Over on A Voice for Men, Paul Elam is knocking the clichés out of the park! In a post about … oh, something about feminists being about to get their big comeuppance, who the fuck cares, all his posts are pretty much the same at this point, he explains how the mean feminists’
gravy train is about to derail, and that right quickly. One set of wheels is already off the track. … the choo choo is hittin’ poo poo.
That’s right, the metaphorical feminist gravy train is metaphorically derailing into a metaphorical mountain of metaphorical poop.
After a few more paragraphs of this poopery, Elam offers up a bit of inspiration for his troops:
[T]he times they are a changing. The worm is turning and lies are burning. Their whole house of cards is about to go up in a puff. What you are seeing is just the desperation that comes with them waking up to it.
Believe me, it does my heart good. Just to see their frantic scrambling to point the finger at me and my brothers, while they comically pretend our sisters aren’t standing right next to us, every time one more their lies bites the dust, is an absolute highlight in my day.
Must be time to crank up the action around here.
And then he really kicks it into high gear:
Keep your eye on the ball, boys. Put the pedal to the metal. Wake up and smell the coffee, feminists, because the shoe is on the other foot now! We’re burning the candle at both ends — because when the going gets tough the tough get going. What goes around comes around. Feminists and manginas, you made your bed, now you’re going to have to lie in it. The tide’s beginning to turn, all you gender ideologues and your lackeys at the SPLC, and it looks like there’s a new sheriff in town! Remember, nice guys finish last. And it ain’t over till the fat lady sings!
Ok, that’s not really Elam any more. That’s just a bunch of random clichés borrowed from Steve’s Cliché List, with some references to feminists and manginas and the Southern Poverty Law Center shoved in here and there.
Huh. I think I just figured out how Elam writes his posts.
EDITED TO ADD: For whatever reason, this post is no longer up at AVFM; here’s the Google cache version. Read the comments there too; quite a little shitstorm going on there.
Antz, I think you’re right about the law. The 2003 Protect Act makes virtual child porn, made entirely without children, illegal. However, it appears that Handley is the only person sentenced under this law who didn’t also possess non-virtual child porn.
It’s not that Antz can’t steal what someone else wrote and use it without their permission. He CAN, it’s just that no ethical person WOULD. Antz actually brags about his lack of ethics. Go team MRA!
Watch out, everyone, AntZ is a bad-ass Alpha who don’t care about no one. If he wants to violate intellectual property, by gum he’s gonna do it! Ain’t no-one gonna tell him what to do. XD
Still waiting for you to back up you shit, AntZ. You can’t just throw out an assertion of double standards without some sort of evidence! 😉
Oh well i guess it doesn’t matter since no one reads antz’s stuff anyway. XD
Plagiarism is a Men’s Right!
@AntZ:
Anyway, if your defense against depictions of children having sex is that they “aren’t really children, they’re 700 years old” or something… Well, you’re kinda missing the point. In a fantasy/creative piece, the world can work however you want. Prepubescent children can be sex-hungry nymphomaniacs. 30-year-old women can have the bodies of 15-year-olds. Fantasy creatures can look identical to 10-year-old girls in costumes with large breasts. The artist gets to choose how this works; and you’re left with the fact that the artist chose to depict child bodies having sex.
Obscenity law and child porn law isn’t precisely the same thing, depending on the drafting of the statute, and, yes, this a settled legal issue. Mere ‘possession of obsecene materials’ laws which do not involve images of actual children or recordings of actual criminal activities are unconstitutional. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969). Any law with a broad enough scope to cover mere possession of such obscene materials is unconstitutional, or at least unconstitutional as applied. Dude should have refused to plea and appealed, as the conviction is clearly unconstitutional. For cases defining the law around child porn and the first amendment, see e.g. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) and, the case actually totally on point Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) which ruled definitively that the CPPA was unconstitutional as it applied to virtual child pornography (which contained no images of actual children) and struck down the provisions of the act which applied to pornography that did not depict actual children. The U.S. fucking Supreme Court already decided this shit, it’s settled law. It was a 7-2 decision, shit is settled. If anyone’s attorney let them plead to shit, or any court interpreted the act otherwise post 2002, they are being fucking incompetants.
Like I said, settled fucking law, the SCOTUS done ruled on both of these issues in a pretty definitive way. Even if one local judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney are total and absolute fucking incompetant shits about Constitutional law, that doesn’t change that this is settled law. The Court has fucking ruled.
Okay, so this is a bit beyond basic civics into basic free speech and constitutional law, but fuck. Stop talking to me about shit until you learn the fucking basics about it AntZinthePantZ.
As has already been established, Antsy doesn’t exactly know a whole lot about the SCOTUS.
I’m mostly with Xanthe here. The problem with the “well how do you know that picture wasn’t meant to be of an 18 year old who happens to have small breasts?” argument is that it’s used as a cover for all the manga in which the characters are really, clearly, obviously meant to look like actual children. I really wish that I hadn’t seen manga that’s unambiguously child porn, but I have, and although I recognise the potential legal can of worms I do think that eventually most governments are going to start trying to draw lines between the stuff that’s more ambiguous (and leave that stuff legal) and the stuff where an adult is molesting a toddler and there’s really no way other than the “well but zie is an fairy/elf/magical alien and actually 700 years old” argument to pretend that the work in question wasn’t fully intended to be child porn. I think that it’s going to take a long time for most governments to figure this stuff out, legally speaking, but that eventually more fine lines are going to be drawn and stuff that falls into the latter category will be illegal in a lot of places.
Also, the idea that Antz considers himself a public intellectual is hilarious. Wrong on both counts, buddy.
