
> >
> I've seen what passes for "proof" of Krueger's "pedophilia", and I'll
> say again - it's bullshit.  Here's my take on the matter.  Either he
> 
> A) Truly received the e-mails in question regarding his son, and
> therefore didn't write them,

Proven to be not true.


> B)  He wrote them himself, with the intention of making them appear to
> have come from a third party.  

Yes, this is the only possible explanation.

> If he did this, it would serve his
> purposes to creatively make the e-mails as vile and repugnant as he
> possibly could.  This would make the e-mails a work of fiction.  

Yes, I'm sure everyone agrees about that.

> if he did write the e-mails himself, that makes him a pedophile about
> as much as Stephen King's books make him a murderer, or Sean Connery's
> movies make him a spy.

Not so. The moral content of the various fantasies is different.

You can ask Dr. Richman to delve into this matter if you want a
professional's insight. The commonsense analysis is that many people
fantasize about fun things like horror stories or superspies (or
sports heroes, space exploration, sex, mysteries, etc., etc., etc.).
However, fantasizing about pedophiliac activities is by definition
sick, and it is exactly why we say Krooger is a proven pedophile.
(I've qualified that judgment myself on several occasions by saying he
is proven to have pedophile tendencies. But because the license I
grant myself for my general agenda -- i.e. trashing Mr. Shit -- I
round it up to full pedophilia.)

> I don't know which of the above scenarios is true, but in my mind,
> neither is worth a tinker's damn as "proof" of pedophilia.

You need to think about this some more.

Pedophilia is about as normal a subject for fantasy as is torture or
dismemberment. They both speak of a mental debility.