Judge Approves "Big Brother" lawsuit against NBC's Predator

Originally posted by Gofunk

Most in the media perhaps.

Actually according to statistics (which i've been desperately trying to find and failed) more men are convicted of paedophilia offenses in the UK than women.

Originally posted by Gofunk

If you don't want me to be condescending don't apply your experiences and prosperity as a rule of thumb for all people. I have no tolerance for ignorance.

Oh dear an assumption, firstly the only way to get through this world is to apply your experiences, they make your judgement clearer for the most part. As for my prosperity, well you are way off. I currently cannot work due t illness, how prosporous is that? Don't assume things you have no idea about.

Originally posted by Gofunk

Like I said, try looking outside of your social class. Although I would argue that bad parenting exists across all classes, it seems people from more prosperous backgrounds seem more ignorant to the fact.

More assumptions, what is my social class exactly? I think you've just got some isues regarding class that you need to lose. There are good and bad parents accross all classes, i disagree that properous people are more ignorant to the fact.

Originally posted by Gofunk

I am not a parent, for the very reason that I understand the importance of establishing a stable and advantageous environment before I give in to instinct. I have experience of bad parenting and I have experience of good parenting. I would argue that the reason the parents you speak to find being a good parent difficult is because they have kids when they aren't ready. Parenting will always have it's obstacles and difficulties, but being a good parent has nothing to do with how difficult children can be.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree i guess.

Originally posted by Gofunk

What people say isn't important, it's what they think and feel that's important.

Yes i believe that's exactly what i was saying.

Originally posted by Gofunk
Which is clearly something that needs to be dealt with, because they weren't doing something wrong.

Yes but because of the nature of the crime and the fact that the child at the time coudln't understand it they thought they were doing something wrong. This is why chlidren need protecting, the majority simply don't understand what sex is, even if you explained it to them they couldn't comprehend the emotions involved and so they get harmed.

Originally posted by Gofunk

People who rely on what's said have no business in mental welfare.

I didn't say i was talking about mental health professionals. I was talking abot parents, teachers or anyone else that asks if the child is ok. You can't expect everyone to be a mind reader.

Originally posted by Gofunk

I know exactly what you meant. I'm simply stating Law is not a measure of right or wrong. Law can be a measure of correctness in relation to society's norms, but it will never define what is right and wrong, therefore the use of the words 'right' or 'wrong' in relation to law is incorrect unless the discussion is about the morality of the law itself.

Yes the law is a reaction to societies norms, so the law dictates what is right and wrong according to that societies norms. The law in a good, healthy, democractic system is a reflection of what the public feels is correct in that day and age.

So yes the law can be used as a yard stick for what is right and wrong with some minor exceptions.

Originally posted by GoFunk
The lack of comprehension in this case is not mine. As I have clearly stated repeatedly in previous posts, I make no implication that paedophilia itself can be rehabilitated. I don't believe it needs to be. It is a person's will to harm others that (in general) can be rehabilitated.

That's the thing though, paedophiles always seem to reoffend. There is the odd one that doesn't but in my opinion it is a gross mistake to take the chance.

Originally posted by GoFunk
Just as psychology makes the distinction that paedophilia is not a mental disorder so long as it does not impact a person's ability to function socially and does not cause the person distress, the law must make distinction that paedophilia is not a crime so long as a person does not behave in ways that brings harm or suffering to others.

Would you rape a woman simply because you are attracted to her?

I think i have stated several times that paedophiles should be left alone to live free until they actually touch a child in any sexual way. If someone has these thoughts and never acts upon them then i have no issue with that person (although they do make me feel quite ill that they have such thoughts). The thing is we only hear about paedophiles when they have commited an offense.

Originally posted by GoFunk
Most people show lack of restraint or self-control at some point during their lives, just as most people have the capacity to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour for the benefit of others. Granted there are exceptions, but that is exactly the reason why I believe sentencing should be specific to each individual case.

Understanding a person's ability to learn from their mistakes and improve their behaviour is an important part of modern law.

Absolutely it's part of modern law, but in this case the ideal doesn't fit. You are talking about people like burglars who can be shown what they are doing is harmful. Or someone who attacks someone randomly, this is out of character for that person usually and so they can be shown the error of their ways.

Paedophiles have a drive that once given into is even easier to give into again. It's like a dog that bites you, once it's bitten it's best to have it put down because it's more likely to do it again. Before you havea go at me for comparing a paedophile to an animal please remember this is just an example that once someone has done something they are more likely to do it again.

