How can someone constantly, vehemently, object to things like lies and slander while simultaneously engaging in both lying and slander.
One example. The prevailing narrative from both the MSM and the ASPL is that the "Epstein Files" would unequivocally prove that Trump was objectively guilty of sex with minors therefore justifying referring to him as a pedophile. Yet the "Epstein files" have, if anything, pretty much refuted this narrative entirely. Yet some on the left continue to refer to Trump as a "pedophile", with absolutely zero evidence that this claim is accurate.
A pedophile is defined as someone who is "sexually attracted to children" or according to MW to "prepubescent children". So when someone refers to someone else as a "pedophile" they are claiming that the person is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Now that is quite a significant charge to level against someone, especially without any objective proof.
If I wanted to refer to the fine upstanding immigrant "helper" who helped himself (via kidnapping) to sexually abusing a 12 year old child as a "pedophile" that might be appropriate (especially if the child was prepubescent). The actions of this fine upstanding gentleman would clearly warrant the appellation.
Now those in academia and the ASPL have introduced another factor into the equation. The notion of Minor Attracted Persons is the new more acceptable term for pedophile, and the attempts to justify this attraction are impressive. The creepiest is the notion that using AI to generate pornographic images of children for sexual gratification is perfectly legal and acceptable.
So one must wonder, is "pedophile" a bad person, while a "MAP" is a good person? The hypocrisy seems evident.
But, back to the point. It seems to be patently a lie, and potentially slander, to refer to someone as a "pedophile" without actual proof of that person's sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It also seems strange to fail to discriminate between one who has the attraction but doesn't act on it, and one who does choose to act on their attraction.
In any case, it seems wrong to lie about something this serious and very likely to be slanderous/libelous.
2 comments:
As is typical of the "decent moral progressives", to accuse equates to a guilty beyond a reasonable doubt verdict. Dan dresses as a little girl and has sex with sheep. It's true because I simply accused him of this behavior and thus, we are free to label Dan accordingly.
Naturally, I don't actually do this kind of thing. It's enough for me to report on Dan's actual depravity which is evidence by his own words in the many blog conversations over the last 17 years. I wouldn't even say "people say Dan has sex with sheep" if it wasn't true, or at least I would say "people say, but never have proven" if I chose to report that at all, which I wouldn't if there is no evidence for it (I might warn shepherds, though).
The point of the "decent moral progressive"...like Dan...is to smear an opponent for whom no legitimate criticism can be presented, or for whom legit criticisms aren't enough to detract from beneficial behaviors, in the way Dan ignores the sins of those he prefers by listing only their positive traits.
It's rank slander and lying and Dan is embraces this far more than he does grace.
DMP is just Dan pretending that there is some universal moral code of ASPL, while they riot and burn shit.
Post a Comment