In
this thread
I suggested to
visit the forum on The Student Room of Essex
University to discuss about Ken Plummer who, as the article states, normalizes paedophilia in his lectures.
I did so and guess what happened?
I just quoted a few sentences from
the article of the Telegraph
and asked the community what to think about it. This was the quote:
Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …
“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”
Waited a few hours while mods checked my thread and finally … TA-DA:
https://imgoat.com/uploads/51ce410c12/12117.png
DECLINED
I wanted to ask in which way I violated any of their terms, but …
https://imgoat.com/uploads/51ce410c12/12118.png
Mission impossible. Why shouldn't students be allowed to discuss the teachings of their Profs?
▼ ThorTheWonderful
We have anti-investigators in our mods, I keep trying to direct more attention to the education system and Millennial_falcon keeps deleting. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1797859
▼ shoosh
Recently I've been researching pedo rights activists psychology and although I'm not a shrink I want to attempt to understand where they prioritize sex in their belief system, or how they have a disconnect from placing them as protectors of children rather than their desire as sexual perpetrators of children.
So far it appears that because children have penis and vaginas that delivery physical sensations, and that children are often curious about these body parts, the adult pedo assumes that this must mean the child is available for their sexuality, or anyone's sexuality for that matter, simply because a child has a working penis and vagina.
Or, because the adult had no boundaries in place when they were a child they think that all children have no boundaries in regard to curiosity about their body parts and children shouldn't be required to have boundaries, nor should adult pedo's be required to teach them boundaries.
I think the pedo's bodies are a raging mass of chemical and hormones attached to a mind/brain or conscience that doesn't appear to operate under any type of socio-ethical standards involving protecting and caring for children.
For example, a child is curious about a burning stove or walking off a cliff, or into a busy street, but that doesn't mean the adult let's them do any of those things. The child needs direction and safety from adults even though they may have feet to walk into traffic or a penis, vagina, or in the case of sodomy - an anus in which to have sex or be used sexually.
It appears that the ability to understand the nature of care, empathy and boundaries are common among those who can't grasp this issue. Psychologically speaking a watermark for sociopathy / psychopathy is the lack of empathy.
It appears that the lack of ability to understand or incorporate personal boundaries (specifically sexually) is also relevant to their nature.
▼ neverobey
thanks for your comment. I think so, too. This post f.e. at the christian boy lover forum stands for itself. He is asking if the children need boundaries. First answer he recieves doesn't care about the boundary question and tries to convince him/her that he shouldn't trust his own beliefs in terms of questions like if the children think he/she's mean and described how he once thought a boy would hate him but than found out that this boy actually was talking about him permanantly (told ny his parents). The third comment however is really showing.
This is crazy. At first this comment seam to be written in the consciousness that children are under our responsibility and need direction. It's the closest to understanding the difference between adults and kids as far as I've found in this forum but than it gets twisted as hell and claims that kids would be abusers and not lovers if they are running all over you. This is a big sign for denial. And denial is a good indicator for a working morality system which my behaviour won't fit to. It's not as easy diagnosed as that but that would them make sociopaths. People who do things knowingly wrong. But I am not a shrink as well. so now we have 4 cents here. :)
▼ possiblepizza
I'll bet if the article were either "I'm a pedo student feeling misunderstood" or "look how courageous this pedo prof is", it would have been allowed.
▼ possiblepizza
Wait! Wait! IgottitIgottit! "I'm a SJW feminist women's studies major, I'm a former victim of slimeball pedo men, and I feel triggered and un-safespaced by this prof."
▼ neverobey
how 'bout trying out?
▼ PizzagateBot
Hi! I created the following archive link(s) for this voat submission:
WARC files are created with https://webrecorder.io/
WARCs can be viewed offline with WARC replay tools like https://github.com/webrecorder/webrecorderplayer-electron
Final WARC will be created after 1 week from posting.
Let me know if you would like to see a !RemindMe function.
▼ Havengul
That sucks. What's tsr?
▼ neverobey
It is a forum.
▼ Havengul
Thanks.
▼ PizzagateBot
Hi! I used Google to find related Voat posts using the URL(s) in your post and created the following link(s):