Guy Macon wants to have sex with thirteen year old girls
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2021 8:52 pm
In his latest effort to use Wikipedia hosted disinformation to steal the food from the mouths of Daily Mail journalist's children, Guy Macon has inadvertently revealed he perhaps poses an even greater threat to minors.
I mean, maybe it's because I'm not a leftist, but I really don't see how this story.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... miere.html
...sexualises a thirteen year old girl in any way at all.
I suppose Macon could have been deliberately lying, hoping nobody would check. But let's "assume good faith", shall we? Let's assume he really does think this shows what he says it does.
To my mind, as the picture shows, if you were there at the time, saying that she looks "all grown up" is fair comment. Perfectly innocent. If you didn't know she was thirteen, what is there about that picture, that would tell you she wasn't an adult actress?
What tips you off to Macon's perversions, is that in his excitement, he used the word "sexual", rather than what he probably meant, sexualise.
All we can conclude from Macon thinking that the person who says she looks all grown up, when armed with the knowledge she is in fact thirteen, is somehow admitting to having sexual thoughts about that image, is that he himself is having sexual thoughts about thirteen year old girls, in that scenario.
As in, he is the sort of perverted freak who can't look at a picture like that, armed with the knowledge that the girl isn't an adult, without getting an erection.
He resents the sort of story that the Mail writes there, stories which are written to serve their wide female readership, because it triggers his filthy thoughts. It must have been torture for him, back when the Sun would print topless images of eighteen year old girls. You can only imagine what he was thinking. "How dare they objectify this adult women for commercial gain" was probably not it.
When you understand what people like Macon are - secret pedophiles posing as Wikipedia's moral champions (and it is no accident that the man that kicked off the Daily Mail ban discussion was also later exposed by the Mail as a deviant) - then you understand why, in a scenario like the Marek Kukila controversy, Macon really does want people to think there could be a chance that Kukula is innocent.
That the tabloids did indeed write a false report, for reasons of profit. It's bonkers, indefensibly illogical, but it's the case he is strenuously making on Wikipedia. With a straight face.
Guy Macon, for his own selfish reasons no doubt, wants to live in a world where you are presumed innocent even after the Daily Mail reports that you have plead guilty to possessing images of boys as young as ten, having sex with adult males, and when other than a prejudice against tabloids, there is zero reason to think the reports are inaccurate.
We are lucky, especially those of us who are parents, that out here in the real world, that Wikipedia's definition of reality, their idea of what is and is not a reliable source, where everything else is presumed a lie, is not widely accepted. We're adults out here, so we know how to judge the likelihood of a celebrity gossip story having been fabricated for profit, and how likely it is a dry fact based court report regarding a conviction for a serious child sexual abuse related offence, has been made up.
We now know that the wider Wikipedia community doesn't accept the difference either, they only see the words Daily Mail, and so then reflexively offer their prejudice packaged as reason (more than one even admitted to not even bothering to look at the facts), even though they seem to admit they accept the stories are true.
It is the Guy Macon's of the "free encyclopedia" who are the ones who are genuinely, actually, arguing there is a chance they could be false, based on their reliable source doctrine. And are thus denying that they are only saying that just because they can't accept that their Daily Mail ban is fact free bullshit, and it is specific incidents like this, embarrassing scandals which make Wikipedia look like they actually want children to be abused rather than given an inch to the Mail, which prove it.
So hopefully now you know the sort of vile creature that says things like "kill it with fire" on Wikipedia, about the most widely read newspaper in Britain.
It is not an accident at all, that it is also the most right wing paper, and thus would aggressively target people like Guy Macon for their sick perversions. Other than use of emotive words like "vile", fairly it would seem, their report on Marek Kukula is dry and factual.
Perhaps now we can see that Guy Macon has absolutely no intention of sitting down for an interview with a Daily Mail journalist, not even in the stacked deck of holding that via his Wikipedia tall page, as he claimed he would, a claim he then deleted. He fears a report that is both factual, and calls a scumbag a scumbag.
I mean, maybe it's because I'm not a leftist, but I really don't see how this story.....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... miere.html
...sexualises a thirteen year old girl in any way at all.
I suppose Macon could have been deliberately lying, hoping nobody would check. But let's "assume good faith", shall we? Let's assume he really does think this shows what he says it does.
To my mind, as the picture shows, if you were there at the time, saying that she looks "all grown up" is fair comment. Perfectly innocent. If you didn't know she was thirteen, what is there about that picture, that would tell you she wasn't an adult actress?
What tips you off to Macon's perversions, is that in his excitement, he used the word "sexual", rather than what he probably meant, sexualise.
All we can conclude from Macon thinking that the person who says she looks all grown up, when armed with the knowledge she is in fact thirteen, is somehow admitting to having sexual thoughts about that image, is that he himself is having sexual thoughts about thirteen year old girls, in that scenario.
As in, he is the sort of perverted freak who can't look at a picture like that, armed with the knowledge that the girl isn't an adult, without getting an erection.
He resents the sort of story that the Mail writes there, stories which are written to serve their wide female readership, because it triggers his filthy thoughts. It must have been torture for him, back when the Sun would print topless images of eighteen year old girls. You can only imagine what he was thinking. "How dare they objectify this adult women for commercial gain" was probably not it.
When you understand what people like Macon are - secret pedophiles posing as Wikipedia's moral champions (and it is no accident that the man that kicked off the Daily Mail ban discussion was also later exposed by the Mail as a deviant) - then you understand why, in a scenario like the Marek Kukila controversy, Macon really does want people to think there could be a chance that Kukula is innocent.
That the tabloids did indeed write a false report, for reasons of profit. It's bonkers, indefensibly illogical, but it's the case he is strenuously making on Wikipedia. With a straight face.
Guy Macon, for his own selfish reasons no doubt, wants to live in a world where you are presumed innocent even after the Daily Mail reports that you have plead guilty to possessing images of boys as young as ten, having sex with adult males, and when other than a prejudice against tabloids, there is zero reason to think the reports are inaccurate.
We are lucky, especially those of us who are parents, that out here in the real world, that Wikipedia's definition of reality, their idea of what is and is not a reliable source, where everything else is presumed a lie, is not widely accepted. We're adults out here, so we know how to judge the likelihood of a celebrity gossip story having been fabricated for profit, and how likely it is a dry fact based court report regarding a conviction for a serious child sexual abuse related offence, has been made up.
We now know that the wider Wikipedia community doesn't accept the difference either, they only see the words Daily Mail, and so then reflexively offer their prejudice packaged as reason (more than one even admitted to not even bothering to look at the facts), even though they seem to admit they accept the stories are true.
It is the Guy Macon's of the "free encyclopedia" who are the ones who are genuinely, actually, arguing there is a chance they could be false, based on their reliable source doctrine. And are thus denying that they are only saying that just because they can't accept that their Daily Mail ban is fact free bullshit, and it is specific incidents like this, embarrassing scandals which make Wikipedia look like they actually want children to be abused rather than given an inch to the Mail, which prove it.
So hopefully now you know the sort of vile creature that says things like "kill it with fire" on Wikipedia, about the most widely read newspaper in Britain.
It is not an accident at all, that it is also the most right wing paper, and thus would aggressively target people like Guy Macon for their sick perversions. Other than use of emotive words like "vile", fairly it would seem, their report on Marek Kukula is dry and factual.
Perhaps now we can see that Guy Macon has absolutely no intention of sitting down for an interview with a Daily Mail journalist, not even in the stacked deck of holding that via his Wikipedia tall page, as he claimed he would, a claim he then deleted. He fears a report that is both factual, and calls a scumbag a scumbag.