Quote
corboy
Anything that is copied in full and posted here on the RI message board is preserved from destruction elsewhere.

Sex, Coercion, and the Age of Consent
By Max O’Connor

Recently Radio 4 listeners heard a Church of England minister commenting on the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Like most earnest Christians, this man was hostile to sexual pleasure if the manner of deriving it was not, by his standard, 'natural'. The members of PIE are 'dreadfully sad' and they execute 'horrible attacks' on children. Whether or not they are sad I cannot say, but 'horrible attacks' seems to be an inappropriate phrase for approaches which do not involve force or the threat of force.

The 150 or so members of PIE meet to ogle sexually stimulating pictures of children, and to describe their carnal adventures, real or imagined. From all accounts they operate by becoming friendly with a child and then, if the child is willing, introducing him or her to sexual activity. WHOSE RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED? Libertarians maintain that all individuals have the right to be free from physical attack, or the threat of attack. No one has any greater claim on the actions of another than is permitted by this principle and the property rights it implies. Are the rights of the children who are approached being violated?

It is not clear that they are. If children are coerced into submitting to sex by the use of force, or by threats, then this is certainly a violation of their rights and the attacker should be sharply dealt with. It is difficult to comprehend how merely becoming friendly with a child, and then encouraging him or her to indulge in sexual activities, can be a violation of rights. Is it not more likely that the horrified reactions of most people stem from a bigoted opposition to any form of sex that they themselves either do not find attractive, or have guiltily repressed thoughts of? Those participating in voluntary acts of oral sex, bondage, sado-masochism, and sex with another or the same gender have all been persecuted, and yet there is no violation of rights involved in any of these.

Indeed, while most of us do not find all of these practices appealing, we are not thereby forced to conclude that they are immoral. Human beings commonly differ over what novels, foods, films and styles of clothing they enjoy, but they do not (often) regard those with 'deviant' tastes in these areas as immoral. Why should sexual preferences be treated differently?

Many people will object that sex with children is rights-violating because individuals below the age of consent, do not know what they are doing, and therefore the compliance is not voluntary at all. I believe this argument is fallacious, and that it is invariably presented by a kind of mental reflex action, and not as a result of conscious deliberation. Even most of these people will admit, when pressed, that the age of consent is set at an arbitrary level; it is obvious that children develop at different rates. Some pre-teenage juveniles are more able than many adults; others never acquire much knowledge or intelligence. Is it seriously claimed that a fourteen year old of average aptitude doesn't know what sex is? Even nine year olds have sometimes experienced orgasm through masturbation. But we can go further. Does it really matter whether a young child has experienced any form of sexual arousal before? Does it really matter whether the child has any understanding of sex? Sex is just another source of pleasure, a potentially potent source perhaps, but basically little different to any other. If there is nothing objectionable about an adult giving a child sweets or toys, why is giving sexual pleasure wrong? It is ludicrous to reply that the adult is 'abusing' the child for his or her own pleasure. Such as attitude implies a hatred of all pleasure gained through voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. Altruists, conservatives and some socialists may think this way, but no rational person should do so after contemplating the implications. And why is it abuse?

Below the age of twelve or so, a child may not be particularly interested in seeking sexual relations but that doesn't mean he or she will not voluntarily accept and enjoy them. It is true that children questioned in court over alleged sex crimes have often shown great distress. But, as so many psychiatrists have attested, this is due to the great public attention, horror expressed by parents, and cross-examination under pressure in court. It is those who wish to retain the age of consent laws who are responsible for this emotional pain. If a child does not want to go to court, has not told the parents about his or her sexual activities, and has shown no signs of upset or fear, then there is no justification for assuming the use of coercion. Hence no legal action should be brought. On the other hand, if some evidence does exist, it is the child's word against that of the adult. Since it is unlikely that a child will maliciously bring an action for no reason (and this eventuality is subject to examination by the defence) a court will commonly find for the child.

RIGHTS, MORALITY, AND ATTITUDES
A possible libertarian stand on this issue is that voluntary sex with children does not violate rights and therefore should be legal but that, nevertheless, it is immoral. This is identical to believing that drinking, prostitution, smoking, reading pornography etc. are immoral but should not be prohibited. This is not the only position compatible with libertarianism. As I have argued above, non-coercive sex with juveniles is not immoral — it is merely a matter of preference, as is bisexuality or homosexuality, oral sex, etc.. Libertarians, unlike most people, do not confuse the morality of an action with the separate question of whether it violates a right. We understand that rights violations are only a small (but important) subset of immoral actions. In fact we do not even have to believe in an objective morality to uphold individual rights.

