Jump to content

Eldnah

Members
  • Content Count

    605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Eldnah last won the day on July 11 2019

Eldnah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

128 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I dont think it will make much differrence over the year The person who buys 700 loo rolls today has just bought a years supply (or 3) so wont be buying them again so it will even out. Of course there will be a slight gain as some bulk bought stuff will be wasted - go rotten - lost in accident ( eg storing loo roll behind the toilet in a house full of boys) but mostly stocking today = not buying later.
  2. Let me guess - Every one of the countries being blamed - will be one of those actively tackling the issue Not one will be a socialist (or ex socialist ) country with an extremely poor record of enviromental protection I was forwarded the Usual XR guff about THE WORST Enviromental disasters and how CAPITALISM was to blame I enquired as to why Chernobyl and several others attributable to the Soviet union had failed to make the list, O also asked how enviromental disasters in socialist countries are the fault of capitalism I was blocked - save 1 reply It is capitalists fault that socialist countries cause massive pollution because they are manufacturing stuff for capitalist countries and to do so cheaper they make short cuts. You hear that its your fault that china for example has no regard for its people and so unsafely undercuts your Job pushing you out of work
  3. You will notice the targeted media is all right wing ( to varying degrees) Theres the reason they were targeted - sod all to do with climate change - XR like BLM* and CND before them and to an extent green peace**are nothing more than a stalking horse for various far left movements - They act rather like cults and those radicalising Muslims - Find common cause prey on fears - missrepresent other opinions, portray any disagreement as total opposition - wind up and send on way. * Notice how Ethnic minorities who dont go with the narrative are portrayed as worse than whitey **Hence a rather bitter split between founding members
  4. Seems to be a confused interpretation/ implimentation / draughting of a law to protect victims and yet another case of adding more ill conceived legislation instead of actually using the existing law correctly. The more laws the more loopholes lawyers can find - keep them simple and clear (same with taxes) bit of course a clear simple law wouldnt earn lawyers millions For example Maggie contacted Australian media outlets to draw attention to the lenient sentences given to paedophilles, only to learn of the new law that makes it a crime for the media to publish her name, or her fathers, as it could indirectly identify her. The bolded bits perfectly sensible, and i completely agree with it, the media should not be allowed to publish information that could identify the victim and thus remove her anonymity. Its the unbolded bit thats wrong - If she is identifying herself why should that be an issue she is choosing to waive anonymity. I can understand it if her speaking risks others being identified (who wish to remain anonymous), but thats either a very poor piece of legislation - or the newspapers really miss understood the rules
  5. Agreed - but it isnt buried a la subterranean test bombs for me to call it to underground. And i cant think of a better term In order to ensure almost simultaneous destruction of all tower supports - it would need a (relatively) unobstructed path which means not buried and shielded by rock - theres no ensuring a shockwave isnt bent by weaker bits of rock etc. However the towers collapse from above impact zone and then to ground and I cannot see haw that can be attributed to a nuke in the basement. Ive honestly never even considered it a mystery myself - watching controlled demos there's often tons of dust produced - which must be a significant amount of the Brick / concrete structure being pulverised . I actually had you in the 100% no nikes camp
  6. To the contrary Ground burst results in far more fall out - Its bomb residue attaching to stuff as it explodes - there would have been dust scattered over a wide area. There would also have been a few very hot spots in terms of contaminations - with serious health implications. The associated EMP pulse although attenuated in a ground burst would still have knocked out all those cameras recording the collapse. The fact every man and his dog was capable of filming the collapse is pretty conclusive evidence to my mind that a nuclear device was not involved. Same applies to the Beruit blast - mobile phones recorded the shockwave hitting them (and killing the owner) - if it was nuclear the EMP would have fritzed them before the shockwave hit.