A burglar can be given a job to get their money from elsewhere once they see the error of their ways, a paedophile can only get children and harm them.

Originally posted by GoFunk
I disagree, sure I'm an idealist but I also understand the importance of innovation. I base my beliefs on things I can see a solution to. Simply because you are incapable of finding a solution does not mean others can't. Reform and progress through out history has generally come from those who are willing to look at things from an alternative angle, unless you're willing to give up all the benefits you are afforded from progression, please don't discriminate against those who strive for progress. Or should we all just give up because our predecessors were less competent?

I find it ironic that a person quoting Aristotle is discriminating against philosophical thought.

When did i say i was against philosohical thought? I just don't agree with you, that is part of a debate, i can completely disagree with your philosophy if i find it doesn't fit what i believe.

I am not incapable of finding a solution i simply have looked at the facts and decided there is no solution, you are an idealist and although i admire that i don't think this is an ideal that will suceed. If you had noticed i have repeatedly said we shouldn't arrest paedophiles simply for thinking their thoughts, this in itself is looking at it from a different angle becuase most people wouldn't even give them that.

There was a brain scan recently shown to be able to tell if someone became aroused whilst looking at a picture of a chld. Some people wanted anyone aroused by a child to be imprisoned immediately, but i defended anyone who was merely aroused because you cannot be arrested for thought criime.

I am not descriminating, i am disagreeing with you.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Actually according to statistics (which i've been desperately trying to find and failed) more men are convicted of paedophilia offenses in the UK than women.

Only those who are caught are convicted, and the UK does not represent the whole human race.

Oh dear an assumption, firstly the only way to get through this world is to apply your experiences, they make your judgement clearer for the most part.

There's a difference between relying on your experience and applying your experience as a rule of thumb. Only a fool would go through life thinking that their experiences (no matter how diverse) is a representation of all that there is. You have clearly demonstrated that your experience is limited. Lets recap:

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by gofunk
Parents are not qualified judges, and don't always have the daughter or son's best interests in mind, even if they think they do.

I don't have kids but that is without a doubt the most silly statement i've seen on this thread. Parents generally do their best for their kids and as they have more life experience tend to also know what their child should and shouldn't be doing. I know we all as kids probably rebelled slightly, it's natural as you're finding your way.

Now lets examine each statement:

"Parents are not qualified judges" - We have already established that a good judge is impartial and free from emotional prejudice. Parents have a tendency to be emotionally involved, it's a natural part of being a parent.

"and don't always have the daughter or son's best interests in mind" - Note that "don't always" implies that this statement is an exception rather than a general rule.

"even if they think they do." - This statement refers to the distinction between what is in the child's best interest (an absolute factor) and what a parent believes to be in the child's best interest (personal opinion).

"I don't have kids but that is without a doubt the most silly statement i've seen on this thread. Parents generally do their best for their kids" - It is my experience that parents do not always do their best for their kids, in some areas of society this is more prevalent than in other areas, your statement implies ignorance to this fact.

"and as they have more life experience tend to also know what their child should and shouldn't be doing." - Being a parent does not automatically mean that a person has the intelligence or wisdom to apply experience in a way that's conducive to the child's best interest. I have come across many cases where that wisdom and indeed the experience itself is lacking. In my local area for example teenage pregnancies are quite high.

In my experience parenting skill and intention varies diversely across the board and different social classes tend to have class associated norms. You imply ignorance to this fact in your statements.

As for my prosperity, well you are way off. I currently cannot work due t illness

How does that relate to this debate? You have implied that your experience of parents is generally a good one, that would make your level of prosperity higher than those who aren't so fortunate.

how prosporous is that?

Your (in)ability to work makes no direct implication of your prosperity, you could be a millionaire who is unable to work, or you could be a desperately impoverished person who's worked hard all their lives. That statement also does not imply the severity of your affliction.

continued...

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

More assumptions, what is my social class exactly? I think you've just got some isues regarding class that you need to lose. There are good and bad parents accross all classes, i disagree that properous people are more ignorant to the fact.

Like I said, I base my assumptions on what you present. We are all part of a social class or group, and each social class generally tends to have ignorances towards the experience of other social classes. The statements you have made imply compliance with that ignorance. I never made any assumption as to which social class you fit in, only that you are apparently ignorant to experiences of other social classes.

You seem more concerned with defending your own integrity than debating the topic at hand, we're getting way off track here.