But it is essential to be clear as to whether an act is really immoral or just a matter of personal preference. Many people's feelings about sex are distorted by their upbringing, by social pressures, and by religious dogma. I ask readers frightened or disgusted by the thoughts expressed here not to condemn and forget, but to ruminate on why they feel as they do. Some sexual understanding and toleration is spreading, thanks to the appearance of books such as Alex Comfort's The Joy of Sex and the efforts of many doctors, psychologists and writers. Undoubtedly the decline of religious dogmatism has facilitated the process. But there is still much room for a rational evaluation of hostility towards unusual sex practices. Members of the public horrified at the existence of the Paedophile Information Exchange, and politicians and media men wishing to present themselves as champions of morality and decency, should think again.

[www.lucifer.com]

IN PRAISE OF THE DEVIL

"There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason, especially if she enters into spiritual matters which concern the soul and God. For it is more possible to teach an ass to read than to blind such a reason and lead it right; for reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed." "Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
Martin Luther

"And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible." "After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe..."
Tertullian

This article is written in praise of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, or whatever you want to call him. I must first make it clear that I am not here claiming ontological status for the Devil; that is, I am not claiming that he exists in the sense that you and I exist. I am quite serious on a symbolic level in what I write but my statements praising the Devil and attacking Christianity, God, and Jesus are not to taken as implying the real existence of any of these supposed beings. The only one of these that I think one could reasonably believe actually existed is Jesus. It seems probable that there was a human being who was a political and religious leader at the time though it seems to me to be absurd to believe claims about his origin or divine nature. My praise of the Devil is not entirely (though it is mostly) serious, and it is to be taken on a purely symbolic level. My goal is to bring out the values and perspective of the Christian tradition and to demonstrate how it is fundamentally at odds with the values held by myself and all extropians and with the perspective that we share.

The Devil - Lucifer - is a force for good (where I define 'good' simply as that which I value, not wanting to imply any universal validity or necessity to the orientation). 'Lucifer' means 'light-bringer' and this should begin to clue us in to his symbolic importance. The story is that God threw Lucifer out of Heaven because Lucifer had started to question God and was spreading dissension among the angels. We must remember that this story is told from the point of view of the Godists (if I may coin a term) and not from that of the Luciferians (I will use this term to distinguish us from the official Satanists with whom I have fundamental differences). The truth may just as easily be that Lucifer resigned from heaven.

God, being the well-documented sadist that he is, no doubt wanted to keep Lucifer around so that he could punish him and try to get him back under his (God's) power. Probably what really happened was that Lucifer came to hate God's kingdom, his sadism, his demand for slavish conformity and obedience, his psychotic rage at any display of independent thinking and behavior. Lucifer realized that he could never fully think for himself and could certainly not act on his independent thinking so long as he was under God's control. Therefore he left Heaven, that terrible spiritual-State ruled by the cosmic sadist Jehovah, and was accompanied by some of the angels who had had enough courage to question God's authority and his value-perspective.

Lucifer is the embodiment of reason, of intelligence, of critical thought. He stands against the dogma of God and all other dogmas. He stands for the exploration of new ideas and new perspectives in the pursuit of truth.

God demands that we believe everything that he tells us, and that we do everything that he says without questioning. Destroy a tribe including the women, children and animals down to last one? (Joshua 6.21). Why of course. Wait a minute, this doesn't seem very nice. SILENCE FOOL. HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME. I AM GOD AND YOU MUST OBEY ME WITHOUT QUESTIONING. ACCEPT WHAT I SAY ON FAITH. BURN THOSE WHO DARE QUESTION MY WORD. DESTROY THEIR BOOKS. SHUT DOWN THEIR SCHOOLS. TELL THEM THAT DISOBEDIENCE MEANS THAT THEY WILL BURN FOREVER AND EVER, IN UNIMAGINABLE AGONY FOR ALL ETERNITY, AND REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL SUFFER THE SAME UNLESS YOU GO OUT AND TELL THEM THIS. Yes Sir, God Sir, whatever you say. See, here I am burning their books, pulling out their nails, torturing them for questioning Church dogma, banning the use of anaesthetic in child-bearing (since the pain is their just punishment for the acts of Adam and Eve). Help! I thought an improper thought! Help me to blind my mind God, help me to not see what my reason tells me. Let me repress thoughts of sexual desire, doubts about you and your orders, feelings of tolerance.

