A CALO response by Ken Huey

[Inculcated]

The ends justify the means? Rationalizations like that are similar to “This is for their own good" …not dissimilar to the skewed reasoning of those involved with these very harmful programs.
The consequences of the kids’ experience of being held and harmed at CALO are likely to be very damaging to them. As are those very real potential consequences to having their personal information and location exposed to anyone even predators. These are at risk children and I don’t see how having the children exposed like this is anything other than reckless and intrusive.

[Anonymous]

 Is it all about revenge, not justice?  

WTF is so terrible about wanting revenge?   Many of us will never see "justice" for what was done to us, so why not accept vengeance as a substitute?

I think revenge gets a bad rap, probably 'cause of that whole 'turn the other cheek' jive (misunderstood and quoted out of context, btw) that the Xcult likes to shovel.  A desire for revenge against those who brutalized us as children is natural, and, I think, healthy.  To not want revenge is, to me, a sign of a disturbed individual.

As far as publishing the names, I wouldn't have minded at all if someone had posted my name on a list like that while I was in Straight.  Hell, I probably would have been elated , had I known at the time, that someone was trying to help shut the place down.

[Anonymous]

I say we expand this web of hilarity.


Here is Ken Huey's wife:

I thought the lady in the picture was Nicole Fuglsang.  Is Ken Huey's tongue in here earlobe?

[Anonymous]

The end justifies the means. An eye for an eye. The whole world of fornits is blind.

Creating trauma for children is not the way to end it, it is simply stupid and wrong...

[Anonymous]

The end justifies the means. An eye for an eye. The whole world of fornits is blind.

Creating trauma for children is not the way to end it, it is simply stupid and wrong...

Of course creating trauma for children is wrong, but I don't see CALO giving them a break any time soon.

[Anonymous]

 Is it all about revenge, not justice?  

WTF is so terrible about wanting revenge?   Many of us will never see "justice" for what was done to us, so why not accept vengeance as a substitute?

I think revenge gets a bad rap, probably 'cause of that whole 'turn the other cheek' jive (misunderstood and quoted out of context, btw) that the Xcult likes to shovel.  A desire for revenge against those who brutalized us as children is natural, and, I think, healthy.  To not want revenge is, to me, a sign of a disturbed individual.

As far as publishing the names, I wouldn't have minded at all if someone had posted my name on a list like that while I was in Straight.  Hell, I probably would have been elated , had I known at the time, that someone was trying to help shut the place down.

ME TOO!!

This line of sanctimonious posturing over these kids' privacy is gross from all involved.


CATO uses these kid's photos on their site for advertising purposes. Is their privacy respected there?

Were these kids’ right to privacy respected when they were abducted? Is their right to privacy respected when they are prevented from escaping or "restrained"? How about when they are forced to wear "green shirts" to broadcast to everyone around they are "sexual deviants.” How about when they are forced to disclose personal info in group? And then have that personal info used to humiliate them further?

How about these kids supposed "therapies," "deviancies," and "issues" consolidated onto a tag along with their name and picture, like a baseball card and sent out to their families, and god knows who else? Hey make-beleive clinicians at CALO, DID YOU KNOW "THERAPY" and ISSUES RAISED UNDER MEDICAL TREATMENT SUPPOSED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL?

Is it wrong to print Lisa Ling or Euna Lee’s name because being caught by North Korean operatives endangers their privacy?

Please recognize the bigger picture and issues at stake and respect them accordingly.

[psy]

The posts can only be removed by legal action against "well proxied" or with his consent. It's probably easier to get the latter.

No. It is completely impossible to get the latter, as you can never be sure who I am. Anyone can proxy up and claim to be me. Which is what you're trying to do, get someone to do exactly that and then claim that you thought it was me.

That's completely fucking paranoid.  If somebody can post a mesage to me from the exact same IP you used in the first place, it means it's you.  Just any proxy will not do.  A person would have to be you to get it removed.  Only you know which proxy/tor node you used.  Another way to tell is whether you can log into the account you registered, which presumably is registered/posted from the same IP as your unregistered posts. If you can log in, it means it's you.