Yes but because of the nature of the crime and the fact that the child at the time coudln't understand it they thought they were doing something wrong. This is why chlidren need protecting, the majority simply don't understand what sex is, even if you explained it to them they couldn't comprehend the emotions involved and so they get harmed.

I whole heartedly agree.

Yes the law is a reaction to societies norms, so the law dictates what is right and wrong according to that societies norms. The law in a good, healthy, democractic system is a reflection of what the public feels is correct in that day and age.

So yes the law can be used as a yard stick for what is right and wrong with some minor exceptions.

Even in a democratically perfect system where law reflects public opinion, how is public opinion a good measure of right and wrong? Especially when public opinion is easily corrupted by trend and social bias.

Degree of correctness is not synonymous with right & wrong. The law represents what is correct according it's legislators, right & wrong are representations of personal opinion on an individual level, don't mix the two.

That's the thing though, paedophiles always seem to reoffend.

That's an ignorant generalisation, the paedophiles that are convicted of child abuse do not represent all paedophiles, and the child abusers that gain most media attention tend to be those who re-offend.

There is the odd one that doesn't but in my opinion it is a gross mistake to take the chance.

It is a gross injustice to judge the individual by the majority.

The thing is we only hear about paedophiles when they have commited an offense.

Exactly.

Absolutely it's part of modern law, but in this case the ideal doesn't fit. You are talking about people like burglars who can be shown what they are doing is harmful. Or someone who attacks someone randomly, this is out of character for that person usually and so they can be shown the error of their ways.

How is being a paedophile any different?

Paedophiles have a drive that once given into is even easier to give into again.

That in itself makes them no different to any other person. Simply because they are paedophiles does not mean they are addicts. Just like a person who drinks alcohol is not necessarily an alcoholic.

a paedophile can only get children and harm them.

It isn't that simple, paedophilia is somebody who is predominantly attracted to children, but that attraction makes no implication on their character. People are sometimes attracted to people they can't have, that doesn't mean the person is going to go out and rape them. There is no reason why a well adjusted paedophile would be different to anybody else with an attraction.

I am not incapable of finding a solution i simply have looked at the facts and decided there is no solution

How does that differ to being unable to find a solution?

continued...

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

If you had noticed i have repeatedly said we shouldn't arrest paedophiles simply for thinking their thoughts

Actually you've only started to make a point of that in this post, and even now you say things that contradict it by making generalisations.

I am not descriminating, i am disagreeing with you.

Disagreeing and discrimination are not mutually exclusive. You were claiming that I was living in a dream world simply because I could see a solution, without willingness to consider or explore the solution. How is that conducive to a constructive debate?

Originally posted by Gofunk
Hungry animals kill indiscriminately, as do those who feel threatened. That first article is either incredibly misinformed or intentionally misleading. Quite often in the wild animals which have no experience of humans do not fear them unless they are naturally shy/cautious, which most large predators high in the food chain are not.

You have no idea what you are talking about, plain and simple. This thread is obviously not the one to get into it, and if you wish to debate the issue of predatory animals and their natural avoidance of humans under normal circumstances further, we can open a new thread in the appropriate forum.

As for your continued arguing of semantics as to what a pedophile is or isn't, and whether parents should be able to make decisions for their children until they are legally adults, obviously all you are doing is trying to justify your own preferences, sure I may be assuming, but I call em as I see em. Like you said, all we can go by is what you present. And the fact that you are not a parent, makes you even less qualified to debate this topic. Either way, you are entitled to whatever opinion you wish. I will ALWAYS feel that individuals who prey on children deserve to die slowly and painfully. And if anybody who shares your opinion, ever tries to interfere directly with my parenting decisions, they WILL be sorry. Enough said.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by 27jd]

reply to post by 27jd


Nice clichéd use of fallacy there! Perhaps if you paid more attention to what was being said instead of nursing your ego you'd stand a better chance of understanding the debate. Thanks for proving my point about parents being bad judges though!

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the debate I'm more than happy to continue debating.

Just a note on parents and intentions.

Originally posted by Gofunk
Nice clichéd use of fallacy there! Perhaps if you paid more attention to what was being said instead of nursing your ego you'd stand a better chance of understanding the debate.

Not sure what fallacy you're referring to. My judgement of your intentions? Like I said, I call em like I see em. As for nursing my ego, not quite sure what you meant there either. But if you're referring to what I said about some old man ignoring my decision as a parent, and pursuing my underage daughter, you can MARK MY WORDS, my ego will definitely NOT be the only thing in need of nursing.