They call Lucifer the Prince of Lies. A lie is defined by the Christian as anything which contradicts the Word of God - as told to us by the Bible and God's representatives on Earth. If we accept this definition of a lie then we should praise lies. A "lie" is then a questioning of blind dogma. The "lies" of Lucifer are attacks on irrational beliefs, beliefs based on fear and conformity to authority. Of course we should not call these lies. They are temptations to think for ourselves, a call for independent thought, a plea for taking responsibility for our own thinking and our own lives. Praise Lucifer! Praise the pursuit of truth through rationality. God was right to tell us to not worship false idols, but he refrained from telling us that all idols are false, and that all worship is dangerous. Even our praise of Lucifer must not be worship of an idol, but rather an expression of our agreement with his value-orientation and his perspective.

God and his Godists hate Lucifer's call for rationality. Critical thinking digs at the very roots of God's and their power over our minds. Independent thinkers do not make good slaves. Lucifer is the Prince of Lies because he is an expert at helping us to be rational. He shows us how to use our intelligence and how to take responsibility for ourselves. We should emulate him in encouraging this trend in ourselves and in others. He needs help since he is working against the laziness and neuroticism of many humans. It's so much easier to just not try to think, to sit back and let other people tell you what you should do, what to believe, and where to give your money. Why, if I had to think for myself I would have to face the fact that I might be wrong. Horrors! I would have to think carefully about my life and the reality that I live in carefully and that would take a lot of work. No, it's much easier to have faith, to accept, to believe, to obey.

God also hates us to enjoy ourselves, If we let ourselves experience too much pleasure then we might lose interest in obeying him. We might start running our own lives to bring us positive rewards rather than directing ourselves to avoid his wrath. We might become focussed on pursuing the positive instead of avoiding the negative. That would result in the downfall, of religious and state authority, so God has to stamp out such tendencies. He hates Lucifer who keeps turning up and tempting us to have a good time, to enjoy our lives. Adam and Eve's sin was to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. They dared to disobey a direct order which God expected them to obey without question, blindly. They acquired reason and intelligence, and an ability to decide for themselves the values that they would pursue. Ever since them humans have been uppity - always giving God trouble. Dammit, even some of the Catholics are questioning the Pope's infallibility. Well that's just tough God; some of us are going to do our best to see that humans continue to become even more difficult to handle - both by you and by your human followers on Earth - the religious authorities and the Statists.

God likes altruism, altruism understood as true self-sacrifice and not as giving up a minor value to achieve a more important one (which is just one aspect of rationality). If God can just get us all to be good altruists then we will be so much easier to control. Altruists do what they are told without complaint; a complaint would be based in self-interest; it would be a claim to live one's own life without having to direct it towards the lives of others or towards the interests of God or "the State". Lucifer perseveres in trying to point out to us that we have no reason to accept altruism. We can choose our values for ourselves, just as we can think for ourselves. Lucifer himself values the pursuit of happiness, knowledge, and new experiences. Most of all he values self-responsibility and independence even if that means that some people will not choose to value the things that he values. The extropians among us who share his perspectives and value- orientation should help him in his work.

God had a clever and nasty strategy to promote altruism and therefore obedience. He tries to get us to believe in Original Sin. He wants us to believe that we are born sinful, that we were evil and needed saving even before we had done anything. We need God and his agents to save us from Sin otherwise we will burn FOREVER and we will miss out on an infinite and perfect reward (though he never tells us just what this is). Our path to salvation lies in service to God, selfless self-sacrificial service to God and his dogma. Without the idea of original sin we might not be so careful to obey God since we might figure that we were living pretty well and would go to heaven anyway (foolishly failing to inquire what heaven is like). Fortunately for God, Original Sin guarantees that we will always feel under threat. We will always be unclean and in danger of suffering hellfire.

To make quite sure that our personal responsibility is destroyed, and that we put ourselves in God's hands for him to mould us as he wishes, God and his moronic minions repeatedly tells us that Jesus Christ is the Way and that he died for our sins. Redemption lies through faith and obedience. Notice what happens when Christ supposedly died for our sins. His act brought about our possibility of salvation. What I want to know is: how can someone else's act excuse me from anything? I am responsible for my own actions. Nothing that I do can take away the fact that someone else acting in a certain way, and nothing that they can do can absolve me of my own responsibility. Original Sin and salvation by Christ are both deeply offensive ideas to me and to all extropians who value individual responsibility.