Please don't accuse me of being anything but easy on trying to get a message removed.  Ginger and myself are VERY careful to make sure it's the exact same person.

[psy]

The ends justify the means? Rationalizations like that are similar to “This is for their own good" …not dissimilar to the skewed reasoning of those involved with these very harmful programs.
The consequences of the kids’ experience of being held and harmed at CALO are likely to be very damaging to them. As are those very real potential consequences to having their personal information and location exposed to anyone even predators. These are at risk children and I don’t see how having the children exposed like this is anything other than reckless and intrusive.

:notworthy:

[Anonymous]

The ends justify the means? Rationalizations like that are similar to “This is for their own good" …not dissimilar to the skewed reasoning of those involved with these very harmful programs.
The consequences of the kids’ experience of being held and harmed at CALO are likely to be very damaging to them. As are those very real potential consequences to having their personal information and location exposed to anyone even predators. These are at risk children and I don’t see how having the children exposed like this is anything other than reckless and intrusive.

:notworthy:

Then why did’t/don't you take down the names (and photos) of survivors which were admittedly posted just to hurt them by fornits moderators (of all things) or program proponents?  ::poke:: I guess you would say, "free speech," and thats a "rationalization" "ends justifies the means" issue too.    :jamin:

[Anonymous]

All I am saying is that advocating for the rights of children seems laudible, but I fail to see how this goal is achieved with the method of "outing" them. They get used as pawns in a manner that they never gave consent to. I think this approach potentially makes things worse for them, and it doesn't provide them with the respect we know they deserve. Just because they may be being mistreated doesn't give any of us the moral authority to make their names public.

I think we may miss the bigger picture of being advocates and become the very thing we say we dispise...

[Anonymous]

I think we may miss the bigger picture of being advocates and become the very thing we say we dispise...

Until we begin abducting, imprisoning, and torturing, brainwashing and murdering people, for money, in coordination with a corrupt govt. becoming the thing we despise is not something we need to worry about.

[Che Gookin]

Until we begin abducting, imprisoning, and torturing, brainwashing and murdering people, for money, in coordination with a corrupt govt. becoming the thing we despise is not something we need to worry about.

Preach it... preach it.. preach it..

[Anonymous]

Failing to get a child's consent is at the very heart of abuse. Objectifying children is wrong, no matter who does it. Because someone else may be worse hardly makes this right. There is always a risk to become the very thing we hate. Again, if we use methods that potentially harm children, we loose our moral authority and ability to reach them with respect or compassion.

[Anonymous]

Failing to get a child's consent is at the very heart of abuse. Objectifying children is wrong, no matter who does it. Because someone else may be worse hardly makes this right. There is always a risk to become the very thing we hate. Again, if we use methods that potentially harm children, we loose our moral authority and ability to reach them with respect or compassion.

I don’t come to fornits because of my deeply held belief that children's civil rights are being abused by getting their names posted on the internet.

I disagree that posting names on the internet violates anyone’s “civil rights.”

And since no one claims that “civil right” for adults, it does not make sense to say doing it to people under 18 is discriminating or “objectifying” them. You make no sense, who, as per usual.

[Anonymous]

Failing to get a child's consent is at the very heart of abuse. Objectifying children is wrong, no matter who does it. Because someone else may be worse hardly makes this right. There is always a risk to become the very thing we hate. Again, if we use methods that potentially harm children, we loose our moral authority and ability to reach them with respect or compassion.

I don’t come to fornits because of my deeply held belief that children's civil rights are being abused by getting their names posted on the internet.

I disagree that posting names on the internet violates anyone’s “civil rights.”

And since no one claims that “civil right” for adults, it does not make sense to say doing it to people under 18 is discriminating or “objectifying” them. You make no sense, who, as per usual.

Let's see. Would you agree with listing the name of a girl or a young woman who had had an abortion? Perhaps also listing her phone number and address? What would be wrong with that?