Thanks for proving my point about parents being bad judges though!

Again, you're entitled to THINK whatever you want. If you think I've proven your point, good for you. You'll probably cling to anything you can to justify your position, and try and convince others it's okay.

Now if you have anything constructive to contribute to the debate I'm more than happy to continue debating.

No need. It would be a waste of both our time. Your position offends me greatly and it's been hard not to violate the T & C of this site. I'm sure there's a Hannah Montana chatroom that your time would be better spent in.

reply to post by Gofunk


That link has NOTHING to do with this topic, not even analogously. Unfortunately there's no law against stupid people breeding, even though they weren't even his children, and even if they were, that doesn't mean their children are your oyster.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by 27jd]

reply to post by 27jd

Not sure what fallacy you're referring to. My judgement of your intentions? Like I said, I call em like I see em. As for nursing my ego, not quite sure what you meant there either. But if you're referring to what I said about some old man ignoring my decision as a parent, and pursuing my underage daughter, you can MARK MY WORDS, my ego will definitely NOT be the only thing in need of nursing.

I'm referring to your preoccupation with bolstering your false sense of integrity rather than debating the topic at hand, and the tactics you've used in aid of that.

Again, you're entitled to THINK whatever you want. If you think I've proven your point, good for you. You'll probably cling to anything you can to justify your position, and try and convince others it's okay.

Let's try this from a logical perspective, as a parent, what drives you to your judgement and beliefs?

No need. It would be a waste of both our time. Your position offends me greatly and it's been hard not to violate the T & C of this site. I'm sure there's a Hannah Montana chatroom that your time would be better spent in.

If you have no interest in participating in constructive debate you are welcome to not do so. The very fact that my position offends you greatly shows that your ability to debate rationally has been compromised. Nobody's forcing you to take part in this thread.


reply to post by 27jd

That link has NOTHING to do with this topic, not even analogously.

It was a continuation of the debate I was having with ImaginaryReality1984 regarding the statement I made about parents not always having their children's best intentions in mind. Granted it's not directly related to the OP but this thread left the OP a long time ago due to people's inability to differentiate between paedophilia and the subjects presented on NBC's show. Feel free to contribute something that will get the debate back on track.

that doesn't mean their children are your oyster

Children are my oyster? That's a little creepy

reply to post by 27jd


You really need to stop accusing people of being closeted paedophiles using thinly veiled arguments to hide their lust for your children ONLY because they are defending the rights of Paedophiles.

When you say, "Hey, I call them like I see them," That's just another way of saying you're a jerk and don't care about offending others because your own self righteousness is more important than actually making a point in a conversation.

I could say "Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it," But that would be redundant as well as juvenile.

The choices your daughter makes as to who she decides to date and doink are entirely dependant upon her level of maturity and ability to conceptualize repurcussions and responsibilities.

There are some surprisingly mature 14 year olds (And I've known a few 14 year olds in my life who divorced their parents at that age. NO, I wasn't sexually involved with them, they were high school chums) who work, date, and live a life just as average as any adult.

That our western concept of childhood is fixed to numbers instead of maturity is a severe problem, as well as the disparate ages of consent throughout the world and even in our own United States.

Here in Alaska, the age of consent is 16. That means if you lived here, your daughter could tell you to go to hell if she wanted to date a 50 year old millionaire (And there's a lot of them up here, it would seem).

There are a few other states that are as low as 14, though I think that may be the low range in this day and age.... but likewise, if you lived there, your daughter could decide for herself at that age and you'd have no say in the matter.

Why is this important to this particular topic? Well, it entirely has to do with what the western world considers "CHILDREN". In prior day and age, if a man could hold a gun and stand it's kick, he was a man. Or if he was old enough to do hard labor on the farm, the same applied. Your manhood was reliant upon your maturity, not an arbitrary number.

This definition of manhood often coincided with puberty. In a lot of cases, womanhood was oft considered in the same fashion; when a girl was able to assume all the duties of holding her own home, she would subsequently be married off to an eligible bachelor or would be allowed to date.

Of course, that was in egalitarian society. In the poor quarter of things, practically everything was self determined rather than societally determined.

Which of course made everything quite situational. Some girls married at 11, some married at 23. It is due to remind people that there are societies even TODAY which have an upper cutoff limit of marriage. Japan, notably, has a very strong societal and traditional viewpoint that any woman above 25 is considered an old maid, and undesirable to most men.

