0
   

Proud pedo runs for office

 
 
Lash
 
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 05:14 am
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824/amp?vf5=&__twitter_impression=true

Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state. He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about raping his late ex-wife.

In a phone call, Larson confirmed that he created the now-defunct websites suiped.org and incelocalypse.today ― chat rooms that served as gathering places for pedophiles and violence-minded misogynists like himself. HuffPost contacted Larson after confirming that his campaign website shared an IP address with these forums, among others. His sites were terminated by their domain host on Tuesday.

On the phone, he was open about his pedophilia and seemingly unfazed about his long odds of attaining government office.

“A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it,” he said. “People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds.”

When asked whether he’s a pedophile or just writes about pedophilia, he said, “It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top there’s a grain of truth to what they say.”

Asked whether there was a “grain of truth” in his essay about father-daughter incest and another about raping his ex-wife repeatedly, he said yes, offering that plenty of women have rape fantasies.

According to Larson’s campaign manifesto, his platform as a “quasi-neoreactionary libertarian” candidate includes protecting gun ownership rights, establishing free trade and protecting “benevolent white supremacy,” as well as legalizing incestuous marriage and child pornography.

In the manifesto, Larson called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a “white supremacist hero.” He urged Congress to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, adding, “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands.” He also showed sympathy for men who identify as involuntary celibates, or incels, suggesting it is unfair that they “are forced to pay taxes for schools, welfare, and other support for other men’s children.”
_______________________

I don’t know why I’m shocked, but I am. Is it even legal to say this?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 798 • Replies: 11

 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 06:39 am
If he got elected I would be tempted to give up all politics.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 07:16 am
I don’t understand why law enforcement hasn’t just rolled up and cuffed him.

I’m not sure about the law surrounding talking about pedophilia. This is a weird area for me—proponent of free speech that I am. But, the article mentions pretty hideous talk about children that I cannot imagine is legal.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 07:24 am
@Lash,
I suspect the authorities are looking for cause to take him away.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 07:25 am
@Lash,
How is this not an example of free speech. Sure this is particularly heinous, but once you start restricting heinous speech, there is no longer free speech.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 07:37 am
@maxdancona,
I stop protecting speech when it incites violence.

This guy talks about using women for sex to “create fucktoys” (children). That’s violence, and doesn’t deserve to be uttered, practiced, or protected.

maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 08:15 am
@Lash,
You are putting restrictions on speech. The standard of "incites violence" is pretty broad. Coldjoint claims that teaching kids about Islam is inviting violence... I strongly disagree with him, but the question is who has the power to make that judgement?

And what about fiction. Does Game of Thrones incite violence?

Once you allow for restrictions on speech, the lines drawn depend entirely on who has the political power to enforce them.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 10:55 am
@maxdancona,
I know ‘incitement to violence’ can be broadly interpreted.

I’m comfortable with my interpretation.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 11:16 am
@Lash,
Sure.... if you were dictator, the world would run as you saw fit. I am sure you would want to live in that world. Nothing personal, but I don't think I do.

Think about this... we are one 85 year old heartbeat away from a Supreme Court that is hostile to Roe v. Wade. There may come a time when you appreciate the fact that one group of people can't restrict the speech of others.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 11:51 am
No hint of feminism allowed, lash.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 11:55 am
@maxdancona,
I’m dictator in my world. I think my interpretation of what is free speech is more liberal than most people’s.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jun, 2018 11:59 am
@Lash,
But you would still trust yourself to make the judgement over what other people can or can't say? The problem with restricting speech is that there will have to be some human being, or some group of human beings, that have this power.

With our current government, imagine if our President and the Congress decided to make a "Free Speech" court to decide which opinions were too offensive to allow.

That is what you are asking for, right?... some legal proceeding to decide whose speech is OK and whose speech is not protected.

0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proud pedo runs for office
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2019 at 12:49:38