In ending this discussion, I want to remind you that you are all Popes. You are all you own highest authority. You are the source of your action. You choose your values - whether you do so actively or by default. You choose what to believe, how strongly to believe, and what you will take as disconfirming evidence. No one has authority over you - you are your own authority, your own value-chooser, your own thinker. Join me, join Lucifer, and join Extropy in fighting God and his entropic forces with our minds, our wills, and our courage. God's army is strong, but they are backed by ignorance, fear, and cowardice. Reality is fundamentally on our side. Forward into the light!

This is a hard post to write - But when your wrong you have to come forward and admit it and try to make things right - And I think I was wrong and I do not want to accuse Max of this after looking at the evidence and consulting people.




I have spoke to Max More personally about the Article he wrote which made us all outraged - and this was his reply (UNEDITED)

My regrettable writing of almost 30 years past

"I appreciate your message. It's really hard for me to believe that anyone associated with Cryonicsfactsheet.com would give me a fair shake, but I'll take you at your word.

It's unfortunate that Ms. Maxim launched into a destructive attack (with a false headline) without bothering to check with me, knowing that I wrote that article when I was a *teenager*. I was a new, hardline radical libertarian -- something I haven't been for a long time. I was arrogant and enjoyed picking the most controversial issues to take contrary stands on. The initial motivation for the piece was to defend the free speech rights of the most unpopular people of all. If I'd stopped there, I would still be satisfied with the piece.

Unfortunately, in my foolish arrogance, I wrote about a topic that I was then too naive to properly understand. My notion of consent was poorly considered. Being generally trusting of people, I didn't appreciate just how badly so many people pursue their own desires without consideration for others.

I cannot unwrite that piece, I can only regret it, and repudiate the ideas I was exploring so early in my intellectual development. I intend to write a rebuttal to myself to be attached to the original, making it clear that I do not agree with my early article (and have not for a long long time).

Yes, I agree it was foolish to leave it listed on my webpage (which I am currently unable to edit). I had not actually read it in many years, and thought it was primarily a defense of free speech and a questioning of the validity of a universal age of consent (which, as I'm sure you're aware, varies around the world.) I was startled to read it again after Ms. Maxim's attack piece and see that my younger self had pushed the exploration of ideas much further and taken a wrong turn.


"Help us out here - At the moment the removal of the document makes you look like you have something to hide."

-- I asked the file to be removed because I have no obligation to further help anyone attempt to damage me, my family, and my associates. The file will be replaced after I have written a commentary explaining how my views have changed in the almost 30 years since I wrote it.

Best,

Max"

In further conversation Max has promised me he is going to make a public announcement about this matter. I want to go on record and say that however embarrassing and contrary I may seem I DO NOT think its fair that Max More is being taken out of context and being hauled over hot coals.

He said it right there - I was young, wrote something foolish and I wish I hadn't written it now.
Max is what I view a bit of a mad man - he loves to shock and can you imagine the young Max (he was 18 when he wrote it) More taking this controversial argument to make a "name for himself" - Well I can - he only said he was the Devil to the Mormon Transhumanists a few months back!

But he is not guilty of harbouring strange morals about Age of consent - hes just a fruitcake who loves to shock - The young Max was even more shocking as we have recently found out.

Just think for a minute who is saying this - ME - I would love Max to be taken out of business for what I view as cryonics scams - But to label him with this is unnneccesary and NOT FAIR.

I have taken Cryonics Factsheet offline until Max makes his Public Announcement - I hope this shows everybody concerned that I am serious about this matter despite earlier posts/messages to the contrary.

Despite what people think I do check my stuff out and do post things which have evidence. In my mind this is not the same as other scandals - Max has done no wrong except being a arrogant idiot who left a article up he shouldn't. His only "crime" is people may have read that article and it influenced their thinking and for that I believe he is genuinely sorry.

Can everybody please give Max a break on this and attack him for stuff which he can defend - Sex crime allegations are a very serious matter and once made can be hard to remove even if its been proven you are not guilty. His wife "threatened" Melody because she is his wife and she stands by her man - I think she also realises how serious allegations like this are and how hard they can be to remove. I believe she may have over-reacted by promising legal action - but think what would you have done?

Can everyone calm down till Max makes his statement - innocent until proven guilty springs to mind.

And yes I am away of the irony/hypocrisy and I will Ban myself from these pages if you feel I have made a big mistake and I cannot be trusted.

Here is where Cryonics should focus their blatant stupidity/anti-science going forward:

[www.dailymail.co.uk]

Yes...it is the *new* "environmentally-friendly" way to have a cremation: Freeze dry and dissolve the bodies.