Many of the societal conventions about adulthood and coming-of-age changed during the industrial revolution. This had nothing to do with being more civilized, it had to do with the outlawing of child labor (Traditionally throughout history, everyone worked to provide for the family if they COULD). By removing children from the workplace, society created a new section of society which became sanctified and viewed as innocent as well as "PROTECTED".

The problem with this is puberty. When the biology starts ticking, the body tells the person wearing it that it's ready for sex and breeding. No matter how much sex ed and puritan ethics a society presses on preteens and teenagers, it remains true that their bodies are going through a rampant hormonal stage which is designed to get them to mate with the most viable sexual partner available.

However, our society views anything between 11 and 18 as a child, which places them in the "Protected" category of non-people (Children don't have rights, per se).

This does not, cannot, and will never mitigate the fact that teenagers are horny, and are in their most virile part of their lives. It doesn't change the fact that Females often seek more established mates who can provide for their offspring, instinctually this means an older male in most cases. Generally, the boys end up being interested in practically anything female and of child-bearing years, regardless the age (Hot for teacher, anyone?).

When it comes to Paedophiles (Actual Paedophiles, not Hebophiles which is what I've been discussing up to this point), There is some sort of developmental stunting that occurs during this particular phase of life, and they find their sexual attraction affixed to pre-pubescent children (Which would be under the age of 11, USUALLY).

If you have read the wikipedia entry on Paedophilia (And you really, really should if you're in this conversation), you'd notice that MANY child rape cases don't involve someone with the Paedophile Paraphilia, and that the causes of the rapes (And in a lot of cases, murder) have a lot less to do with Paedophilia and more to do with a disturbed person who had a very tortured childhood (Sexual torture, punishment without cause, things that make sociopaths happen).

While it is true that SOME Child Rapists are Paedophiles, it is actually not the norm.

As for the original topic, I still stand by the fact that presenting an enticing proposal (A child that lures an adult to have sex, and intentionally goads the adult into a sexual desire for that child) would greatly increase the chances of someone acting with a Paedophilic tendency. It is because some amount of force is being applied in order to entice the abberant behavior, or trigger it if you would.

Think of it like food.... when you're hungry, you don't want to hear about food because it makes you hungrier. If you have a predilection for getting aroused by small children, and you are confronted by a small child telling you how much they want you to do them... your lust will grow because it is being fed and nurtured.

Originally posted by 27jd
Gofunk
I'm sure there's a Hannah Montana chatroom that your time would be better spent in.

That's a brilliant personal attack 27jd! Here we go again with the insinuations.

Lets turn it around. I didn't know there was such a chat room 27jd, why don't you tells us about your experiences there? Did you purchase any Hannah Montana outfits? Why?

What's with the mud slinging 27jd? Why are you so fixated & preoccupied with that aspect of this thread? Are you with twisted justice or affiliated with this show? You made your point quite a long time back and I appreciated your points, but I think enough is enough with the attacks.

In case you have forgot the original thread, its about some MSM corporate clowns hiring perverted thought police posing as (mostly) teenagers on the internet attempting to entice adults to break the law in their minds (as there only adults were involved) in order to create revenue, by sensationalizing what they can get people to do.

If you think its okay to turn unqualified vigilante corporations into police forces so they can generate revenue, then by all means defend them. The ped and teen aspect of this was only to drum up emotions in order that we look the other way when our civil rights are trampled upon.

You can fit what ever emotional illegal subject in that line and this kind of event will continue to happen by non-law enforcement personal who have a grudge or monetary goal for what ever reason. The 100million dollar lawsuit is justified because people put themselves in positions they are neither qualified nor given our permission to be in. If I was on the Jury I would award that & more - regardless of whether or not the guy who blew his brains out was a scumbag.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by Gofunk
I'm referring to your preoccupation with bolstering your false sense of integrity rather than debating the topic at hand, and the tactics you've used in aid of that.

Is that what I'm doing? I wasn't aware I was undergoing a psychological examination, lol. Thank you for your diagnosis, and I hope you accept insurance.

Let's try this from a logical perspective, as a parent, what drives you to your judgement and beliefs?

I don't judge until somebody commits a crime. What drives me to my beliefs? The life I've lived up until this point drives me to what I believe now, like everybody else.

It was a continuation of the debate I was having with ImaginaryReality1984 regarding the statement I made about parents not always having their children's best intentions in mind.

