Jacob S. Blaustein / ryu238 / ryu289 / 87Blue - Brony, furry, gets banned everywhere, defends pedophiles, transexuals, and pedophile transexuals, to his last breath and needs others to do the arguing for him

[GenociderSyo]

So you would jail people for their thoughts and not if they offended at all? Again you are very authoritarian here.

"Non-Offenders" and i do not beleive such a word exists are still punished beucase they still consume material made by offenders.

 

[A Gay Retard]

"Non-Offenders" and i do not beleive such a word exists are still punished beucase they still consume material made by offenders.

I find @ryu289's very existence offensive and likely a violation of state and federal statutes.

edit:

 

[ryu289]

I use the most up-to-date legal definitions available because they determine whether or not people like you rot in prison. Cope and seethe all you'd like, the law is above every single definition from every single Wordpress website you scour through. Then again, I don't expect pedophiles like you to enjoy legality very much

Again I ask you if that makes the law right?
Pedophilia is not a legal term,[10] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[7]
The DSM-5 defines it as:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

re: p.697
However similarly to the distinction between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder, the DSM-5 recognizes a difference between pedophilic sexual interest/pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Specifically, it asserts that if individuals:

“report an absence of feelings of guilt, shame, or anxiety about [their] impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder”

re: p.698

In short it is labeled as a DISORDER if they act on it, otherwise they are defined as simply having an interest.
However even this definition has it's flaws.

First “acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. Thus current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. This is even more complicated as it doesn't distinguish between art/fictional stories, or real life child porn.

That can (and clearly has) caused confusion, suggesting that the current definition of Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

People don't get thrown in jail for their thoughts. Please show the law that jails people for simply having an attraction.

Why do you not jerk off to adult transformation porn?

I do. But you think that one pic is the sum total of my viewing experience apparently

This is a link to What the shit's post, where you can scroll down and see more eyewitness testimonies to people noting that you did indeed say faggot

To you? They claim it but give no evidence.

"Non-Offenders" and i do not beleive such a word exists are still punished beucase they still consume material made by offenders.

Non-offenders mean that they don't do the consuming of such material.

This is what I mean. You just admitted to having a physical response to children.

I keep saying otherwise yet you don't listen

 

[Valstrax]

Didn't I already explain several times. Do any of you understand? I found other parts of the transformation arousing, not the age regression in of itself. I get the feeling you are comitting the spotlight fallacy here, that because something has one fetish, that must mean I must be there for that as well as the rest...

Man, shut the fuck up.

 

[Doppio Vinegar]

Again I ask you if that makes the law right?
Pedophilia is not a legal term,[10] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[7]
The DSM-5 defines it as:
re: p.697
However similarly to the distinction between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder, the DSM-5 recognizes a difference between pedophilic sexual interest/pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Specifically, it asserts that if individuals:
re: p.698

In short it is labeled as a DISORDER if they act on it, otherwise they are defined as simply having an interest.
However even this definition has it's flaws.

First “acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. Thus current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. This is even more complicated as it doesn't distinguish between art/fictional stories, or real life child porn.

That can (and clearly has) caused confusion, suggesting that the current definition of Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

People don't get thrown in jail for their thoughts.

First off: I'm not reading all of that.
Second off: Yes, it does make the law right. Children's brains and teenager's brains are significantly different than adult brains, since they are not fully developed. Don't you dare even try to compare pedophiles and homosexuals in this one, either. Two adults consenting to an activity in the privacy of their own home is significantly different than a child being coerced into something they don't fully understand by an adult they may or may not trust.

I do. But you think that one pic is the sum total of my viewing experience apparently

Your Patreon, Deviantart, and other forum history tells a tale that your text does not. One simple scroll through this thread would show any sane person that you have a very suspicious amount of activity on posts involving children or childlike characters in risque scenarios.

To you? They claim it but give no evidence.