@darksidecat My “legal research” is limited to Wikipedia, so it is probably laughable, but it appears that the 2003 PROTECT Act was at least in part an attempt to get
around the 1996 and 2002 SCOTUS rulings:
Although the 2003 law may or may not be in violation of the earlier rulings on virtual child pornography, it appears to still be in effect:
All info and quotes from the mighty Wiki.
Given that AntZ doesn’t have any kind of qualms whatsoever about plagiarism, I’m pretty sure he thinks “legal” and “moral” both mean “things I can get away with and you can’t stop me, nah na na nah nah.”
@CassandraSays
MRAs don’t give a shit about child porn. We care about government oppression. We also know that technology will allow men and women to marry virtual partners, which is going to make bigots like you very mad. Of course, one in a million people will perverts, and these people will use virtual technology for virtual child porn. And the feminist bigots will attempt to use the one virtual child porn case to do what they really want: deny freedom to millions of men (and women too). So, we MRAs want to draw a line in the sand. Any virtual relationship of any kind should be legal.
Of course, it is hard to believe that people who delight at the slaughter of millions of unborn children have a moral problem with anything. You and I both know what this is really about: enforcing the feminist sex cartel. I like things better out in the open. We, MRAs, want freedom for men. You, feminist bigots, want to keep your slaves. At least have the decency to admit your real motivations.
But Antz, those aren’t our real motivations. Those are the motivations you made up for us! And remember, the last time you accused us of fighting your virtual partner technology, you ended up apologizing to us. Finally, “MRAs don’t give a shit about child porn.” Really? You don’t give a shit that little boys and girls are being raped on film? Not at all? You know what? Feminists DO give a shit about child porn. I guess that is another thing that makes MRAs bigots.
“Feminist Sex Cartel” is of course the name of my band.
I’d marry a virtual partner XD
This is their great recruiter, folks.
No, you don’t. I told you about actual government oppression; you expressed not one tiny bit of concern for those suffering it.
Statement assumes facts not in evidence, on both grounds. I honestly am not going to give a shit if it happens; the only reason I’m not a transhumanist is that transhumanists have laughably unrealistic expectations. If you manage it, great (I mean there are ethical questions to answer and problems to forestall but they’re irrelevant without an actual AI)
This is even more idiotic than when gun nuts talk about their ‘freedoms’. At least there’s a line of logic that expresses the end result of gun ownership as a positive. This notwithstanding that I’m not against porn where no children are involved, because I see no benefit to people to be against it, and all else being equal, enforcement requires expense and intrusion.
I’m no longer sure you aren’t a troll, given the totality of your body of work, but you do realize that abortion access means dudes have more sex, right?
Did Antz just claim that opposing child porn was really about “enforcing the feminist sex cartel”?
Antz — did you read the comments of anyone else here? Although everyone here(even you) is opposed to child porn when actual children are involved, commenters here have posted a number of different opinions with regards to the legality of illustrated child porn. Some commenters said that they thought that buying and selling porn featuring children should be illegal, even if no children were involved in its creation. Some commenters actually think that porn featuring children should be legal so long as no actual children were used to produce it.
If the members of the “feminist sex cartel” can’t even agree with each other on the issue of illustrated child porn, how are they going to enforce that opinion on you?
So feminists are part of a sex cartel that opposes men raping children, according to Antz.
Well, feminists in general do oppose child rape, whoever the perpetrator is.
MRAs are all for raping girl children, according to their wails of misandry about the age of consent laws.
I’m still sort of shocked. Antz has children, but brags publicly about the fact that he doesn’t give a shit about child porn. Antz, does your FOREIGN BRIDE know you don’t give a shit about child porn? Do you think she gives a shit about the rape of children? I bet you won’t find a single feminist here who doesn’t give a shit about child rape, but according to you it just isn’t an issue for MRAs.
AntZ: heroic defender of the possible future rights of perverts to fuck virtual children.
Seriously, though… The “government oppression” you’re talking about hasn’t even happened yet. You’re just fantasizing about what evil feminasties might do to a small subsection of the male population in a hypothetical future. When it does, you have every right to complain about it.
The “slaughtering millions of unborn children” trope is getting real old too… Most abortions occur early, when the “unborn child” is just a couple cells or so. The horrible evil nasty abortions that occur later when the fetus looks like a baby nearly always happen because either the child won’t be born viable (due to a genetic defect) or because there is some life-threatening condition for the mother or fetus.
Nobody delights in having an abortion; it’s not fun. And nobody makes the decision lightly. And for someone who cares so much about whether some hypothetical man in a hypothetical future in a hypothetical virtual program can have the right to screw a hypothetical virtual kid, you really need to get your head out of your ass and face the real world as it really is.
/rant
Okay, so, feminists are against child porn as a Trojan horse to ban porn so that we can keep the price of sex high.
Uhhuh.
I… I don’t even know where to begin to refute that.
Clarification: MRAs don’t give a shit about consuming virtual child porn. Some of you had sufficient honesty and integrity not to attempt to mis-represent my obvious intent (given that we have been discussing virtual child porn all day). Fortunately, the majority of the boobz do not have any integrity or honesty.
I say “fortunately”, because I find the rhetorical discipline services provided by this site to be quite useful. You are great practice for debating people with no principles. Since most of you don’t have any.
I do think your creepy virtual relationships should be legal! But I am not sure why you think they would be so popular. Maybe I’m weird, but I’d rather date a sapient than a subsapient computer program, no matter how well-programmed.
…If you’re programming sapient AIs to love you, though, I may have Moral Qualms.
“Okay, so, feminists are against [VIRTUAL] child porn as a Trojan horse to ban [VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS] so that we can keep the price of sex high.”
Fixed that for you.