  7. Ok start with 1) A Paedophile has a sexual attraction to children - it is in fact their sexual preference. 2) Paedophilia is the reason a paedophile abuses children - it isnt the abuse of children - 3) Sexually abusing a child doesnt automatically make someone a paedophile ( it sounds wrong I know but ill see point 1) 4)Some if not most Paedophiles are well aware paedophilia is wrong Some of those will seek help and some will resist the urge in their own and so will never abuse children - Hence some Paedophiles may never harm children, 5) Child abusers Some of course will abuse a child close to them - these need locking up until cured and until they've served their sentence Some Paedophiles do not see anything wrong and think its natural - - Its these that really need identifying and helping because they are a massive risk and without treatment always will be. I would argue locked away until cured is the solution for these but once cured release them - Tragically many in this group are themselves victims of abuse it creating a vicious cycle - its these im thinking of when i say unpleasant intolerance - The last group are the real sexual predators who search out children - this group should never be released - and if convicted of travelling abroad should have to stay in their prisons. 6) Then there's people who aren't paedophiles but sexually abuse a child - which i know just doesnt seem to make sense The individuals sexual preference isnt a child - the child was just convenient - these are probably the worst because theres no reason other than power and gratification - these are nothing more than predators on vulnerable idividuals there is no cure for this and so never release them Example Man convicted of serious crime (not involving children) - on his release his wife said not living with me - he is a danger to women Sibling takes him in. He abuses his niece (under10) Eventually the child speaks up Man back in jail for child abuse - no rehab or treatment programme no psychiatrist because he isnt a paedophile just a nasty abusive bastard who preys on females The above isnt a made up example its what happened
  8. The only assumption ive made is that you havent attempted to think beyond your shallow media induced opinion. - It wasnt me that inferred you were less intelligent, nor me who inferred you are supporting child abuse Or indeed implied that because you have a different opinion it wasn't my own* . But if it makes you feel better to insinuate im a child abuser - because i think we should try to identify and treat paedophiles before children are harmed then feel free - it doesnt bother me in the slightest what a stranger says on the internet. Perhaps we can resume when you finally take stock of whats been said and accept that when you're trying to discuss 2 different but inter related issues then using the correct definition of the word is the only way to discuss without getting confused . Whilst so ever you are sticking with the lazy daily mail** and inaccurate child abuser = paedophile and refuse to accept there's (sometimes) a difference then its impossible to explain how one group needs help the other locking up because you are fixated on 1 group and see both groups as one. *Somewhat ironic since the opinion im expressing is not the media narrative **Or guardian mirror star etc
  9. Interesting - personally im not convinced the fact you cannot understand a point when its repeatedly made and elaborated on is an indication of my intelligence. My inability to explain it well is possibly an issue - but lets be honest you've made no attempt to think about anything ive said - you have your fixed media led mindset and refuse to reconsider in light of further information.
  10. Youve had that response in almost every post The fact you are asking again and again and again only proves you refuse to accept the answer - Ive spelled it out clearly and pointed out thats the legal position , but here for the 100th time A Paedophile is someone sexually attracted to children - or more accurately its their exclusive preference . A child sex abuser is someone who sexually abuses children Some if not most child sexual abusers are Paedophiles but Paedophilia is the motive not the crime - other abusers its power - control - availability the fact the victim was a child is incidental its not the primary attraction. Not all Paedophiles abuse children - some seek help and never harm a child and some say this has them cured (we can hope) Paedophilia is a condition -a sexual preference of young children and it can result in the person abusing children, Paedophilia is not the act of abusing children - Since you are using the daily mail usage of the word and im using the (UK) legal definition - then we will forever be at crossed purposes and you will never see the difference as such its futile continuing the conversation. Your counter examples are by the way absolute trite bollox and fall at the 1st hurdle For example Im not a bricklayer - but ive lain bricks to build a garden wall - so im not a bricklayer Nor am i a racing driver but ive (stupidly) raced cars A slightly better analogy would be an alcaholic Not all alcoholics abuse alcohol Theres lots of non alcoholics that do Of course it fails as well because Alcoholics start with abusing alcohol - but tee totaller didnt work either