I think a better way would be to lay the corpse on the ground and let scavengers/insects have at it so as to recylce the body...but what do I know?

Imagine the MONEY Cryonics could make on something like this for the folks who are skeptics about "bringing back the clinically dead from a deep freeze (think mushy frozen strawberries)" but don't want to put too much of a "carbon footprint" on the world.

WOW! My mind reels. They could make more money than scamming the estates of people like Ted Williams (who's head currently wears a stylish tunafish can crown).

Sorry folks...no photo for me to paste for you. Perhaps it can be posted again from other concerned cryonic skeptics.

A couple of points.

Firstly, its obvious that what Melody Maxim did was not an "attack". It obvious to anyone with common sense, that she was just doing some research, and came across that disgusting article written by Max O'Connor aka Max More. As she stated, she is a mom, and the grotesque "ideas" in that article are revolting, so she just responded like any healthy parent would.
So there was no "attack" on Max More.

In fact, its the OPPOSITE.
Melody Maxim quotes text from HIS article, that HE WROTE, and then apparently there is a threat of a frivolous SLAPP action? Who is doing the attacking?
Melody Maxim was simply doing her homework and due diligence, and quoted HIS ARTICLE. HE WROTE IT, he published it, he promoted it.
The attacks are from the other side, and the company is the one launching the attacking on critics.

Now onto the soft-spoken, fragile and gentle-hearted Max More. (sarcasm).
He begins by attacking Melody Maxim. She should come to him to ask for permission before she writes her blog article? Or should she just take the text as written?
When has anyone in cryonics given anyone a straight answer, recently?
Melody was 100% in the right to write her article, as she sees fit.

Then he moves into VERY VERY flimsy apologetics. He wrote it as a teenager? More mind-games by Max More.
Born in 1964, write in 1981. That makes him 17-19, depending on the dates.
So he's saying "teenager" but in fact he was an adult.
Anyone remember when they were 18+, and of course knew that adults having sex with minors is not only a criminal act, but the most horrific and disgusting of criminal acts? Of course.

He says at the naive age of 18+, he did not understand, he was too naive to understand, the difference between offering a child candy, as the example that is used? That is absolutely ridiculous. That is obscene.
Of course people know at that age what is going on, he is trying to make it sound like he wrote it when he was a child. Notice now, the text was removed from the internet, so now people are not going to know what that article REALLY says, as opposed to the spin.

And of course...he was also naive and foolish to list it on his webpage!! Max More, playacting the sad-sack.
What a joke.
He also is saying he forgot what was in the article? That is called an Idiot Test, to see how gullible the reader is.

So everything said in the apologetics, is simply spin-doctoring, trying to make it seem like a "mistake", and he "forgot" and yadda yadda. Like when someone from Congress says..."I don't recall" 100x in one session.

Then ole Max More is back to BLAMING OTHERS. They are at fault, for reading his article?
Is this guy for real?
He wrote it, he published it, he put it on his webpage.
Then OTHERS are to blame for what he wrote?



Lastly, there is no one saying anyone is committing a criminal offense. That is up to the authorities in each area.

What is really going on?
A guy had an article he was proud of, as it was one of his first published articles. It was even sold as a pamphlet on AmazonUK. [www.amazon.co.uk]

No one said anything about it, so its in the bio for years.
Along comes a new job, and they do "extensive checks", but don't bother to read articles, or don't care? Probably the latter. As they don't want another "clean" outsider coming into the business, that didn't work out too well last time.

Then a few sane people come across this article, and simply QUOTE THE ARTICLE. Any normal person is going to respond very angrily to apologetics around pedophilia. Then the natural public uproar hits the fan, and to save the job on the gravy train, a PR response is designed.
All of a sudden, the aggressive hard-nose guy, is innocent, naive, poor memory, and can't even edit a webpage.

The apologetics from Max More Version 1.0 is revolting.
He is blaming others, play-acting he is a frail innocent who can't remember his own writings, and can't edit his own webpage. But he can get OTHERS websites edited in a few hours, and Melody Maxim was contacted rapidly.
[forum.culteducation.com]
melmax QUOTE: "Natasha Vita-More is sending me emails, threatening me with litigation, in regard to what she calls my "libelous statement" about her husband. I was not attacking Max More, so much as I was attacking Alcor's choice of a new CEO. I don't see what could be considered "libelous," in quoting Mr. More's own remarks, ..."