You told me to give eyewitness and timestamp accounts. So I did. You're just bitter that you're a homophobe who is bullying me for having a pink-haired male as my profile picture.

 

[A Gay Retard]

Pedophilia is not a legal term,[10] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[7]
The DSM-5 defines it as:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

You have these fantasies. Your desperation to draw the distinction between pedophiles who act on their impulses ("disordered") and those who do not ("interested") betrays this. As does this portion of your post:

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

There's a tick.

B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

I would say you seem to have quite a lot of interpersonal difficulty, especially when it comes to this issue. There's another box ticked.

C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

You are older than 16 years of age and the wolf girl is 9 years of age. Tick. You're 3 for 3 here.

 

[Newman's Own]

Uh no, it was an adult turing into a 9-year old fictional character. I am beginning to think you never even paid attention to what was going on here. Likewise you are conflating arousal with attraction.

Once again admits that the thought of a 9 yr old arouses him. People aren't aroused thinking of people they aren't attracted to moron.

Retarded.

Didn't I already explain several times. Do any of you understand? I found other parts of the transformation arousing, not the age regression in of itself. I get the feeling you are comitting the spotlight fallacy here, that because something has one fetish, that must mean I must be there for that as well as the rest...

Commissions multiple fetishes in a single piece. Pretends that only the one legal fetish makes his micro rigid.

Can't understand why no one believes his lie.

Beyond retarded.

 

[road timber]

Pedophilia is not a legal term,[10] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[7]

you must be so relieved!

Non-offenders mean that they don't do the consuming of such material.

typing five letters isn't good enough "proof" of innocence to people who aren't brain damaged
you can scare children short of offending like when you defended adult child public nudity
it's clear you don't have any empathy for children or ability to infer social outcomes or context
& it wasn't that "one image" ryu there's literally proof in your deviantart captures earlier ITT lol

btw the average pedo chomo starts young and offends serially like a few tens of verified cases
so i guess it's just "he said she said" about you and all the other prostasia spergs isn't it lmao
(you might meet a troon gf on it too i think the number of mtfs is disproportionately high)

 

[A Gay Retard]

Again I ask you if that makes the law right?
Pedophilia is not a legal term,[10] and having a sexual attraction to children is not illegal.[7]
The DSM-5 defines it as:



re: p.697
However similarly to the distinction between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder, the DSM-5 recognizes a difference between pedophilic sexual interest/pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Specifically, it asserts that if individuals:

re: p.698

In short it is labeled as a DISORDER if they act on it, otherwise they are defined as simply having an interest.
However even this definition has it's flaws.

First “acted on” could mean that he has actually molested a child. On the other hand, it could also mean that he has masturbated to pedophilic fantasies or that he has viewed child pornography. Thus current criteria for diagnosing a Pedophilic Disorder place some persons who have never molested a child into the same diagnostic category as those who have done so. This is even more complicated as it doesn't distinguish between art/fictional stories, or real life child porn.

That can (and clearly has) caused confusion, suggesting that the current definition of Pedophilic Disorder may lack adequate diagnostic specificity. As a consequence, the distinction between being sexually attracted to children in some fashion (e.g., experiencing urges to view child pornography) and experiencing urges to act on that attraction with a child can easily be lost.

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

People don't get thrown in jail for their thoughts. Please show the law that jails people for simply having an attraction.

I do. But you think that one pic is the sum total of my viewing experience apparently

To you? They claim it but give no evidence.

Non-offenders mean that they don't do the consuming of such material.

I keep saying otherwise yet you don't listen

archive of this post
https://archive.md/VKTLv

 

[ryu289]

First off: I'm not reading all of that.

Because it shows that there is a distinction between attraction and acting out, thus showing you are making a strawman argument?

Research has repeatedly found that what a person sexually fantasizes about doesn’t automatically match with what the person wishes to experience in real life, nor with their sexual orientation in general, and we’re talking about fantasies explicitly chosen because they’re arousing to the person.