  11. No it isnt -The law draws a distinction - the same one ive made that is a Paedophile is someone (sexually) attracted to children. A Paedophile may never abuse children A non paedophile may sexually abuse children or look at child pornography Child pornography laws exist to ensure people who enable - fund and support abuse can be punished and not hide behind " i only looked at pictures that already existed" and so escape justice. The fact you buy into the media lazy sex with children = paedophile and so paedophile means abuses children is why you and others see support for child abuse every where - because quite frankly the grown ups are not talking about what YOU think they are talking about. It also makes any discussion fruitless since trying to debate a subject is impossible with people who only recognise half the subject
  12. Going to raise 3 points 1) Re no casualties in the Argentinian invasion Thats true but it ignores that its only true because the UK intercepted transmissions and was able to alert them so the Garrison wasnt asleep in bed. The Argentine attack started with commandoes assaulting the Marines accommodation with grenades and SMGs - without the warning they would have been killed in their sleep. That was the Argentine intent. 2) The Belgrano sinking - its indisputable the ship was sailing away at the time it was sunk - the claim otherwise was a massive government own goal and possibbly an error - which they then refused to acknowledge. However A) ships Turn around quickly B) The Belgrano and carrier task group had tried to attack the day before it was sunk but the carrier couldn't launch - Belgrano and 25 May were under orders to try again (UK had broken Argentine codes) Incidentally it was steaming away from the task force not the islands or as some suggest back to port when sunk - c) There had been airstrikes and fighting between task force and argentine units before the Belgrano's sinking - The Sinking wasnt an out of the blue sudden shot that some commentators have claimed. 3) The war itself - Absolutely true that it got the Tories back in in 1983, I would disagree they wanted to fight it to win the next election though, I would say they committed to fighting a war which was very difficult for the UK to win* because if they didnt it was very unlikely they would stil be in power for the next election. But as an aside - When I think of the Argentine Regime** at that time - a regime whose response to dissent is a short helicopter flight ending in a swimming lesson then to leave the Falklanders in their hands is unacceptable. It could be argued as well that losing the war saved countless other Argentine lives by Bringing down Galteris Junta. But therin lies the only positive, because the war was in reality the result of poor communications doubly so for the UK side who showed they had no desire to keep the islands, but who (rightly) wouldnt do anything without the islanders say, but also failed to appreciate how serious Argentina was - so they were just trying to string out talks until the Islanders gradually drifted into wanting to be argentine. Retiring the Endurance gave the Argentines the idea if they sped up the process the UK would say ok fair enough they are yours. *US USSR and many others (including argentina) all thought it was impossible, **Pinochet's Chilean regime wasn't much better - but he was an ally in 82 so we turned a blind eye to the treatment of his own people afterwards. Hypocricy and real politic
  13. Ive never had the misfortune to experience it - I do know a few who have - Friends of an ex girlfriend in the care system. A few who spoke about it repeated your type of story - groomed touched natural involuntary (pleasure) reactions which the abuser told them meant it was good and its what they wanted etc Im paraphrasing and condensing weeks or months of grooming into a few phrases here. The only one who said different was J - she wasnt groomed she was just raped by her father (repeatedly) whilst her mother turned a blind eye. Ive never been sure who was worse for J psychologically her mum or her dad. Ive linked 2 other threads on this same matter for your comments
  14. Yes it can - although i really hope its a psychological issue as that can be cured. Some abusers start out as the abused - that would indicate its psychological damage - But there's always been child abusers child prostitution goes right back to roman times - now in some instances its just an easy target, in others perhaps its mental damage - but its possible some people are just wired like that - whether thats curable or not I dont know - There was a person murdered by a mob in Bristol -- because he was accused (wrongly) of being a Paedophile There was a Paediatricians attacked because of the sign on the door (which goes to show you the stupidit of mobs) Social media is full of boasts and support and plans of running Paedophiles out of town - Hanging Paedophiles. calling for all paedophiles to be shot or raped in prison etc - What they mean is sexual abusers of children - what thy say is paedophile - but some are some arent.
×
×
  • Create New...