Comments by "" (@billyandrew) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
27
-
I was always told he was a dirty old man, obsessed with a very young child!
I was also told that was normal behaviour for anyone with a religious or peerage title or that taught at universities, back then, only because they were educated, professed to know what was best and that it was one rule for them and another for us, as it was they who made the rules.
Considering, as was pointed out in the video, that the age of marital consent was only twelve back then, well, it's quite possible that few 12 year olds married each other, but more likely that the vast majority of marriages were comprised of much older men, who could actually financially afford to marry these child brides.
It was normal, because who could legally vote to change or retain the law, as it stood, back then?
Did changes in voting laws enable the age of both marriage and sexual consent to be raised more in line with what the majority viewed as both morally and legally correct, rather than the minority, who'd previously made the laws?
I'd say yes.
"But they didn't touch them", is the excuse proffered by paedo enablers.
So what?
It's a sexual attraction towards children, regardless of the predator's gender or whether they sexually assaulted the children or worse and anyone failing to accept that has a psychiatric disorder.
Sexual attitudes changed, because the majority finally had a voice.
"It was normal back then" and "they were more innocent times" just won't wash and excuse the sexual predator's and their immoral manipulation of children.
If the previous minority still had control would you allow your children to be photographed naked by associates, colleagues and so forth?
Paedos are paedos, regardless of when in history they were active!
14
-
10
-
Jebidiah Newcracker
Called by God?
Religious nutters, in other words, however, paedos have to be dealt with, regardless of someone's susceptibility to superstitious mumbo-jumbo, or whether they are self righteous or not.
98% of child molesters re-offend.
Personally, I think they should all be medically castrated to remove any further hormonal temptation and would extend that to all rapists, not just those that prey on children, however, far too many sick-in-the-head, namby-pambies are not only paedo enablers, but think the perverts' interests should stand above those of their child victims.
9
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@sarahholland1375
Unfortunately, in the case of japonaliya, you've encountered a fully blown narcissist.
There are many videos, here on YouTube, dealing with this mental instability.
They can never accept they are wrong, as they instinctively know that to even try to do so will set up a cognitive dissonance and they will go into meltdown.
These people have extremely unhealthy, super inflated egos, so are incapable of accepting constructive criticism, advice or rectification of their mistaken beliefs and concepts.
Their paranoia, unfortunately, see all attempts at helping them to be a direct attack against them.
All psycho/sociopaths are narcissists, however, not all narcissists are clinically insane, so remain at large, until dissonance occurs.
Basically, they're toxic people.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was always told he was a dirty old man, obsessed with a very young child!
I was also told that was normal behaviour for anyone with a religious or peerage title or that taught at universities, back then, only because they were educated, professed to know what was best and that it was one rule for them and another for us, as it was they who made the rules.
Considering, as was pointed out in the video, that the age of marital consent was only twelve back then, well, it's quite possible that few 12 year olds married each other, but more likely that the vast majority of marriages were comprised of much older men, who could actually financially afford to marry these child brides.
It was normal, because who could legally vote to change or retain the law, as it stood, back then?
Did changes in voting laws enable the age of both marriage and sexual consent to be raised more in line with what the majority viewed as both morally and legally correct, rather than the minority, who'd previously made the laws?
I'd say yes.
"But they didn't touch them", is the excuse proffered by paedo enablers.
So what?
It's a sexual attraction towards children, regardless of the predator's gender or whether they sexually assaulted the children or worse and anyone failing to accept that has a psychiatric disorder.
Sexual attitudes changed, because the majority finally had a voice.
"It was normal back then" and "they were more innocent times" just won't wash and excuse the sexual predator's and their immoral manipulation of children.
If the previous minority still had control would you allow your children to be photographed naked by associates, colleagues and so forth?
Paedos are paedos, regardless of when in history they were active!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1