 |
www.Corrupted-Justice.com
Because Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FinalWhiteStar
Frequent Poster
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 32
: England
|
 Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:18 pm Post subject: Corrupted Justice - Pro Pedos who Cant Debate |
 |
|
http://www.superpatriot.net/monticello/showthread.php?t=26485
Papa John
| Quote: |
I wish they could be set straight. Too bad they can't. The human mind is amazing in it's ability to rationalize away its darkest aspects. Those who bandy about the pro-pedo line are deaf dumb and blind to logic and reason, and there is no point in trying to debate the issue with them.
The best thing that you can do when you run across one of these idiots is to broadcast his or her beliefs for all to hear.
Try loudly saying "Wow, *name here* thinks its ok to want to fuck little children!!" Social pressure, baby. It's a good thing. |
The replies to this dribble?
blackcat
| Quote: |
I LOVE IT!!!!! That is awesome. |
hey_ya_hey_ya
krystalball120
Pink Pepper
Why have we never seen any of these people round here? Oh thats right, because they're all "preaching the choir" - say what everyone else says or DIE!
Final post im going to quote:
hey_ya_hey_ya
[/quote]
ok, but what do you do if pedo-sympathizing is being done on a respectable forum or in a group you frequent with people you generally respect, where doing the social pressure thing just gets you ostracized and/or banned because you aren't "respecting other's abilitiy to express opinions?" i notice people will attempt to respect any way of thinking or behaving if it is eloquently explained just in order to be looked at as intelligent and cultured. Most pedos as we all know are masters as deception, and i am just amazed at how people who i thought were morally sound and could spot bullshit a mile away actually praise a pedos "ability to eloquently express his complex disorder." Man oh man, do people just live under a rock or what? new spins and rationalizations are all a pedo CAN think of in order to distract you from how evil they are![/quote]
_________________
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PJ Buster
Corrupted Justice Management
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 6686
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So Papa John says:
| Quote: | The best thing that you can do when you run across one of these idiots is to broadcast his or her beliefs for all to hear.
Try loudly saying "Wow, *name here* thinks its ok to want to fuck little children!!" Social pressure, baby. It's a good thing. |
Let's analyze.
1) Best thing to do is to broadcast our beliefs. I agree. I can rely on every founding member here, unequivocally, to communicate in private chat or on a public board what the beliefs of CJ and the personal opinion is. They are in synch. There is nothing we have ever said that would be questionable or sleazy or in any other way embarrassing to be broadcast. PJ routinely imagines that there is any pro-pedophile sentiment here. None has ever been demonstrated as fact, even after having infiltrated our forums and have combed through all of our inner-circle forms and PMs between founding members. Zip. Not a single example that support's PJ's ridiculous theory.
2) To go around saying "wow, CJ-name thinks it's ok to fuck little children" is clearly slanderous when not backed up by evidence from point #1. Why does Papa John believe it's OK to spread rumors based entirely on his or PJ's perception of sexual deviancy which they claim runs rampant here? Is this the kind of solid research they want to be remembered for? Is this the same logic and infallibility they apply when doing busts?
I would suggest that given the above campaign of encouraging PJ followers to spread untruths as part of their mission to promote themselves is scandalous. I guess it's tempting to denigrate other organizations in order to prop oneself up. But here we are dealing with provable facts. Quoted texts, Links. Newsarticles.
Unfortunately PJ's paranoia and hate-spreading which is directed at any dissenting sites is the cornerstone of Xavier's spin tactic whenever he is interviewed. It's too bad he can not stick to facts and address genuine concerns about his site's methods. Much simpler to deflect attention to non-sequiturs rather than fix or at least justify the many shortcomings and dangers PJ represents.
_________________
"And yes, you can do it in your jammies." -- from an actual PJ recruitment ad for a PJ internship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decipher
Just arrived
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my take...
