Convicted paedophile found strangled and dumped in woods

Well I am one of those who believes these types of animals should be executed. They serve NO purpose in this world and have no right to life once they harm an innocent person. I have ZERO apathy for any of them.

With that said....maybe if there is more vigilantism....then maybe FINALLY the justice system will do what it is suppose to do and keep these animals off the street and start protecting the innocent people!!

Until then, I do NOT feel sorry for these creeps who come face to face with karma.

Such ignorance is appaling is it? Well...when you have know this person that has been molested for four years, have a best friend who goes out with her...and have a friendship as good as we did...I don't think you can call me ignorant.

Paedophilia is not a word of hate... this is its meaning:

'an adult who is sexually attracted to children'

Now, any person under 16 in the UK is considered a child. A 16 year old can truly love a 15 year old...where is the hate in that? But he IS a paedophile.

There is only one cure for a pedophile - It's called a Death Cirtificate.

He finally got his at the hands of someone that thought "By God, Justice Will be Done"

End of story. He died as he lived, inflicting pain on others!

reply to post by greeneyedleo


R u serious they have no right life ??? hows thatn right then everyone has a right live we dont get to choose who doesnt have one

reply to post by StevenDye



Are you deliberately derailing this thread ?

Or are YOU the only poster who chooses not to understand that this thread is NOT about teenagers having sex with each other ?

reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8




Yes we do. We most certainly do have the right .. because we make it our right .. to decide we do not want paedophiles at liberty to molest, rape, torture, kill our children.

If you want to put your views to the test, go amongst parents and tell them paedophiles have ANY 'rights', other than the right to exit this planet before they're tossed off it.

reply to post by Dock6


No...I made it as a side point to my first post that people are using the word paedophile as a word of hate and disgust, When it is infact child molester they should be using... I was then in my second post replying to the poster who disagreed with what i said...if you read the thread you would see that.


And if we have the right to end someones life....why don't they have the right to ruin someones life. I'm not sticking up for this guy, but that point is highly hypocritical...

[edit on 10-10-2008 by StevenDye]

reply to post by StevenDye


YOU clearly prefer the term 'child molester'

'molestation' does not even begin to adequately describe the acts performed by paedophiles upon their child victims.

'Molestation' does not adequately describe the rape of a child. Rape is not 'molestation'.

Rape, mutilation, murder of a child victim by a paedophile far exceeds the term 'molestation'.

You will NOT persuade me to describe paedophiles as 'mere' child molesters, so stop trying, thank you. I regard your repeated attempts to push your point as being attempted minimisation of the heinous crimes perpetrated by paedophiles.

My own term for paedophiles is ' non-human evil filth'. But as that is lengthy and emotional and in any case still fails to articulate my utter loathing of those creatures, I use the term 'paedophile' more often within my posts in this thread.

The remainder of your post speaks for itself. Suffice to say, I do not agree with you.

I am not saying call a paedophile a child molester/murderer or whatever you want to call him.

I am saying, a paedophile is not necesarily a bad person, a paedophile is simply a person who has broken a law that many people disagree with entirely. I don't really care what you think paedophile means...I am going with a dictionary definition here. This site is to deny ignorance, yet this is an ignorant statement people are making. This person WAS a paedophile, but that does not describe the acts he did.


You do not have to agree with me, but my point stands...if you have the right to kill him, why does he not have the right to rape a child. Both things in my opinion are morally wrong...

[edit on 10-10-2008 by StevenDye]

reply to post by thebox


doesn't sound like really that bad of a punishment. IMO, ritualistic torture followed by blood transfusions to keep him alive for more tortute.

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8

 

Yes we do. We most certainly do have the right .. because we make it our right .. to decide we do not want paedophiles at liberty to molest, rape, torture, kill our children.

If you want to put your views to the test, go amongst parents and tell them paedophiles have ANY 'rights', other than the right to exit this planet before they're tossed off it.

Paedaphiles are in no way right about what they do they should be ashamed of it but they are still humans and theyrefore should have human rights still

reply to post by StevenDye

Both things .. are morally wrong

Stealing a ten cent chocolate is morally wrong

Stealing an old woman's bag containing her life savings is morally wrong.

So both are morally wrong.

It becomes the degree of 'wrongness'



Raping and killing a little child is morally wrong.

Killing the person who raped and killed the child is morally wrong.


Most would be of the opinion that the latter 'wrongness' is LESS 'wrong' -- would be of the opinion that the death of the paedophile is justified.

Whereas snatching a helpless child, raping and killing it cannot be justified.

Again, it's about the degree of 'wrongness'.



The State executes killers.

But the State, the judiciary and compromised legislators are failing to appropriately deal with paedophiles and are ALSO failing to adequately protect children.

So, the public is executing paedophiles


Perhaps you should take your argument to those who decide which criminals on death row should be executed ... tell them you believe that the killer has just as much right to kill his victim as the State has to execute that killer. Bet you don't

reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8



Paedophiles are NOT 'human'

and have NO rights


in the same way THEY decide a little child has no rights

Originally posted by billyjoinedat2k8

Originally posted by Dock6
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8

 

Yes we do. We most certainly do have the right .. because we make it our right .. to decide we do not want paedophiles at liberty to molest, rape, torture, kill our children.

If you want to put your views to the test, go amongst parents and tell them paedophiles have ANY 'rights', other than the right to exit this planet before they're tossed off it.

Paedaphiles are in no way right about what they do they should be ashamed of it but they are still humans and theyrefore should have human rights still

Sorry to burst your bubble here guy, but pedophiles ruin lives.

Imagine you had a child and he/she got raped. Would you still be pleading for pedophiles rights?

Yes...different degrees of wrongness....but both are wrong.

I do not think they should be allowed back onto the streets, I don't believe I ever said that...but I don't think they should be killed either. Especially since my country (England) does not have the death penalty.

reply to post by StevenDye


What you describe as 'your' country used to be 'my' country

And if things keep running as they are in 'your' country, you can put money on the return of the death penalty

Because death is the only way to solve some problems

And paedophiles are a problem NO-one's country can afford

We can't AFFORD any criminal right now....so shall we kill everyone from the rapists down to the pretty thief who is in prison for 2 months?

That is a terrible excuse to kill someone...

reply to post by StevenDye



Again, it's about degree

Rape is abhorrent.

Rape of a child is beyond tolerance.


You appear unable or unwilling to recognise the difference.


An adult pitted against an adult aggressor has at least SOME chance of survival or escape.

A small child pitted against an adult aggressor hasn't a hope in hell.

Can you tell the difference ?

Don't you WANT to acknowledge the difference ?

Or are you hoping to bluff your way through and in the process equate an attack upon an adult with an attack upon a defenceless child ?

My response to the title is: um, ok? who gives a f***

No i see the difference...I just do not see how that difference means one man should be killed and the next should not...

He should never have been allowed onto the streets again, but he should not have been killed. That is STILL wrong...and it isn't an awful lot better than what he did to those children.