Okay, but since that guy wasn't the parent of the children, it has no bearing on that debate either.

Granted it's not directly related to the OP but this thread left the OP a long time ago due to people's inability to differentiate between paedophilia and the subjects presented on NBC's show. Feel free to contribute something that will get the debate back on track.

I've already stated my position on that issue, anybody under 13 is pedophilia in my eyes. The bottom line is those guys are predators that prey on underage girls, and should be smart enough to observe the law in their particular state if they want to avoid being on the show. It's as simple as that.

Children are my oyster? That's a little creepy

By that, I meant teenaged girls. Sorry, should have been more specific, I wasn't implying you were a pedophile by my definition.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
When you say, "Hey, I call them like I see them," That's just another way of saying you're a jerk and don't care about offending others because your own self righteousness is more important than actually making a point in a conversation.

Well, yeah.

Here in Alaska, the age of consent is 16. That means if you lived here, your daughter could tell you to go to hell if she wanted to date a 50 year old millionaire (And there's a lot of them up here, it would seem).

Well, if that's the legal age and I lived there, I would express my concerns to her if I had them and hope she made the right decision. If she really had feelings for the individual and she understood that when she was around 30 she would have to start over, or live alone for the greater half of her life then there wouldn't be much I could do. I would hope my daughter wouldn't be basically a prostitute and date a man for money.

Think of it like food.... when you're hungry, you don't want to hear about food because it makes you hungrier. If you have a predilection for getting aroused by small children, and you are confronted by a small child telling you how much they want you to do them... your lust will grow because it is being fed and nurtured.

Antifreeze may taste sweet to some, but it will cause death if ingested. If enough people who would like to drink antifreeze see what happened to those before them thatdid, they will probably think twice, no matter how bad they wanted it.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
That's a brilliant personal attack 27jd!

You liked that, eh? Thanks, it was the best I could come up with on such short notice.

Lets turn it around.

Okay.

I didn't know there was such a chat room 27jd, why don't you tells us about your experiences there?

I'm not sure if there is one, I kinda made it up. So I haven't had any experiences there, I'm a full grown man, happy with my adult woman, and would have no reason to visit such a site. See, that wasn't so hard.

Did you purchase any Hannah Montana outfits?

Not sure I follow, at no point was a Hannah Montana clothing site mentioned....

Why?

Why what?

If you think its okay to turn unqualified vigilante corporations into police forces so they can generate revenue, then by all means defend them. The ped and teen aspect of this was only to drum up emotions in order that we look the other way when our civil rights are trampled upon.

Well, logically I feel it is wrong. I feel it is baiting. However, I just can't feel bad for those scumbags. That's it. I've stated over and over I'm not really interested in the moral high ground when it comes to sex offenders. Just stick to girls that are legal for whatever state and you'll be fine. That shouldn't be too hard for anybody, IMO.

My position on this matter will not change, no matter how much logic is applied. Just because other cultures may allow or have allowed an 11 year old to be married, doesn't mean it's right. Some cultures still practice cannibalism too.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon


Think of it like food.... when you're hungry, you don't want to hear about food because it makes you hungrier. If you have a predilection for getting aroused by small children, and you are confronted by a small child telling you how much they want you to do them... your lust will grow because it is being fed and nurtured.

Can't believe how much of this thread i've missed, i'm sorry i don't have enough time to post a nice long reply at the moment so i'll just address this point.

If a child did that i'd feel quite disgusted but hey that's just me. The problem is that even if a child did this (which i doubt) they still might not understand the actual act. The thoughts can be appealing but the act can be so very different. Many people seek things which will damage them.

Apologies again for not being able to post a decent reply, especially sorry to gofunk as he had typed a massive response.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


Cold Dragon:

You are very WISE. I definitely agree with everything you wrote and I admire your courage to speak the truth.

It is most telling that no one gave a crap about this, until a Texas Prosecutor got caught up in the sting.

In what is, I'm sure, a totally unrelated matter, people have been claiming for years that the Texas Judicial System is rife with pedophiles.

reply to post by searcus

Try reading the chat again, this time accurately. Laci never made first contact. She only responded to his messages. And try reading the whole thing this time. Vishal Agarwal, aka readyto_fck, contacted three seperate decoys over a period of months, made arrangements to meet all three for sex, and sent pornographic photos of himself to all three. If there was ever anyone who didn't need encouragement to hit on kids for sex, it was that idiot.