Second off: Yes, it does make the law right. Children's brains and teenager's brains are significantly different than adult brains, since they are not fully developed. Don't you dare even try to compare pedophiles and homosexuals in this one, either. Two adults consenting to an activity in the privacy of their own home is significantly different than a child being coerced into something they don't fully understand by an adult they may or may not trust.

There is a reason the term "non-offender" exists. And there is the fact that because many child molesters do not have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children, and are consequently not pedophiles.

https://aic.gov.au/file/5759/download?token=53fJP8hS

Pedophilia

Pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in prepubescent children. It is empirically linked with sexual offending against children: Child pornography offenders and sex offenders with child victims are more likely to be pedophiles based on self-report or objective measures of sexual interests...

www.annualreviews.org

Thus you are conflating attraction with sexual behavior, which isn't one to one.

You told me to give eyewitness and timestamp accounts. So I did.

Yes, and I deleted it. Obviously I regretted it, but you don't care.

You're just bitter that you're a homophobe who is bullying me for having a pink-haired male as my profile picture

Please prove you were my target.

You are older than 16 years of age and the wolf girl is 9 years of age.

Actually it is an adult becoming the character...do you know how age regression works?

You have these fantasies. Your desperation to draw the distinction between pedophiles who act on their impulses ("disordered") and those who do not ("interested") betrays this. There's a tick.

I don't have fantasies involving children. I make the distinction because you claim I act on such impulses to begin with.

Once again admits that the thought of a 9 yr old arouses him. People aren't aroused thinking of people they aren't attracted to moron.

Actually they are.

Commissions multiple fetishes in a single piece. Pretends that only the one legal fetish makes his micro rigid.

And you know I am pretending because?

 

[Newman's Own]

If there aren't cops monitoring this nonce's internet use then cops are useless.

 

[A Gay Retard]

Actually it is an adult becoming the character...do you know how age regression works?

I'm quite proud to say I don't know a whole lot about how furry age regression child porn works. Are you masturbating to the adult? Because if that's the part that does it for you, and not the child bit, why have the kid in the picture at all?

I don't have fantasies involving children. I make the distinction because you claim I act on such impulses to begin with.

An age regression fantasy where something regresses into a child involves children by definition. You commission drawings of it because you fantasize about it. You are, by both the DSM-V's and your own definition, a pedophile.

 

[FreakyFredsTrannyGranny]

@ryu289 and @TamarYaelBatYah should hook up. A match made in heaven, endlessly arguing retarded viewpoints on Kiwifarms, pretending to understand the law, defending objectively horrible people who abuse children, the list goes on. And as a bonus, the Melinda package comes with many children! @ryu289 can be naked around them all day since the man of the house should always be obeyed, according to Mel.

 

[ryu289]

Are you masturbating to the adult? Because if that's the part that does it for you, and not the child bit, why have the kid in the picture at all?

Again the werewolf tf tg...is it that so hard to comprehend?

An age regression fantasy where something regresses into a child involves children by definition. You commission drawings of it because you fantasize about it.

Wrong:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

This isn't about sexual activity with a child, so wrong again.

 

[Newman's Own]

No one believes you.

 

[A Gay Retard]

Again the werewolf tf tg...is it that so hard to comprehend?

I'm having a hard time comprehending whatever the fuck this sentence is supposed to mean.

Does Irene Sanborn know you're using the internet connection for this deviance and spergery? I'm assuming you rent a room since the property is listed as owner-occupied.

 

[ryu289]

Does Irene Sanborn know you're using the internet connection for this deviance and spergery? I'm assuming you rent a room since the property is listed as owner-occupied.

I don't live there moron.

 

[A Gay Retard]

I don't live there moron.

Too bad I was gonna show up with a fuckload of werewolf girls

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

@ryu289 I believe you should be locked up

 

[IKOL]

FOONY NUMBERS.
Let's 1488 him.