Another commentary from self-identified "Libertarian leaning" blogger Willis Hart in which the pervert molests the truth. A post in which the truth-molester perverts the facts.
| On the Fact that Salon Give Pedophiles a Platform to "Explain" Themselves but Doesn't Give Such an Opportunity to Global Warming (err, I Mean, Climate Change) Skeptics, Free-Market Libertarians, Pro-Life Republicans, etc... They must perceive the pedophile as a victim (more so than even the children, I guess). (1/11/2016 AT 3:39pm). |
It's quite clear that Willis doesn't care about the victim of his constant perverting and molesting of the facts. Which would be the Truth. I mean, there is no reason for him to guess (Willis sez that Salon "must perceive the pedophile as a victim... more so than even the children, I guess").
Why guess when a quick Google search reveals what actually happened? Which I did, and found that Salon DID publish an article by a self-described pedophile. However, this individual goes on to say that he believes he is a pedophile (attracted sexually to children) because he was molested as a young boy... but that he's never acted on this attraction.
In fact the author says (in a followup article) that he outed himself so we can "all work together to end child sexual abuse [because] children are "legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires". (I believe him because someone who had actually molested kids would never out himself and DARE people to uncover his crimes).
Anyway, the point is that (given the fact that this admitted pedophile has never acted on his desires) there are no victims... as Willis claims. In the title of his post Willis implies pedopiles are explaining why they molest kids in Salon articles, which is FALSE. And the body of his post Willis says (via guess) that the Salon people who decided to publish the (two) articles do not "perceive the pedophile as a victim", which is also FALSE.
But Willis obviously did not bother to look this up for himself. Clearly Willis read an article from a Rightwing source (according to the author "my pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage"). CLEARLY Willis read one of these Rightwing outraged responses
And it was Willis' reading of the Right's 2nd hand take that lead to his molesting of the truth (via vile guesses that have Salon editors seeing pedophiles as victims). Another incorrect guess being WTNPH's assertion that Solon published articles by "pedopiles" (plural). No, it was just the one (two article by ONE person).
But Willis obviously doesn't care enough to find out if his guesses are anywhere near the truth. He makes his guesses (which make the editors of the Liberal Salon out to be horrible people who think molesters of kids are victims), then launches into a non-sequitur that has him making a nonsensical connection to Salon not publishing climate change denying and Libertarian "free market" bullshit.
As if there aren't a plethora of sites where this idiocy is spewed with great frequency and in large volumes. As if Conservative big money interests aren't contributing boatloads of cash to Rightwing and Libertarian think tanks who engage in climate change denying or "free market" proselytizing to get their message into the mainstream in a big way. Right.
BTW, I read both Salon articles (I’m a pedophile, but not a monster from 9/21/2015 and I'm a pedophile, you're the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine from 9/30/2015) and agreed with the author when he said "no problem was ever solved by refusing to understand the issue".
He also spoke of encountering a lot of "willful ignorance" which brought to mind Willis Hart. This post of WTNPH (from his blog Contra O'Reilly) being yet another example of how the Hartster elevates willful ignorance to an artform.
(My interpertation of Willis' post: I don't know, I'm just going to guess and my guess is going to make out a Leftwing news/commentary source out to be engaged in despicable behavior because I hate Progressives so much).
Not that I don't do this myself... read a Leftwing criticism of the Right and then not go to a Rightwing source to get their take. But I don't portray myself as someone who distrusts and is critical of both the Left and the Right. Unlike the hypocrite Willis.
Will's "facts" are often Will's opinion. He should acknowledge this when in fact something is his opinion. Or at the very least not use the term fact when posting.
ReplyDelete