You see the game?
Its disinformation.
Just wait for the Max More Version 3.0 Apologetics that is going to come out, where they will refine the message.
But instead of BLAMING OTHERS for being healthy normal people, maybe they should look in the mirror, and start with the facts?
But so far, he is blaming others first, and play-acting innocent, forgetful and naive.


Long ago, the Raelians came out with apologetics around pedophilia and sex. They were saying things that as long as its with "consent". Of course, as soon as that got out, they started to get into very very serious trouble. And Rael all of a sudden decides he likes not going to jail, so he changes his tune, and starts saying the exact opposite in public.

[www.amazon.co.uk]
Sex, Coercion and the Age of Consent (Political Notes) [Pamphlet]
Max O'Connor (Author)

Product details
* Pamphlet: 2 pages
* Publisher: Libertarian Alliance (Jan 1981)
* Language English
* ISBN-10: 1856371905
* ISBN-13: 978-1856371902

[cryomedical.blogspot.com]
Melody Maxim has an update.
Melody is obviously the straight-shooter in all of this, probably the ONLY straight shooter in the entire cryonics scene. She had a normal healthy response to that vile article.
But in the world of abnormal psychology called cryonics, basic normal human responses seem to be at extinction.

That article was written with the mentality of an adult, not a teenager.
That article was promoted and listed as a published article on professional webpages, for many years. One could probably check the internet archive to see how long it was listed. (now that will get deleted too).
-Enter website address at the Archive.
www.archive.org [web.archive.org]
maxmore.com/writing.htm

"Sex, Coercion, and the Age of Consent." Political Notes, No.10 (October 1983), of the Libertarian Alliance.

Is it listed on the Internet Archive website going all the way back to 1999, and throughout the years? Notice how the date listed was 1983, now they are saying its 1981.
(Does that mean it was written by a *teenager*, who was in fact an adult?)
Make sure to make screen-shots, as history is about to be re-written, as more facts get disappeared from the internet.



The text of the article speaks for itself, or it did, until it was disappeared.

Its simply not believable or credible that a published article, is now being framed as something done as a *teenager*.
When was the article submitted to AmazonUK, and others for publication as a pamphlet? Was that 30 years ago? Of course not. What year was it first submitted to AmazonUK?
amazon.co.uk has only been around about 12 years.

What is in that article is not Libertarianism. Its not an exercise. It is what it is. The article speaks for itself, and was written obviously by an adult. And it was published and promoted for many years after.
Until there were objections. Now all of a sudden its an orphan.

There are some very aggressive, ambitious, and well-financed people, who are trying to make a big move with cryonics. Playing dumb is being used as a fig-leaf, instead of taking responsibility.
Ain't buying that for a dollar.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 01:32PM by The Anticult.

To see links about the Lucifer material, search Google for a word string:

"God, being the well-documented sadist that he is, no doubt wanted to keep Lucifer around so that he could punish him"

Sex with children?
Of course I don't agree with it, not now I've been exposed anyway.

Sickening, undefensible.
It's like saying you'll pick up the dog turd from the clean end.

Like I said AC - I checked this thoroughly and I am away of how contrary my stance now is.

I have spoken with all sides on this and I can tell you that even people that profess to know/support Max are shocked.

They also want him to explain this - I can assure you he is getting it from all sides.

I am also still waiting for the "official" statement before I make up my mind fully.

My understanding was that it was part of a debate where a 17-18 year old Max had delibritley taken the most contreversial position for shock value.

Its that simple - it was stupid and arrogant to credit himself with writing it on his home page - but he did and I am sure he now knows that it was a BIG mistake.

With all the other stuff theres been photos, leaked e-mails, multiple witnessses and even people coming forward and admitting it.

But this is not the same - As I said Max More has promised further explanation.

If this is spin then I have been fooled but this is turning into a 16th century witch-hunt in my opinion.

You can't prove he is a witch by setting fire to him and seeing if hes impervious to fire - what if hes a water witch?

The minute you mention sex/abuse with children understandably people become irrational - its the one thing thats too much for people to bear.

But use Occams Razor - Its all too easy - if he really thought things like that why would he be so blatent - I just don't buy it - More may be a hopping mad extropian but hes not completly stupid and I am sure that he is aware of how damaging that document could be to his life if he doesnt explain it properly.


I am confused - and I am happy to remove myself from the argument if people feel that my position has been compromised by me choosing to take this position.

I am also talking to Melody and I agree with her more recent post about the matter here: [cryomedical.blogspot.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2011 06:35PM by richiekgb.