X-Boy is obviously a very intelligent fellow. It would be unwise to think otherwise, lest you underestimate your foe. It's my guess that this line of thinking does not reflect his real thoughts. After all, how could it? There is so much wrong with this statement, an ordinary schoolboy should be able to disassemble it with little effort.
No, this sage advice that X-boy imbues upon the world is nothing more than a clever polemic...a simple rhetorical tactic intended only to incite the 'great unwashed' as it were. It's not important if X-Boy believes this rot. It's only important if his followers pick it up and run it into the ground. Clever and insidious.
-Decipher
_________________
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noname23
True conversationalist
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 454
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Xavier and Pjers use of the words 'pro-pedo' are nothing but simple 'framing'...nothing more nothing less. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone associated with CJ is in anyway pro-pedophelia. There are no posts on this board advocating pedophelia.
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28communication_theory%29
| Quote: | In communication theory, and sociology, Framing is a process of selective control over media content or public communication. Framing defines how a certain piece of media content or rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain desirable interpretations and rule out others. Media frames can be created by the mass media or by specific political or social movements or organizations. The concept is generally attributed to the work of Erving Goffman, especially his 1974 book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Experts in this area include George Lakoff who has written Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant on this subject as applied to politics (his earlier work, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind also looks at framing, but from a more academic point of view).
In politics, Lakoff points to an example of framing in the phrase " tax relief." The use of the word "relief" implies a notion that taxes put strain on the citizen.
Another example of framing is the word "progressive" to describe left-wing politics. The word "progressive" implies an improvement, or a step forward, and therefore suggests that right-wing politics are a regresssion or a step back.
Other examples are the phrases "Pro-Life" (which implies its opponents are "anti-life" or "pro-death") and "Pro-Choice" (which implies its opponents are "anti-choice" or "pro-compulsion").
Terms which frame debate seek to limit the possibilities of discourse by setting the vocabulary and metaphors by which an issue can be discussed. In Lakoff's view, framing cannot be avoided — it is an inherent part of political speech — but it should be done consciously.
According to Klandermans, a sociologist, the "social construction of collective action frames," involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action." (1997: p. 45) |
_________________
Things have changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodger
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 4196
: Anywhere Vigilantes Play
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very observant NoName and Decipher...
The "pro-pedo" accusations made by Eide are a tactic. Although to anyone who took 5 seconds to investigate, it would be blatently obvious that we are as horrified by Internet predation as any PJer.
In every "battle", the people running the show attempt to generate support and maintain their control by dehumanizing their opponents in the eyes of their supporters. They encourage the use of labels when referring the the "enemy". "Gook" and "Charlie" in Vietnam. "Ragheads" in Iraq. "The Hun" and "Fritz" in Germany. "Pro-Pedophiles" here. It satisfies a very powerful need in the types of people who become involved in PJ: The need to feel superior to *somebody*.
They fabricate rumors and generate inuendo, knowing full well that the people they have surrounded themselves with, idiots and cowards, will swallow it up, then take action based on the false image they have concocted.
Our organization is a civil rights advocacy group. Phillip Eide couldn't possibly generate hatred against us if he used that terminology to describe us, so he chooses "pro-pedo". After all, anyone who doesn't toe the PJ line can't possibly be doing it because they truely believe in the importance of civil rights... Therefore they must by pro-pedophile!
Incidentally, the same can be seen (to a much lesser extent) here. Each time someone refers to Phillip Eide as "Xavie-Boy" or any other intentionally derogatory nick-name, that is a small attempt to depersonalize or dehumanize the "foe". It is a natural thing to do, but you'll note that very few of the long-time CJ members do this. When I refer to Eide, I use his name - My intent is not to dehumanize him in the eyes of the readers here to attempt to invoke an emotional reaction against him. It is to inform. My hope is that your emotional reaction will result from seeing evidence of his deeds rather than one generated by an attempt to belittle him as a person.
Unfortunately, it is easier to get unthinking people worked into a frenzy the other way. Eide knows this and uses it constantly. As PJB stated earlier, there has never been (and never will be) a single shred of factual evidence that anyone associated with CJ is "pro-pedophile", but to Eide and his followers, accepting or using the real description of CJ would result in a loss of control.
What astounds me is that there seem to be SO many people who will just accept the line they are being fed, and act on it without asking "Um, Xavier - can you show me the evidence that the people at CJ are 'pro-pedo'?" - This is completely borne out by the foolishness from PJ in the first post in this thread.
It's a shame that stupidity isn't painful.
Dodger
Last edited by Dodger on Thu May 19, 2005 10:46 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodger
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 4196
: Anywhere Vigilantes Play
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh - And Decipher:
Welcome to Corrupted-Justice! Thanks for posting your thoughts, and please feel free to continue!
Dodger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PJ Buster
Corrupted Justice Management
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 6686
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a matter of fact I do think Xavier is not a very intelligent fellow. For if he were, he would not continue to spew nonsense that can easily be refuted - even by the very same interviewers and journalists he so desperately tries to impress. If they would only bother to log onto the PJ forums and follow through a tiny fraction of what we say we found there, they would dismiss his marketing hype and go instead by what they find.
Perhaps though, Xavier's genius is in predicting human lethargy. Then we came along and proved not everyone is easily swayed or has a short attention span. That must irk him greatly to find that our tenacity is at least equal to his own.
It's interesting that his terminology used consistently on PJ is "wannabe pedo" whereas when it comes to slamming his opponents he and his cronies call anti-PJ'ers pro-pedophiles. Not the symmetrical pro-wannabe-pedos. Interesting. He's more careful about libeling a "bust" even though there is this irrefutable (according to them) chat evidence, yet he is less inhibited about paint-brushing people who disagree with him without the same moderating "wannabe" insulator.
Just something to think about. It appears that his hatred for dissenting groups is greater than his hatred for caught alleged pervs.
And if I may be so bold as to offer up an explanation as to why Xavier drops the "wannabe" when it's convenient: we are not people that he has control over. We can not be "OWNED" as opposed to their targets. Loss of power for him is a concept he fears more than any risks that predators pose for children on the internet.
_________________
"And yes, you can do it in your jammies." -- from an actual PJ recruitment ad for a PJ internship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SupremeJustice
Corrupted Justice Management
Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 3542
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Loss of power for him is a concept he fears more than any risks that predators pose for children on the internet. |
 AMEN TO THAT
.......I also want permission to use that quote on a T-Shirt.......
Have YOU seen the emperors new clothes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decipher
Just arrived
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dodger wrote: |
Incidentally, the same can be seen (to a much lesser extent) here. Each time someone refers to Phillip Eide as "Xavie-Boy" or any other intentionally derogatory nick-name, that is a small attempt to depersonalize or dehumanize the "foe".
Dodger |
Quite right Dodger. It's easy for any of us to fall into that particular trap from time to time. Perhaps I'll steal a page from Marc Antony and simply refer to Mr. Eide as an "honorable man" from now on. 
-Decipher
_________________
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dodger
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Apr 2004
Posts: 4196
: Anywhere Vigilantes Play
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Decipher:
| Quote: |
Quite right Dodger. It's easy for any of us to fall into that particular trap from time to time. Perhaps I'll steal a page from Marc Antony and simply refer to Mr. Eide as an "honorable man" from now on. |
Well... I don't know that I'd go THAT far... All the evidence points to him being somewhat less than "honorable".. 
Dodger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Decipher
Just arrived
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dodger wrote: | Decipher:
Well... I don't know that I'd go THAT far... All the evidence points to him being somewhat less than "honorable"..
Dodger |
That's the beauty of it...Marc Antony meant it as an insult. 
_________________
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
-H.L. Mencken |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
All contents copyrighted - Corrupted-Justice.com
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group -
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
