Police arrest 184 in worldwide pedophile ring: Europol

[Sonny Jim]

"One case, eh? I know of one case as well. Doesn't change much in the broader scope of things though..."

Luring children into cars on the way home from school does happen, I didn't say it was the prevalent form. That was one case. I also know that most sex offender know there victims, I have heard it on the radio and on T.V.

"I've already read it and I mostly agree with it. The main part I don't agree with is that every person who has sex at 13 will become a pedophile..."

I didn't say that every person who has sex at 13 will become a pedophile. I didn't say anything like that at all. I was saying that a child who is used for sex by someone much older than them might become a pedophile. I explained the reason for why I think people who are pedophiles often say they were sexually abused as a child, it has a lot to do with trust.

"Pfft, I don't need to answer you. I'm one of the few people here who actually cares about finding a solution to this problem... "

Of course you don't need to answer me. I would like you to, so I asked. I really can't tell if you think it is ok or not because I have worked with a couple of young men in their early twenties who bragged about having sex with girls in their mid teens. I think these young men were very wrong to do what they did to those girls.

Do you mean that I don't care about finding a solution to the problem. If you do mean that about me you are wrong about me. You didn't even read my post#103 properly but you replied to it twice. How can you have an opinion about what I think about the issue if you aren't even reading my posts.

[synchromesh]

Luring children into cars on the way home from school does happen, I didn't say it was the prevalent form. That was one case. I also know that most sex offender know there victims, I have heard it on the radio and on T.V.

You agree that the media stereotype is wrong then?

I didn't say that every person who has sex at 13 will become a pedophile. I didn't say anything like that at all.

No, you just implied it...

Having never been able to sustain them selves sexually or emotionally the now grown up 13 year old will find them selves with needs that cannot be met in a healthy way. But they need sex and emotional intimacy. The last time they could ever trust someone was when they were a child before the older person abused them, that was the last time they felt comfortable just to be next to someone else. Their sexual needs find it easiest to manifest themselves with people they can intimately trust but the only people who fit that description are children...

Of course you don't need to answer me. I would like you to, so I asked. I really can't tell if you think it is ok or not because I have worked with a couple of young men in their early twenties who bragged about having sex with girls in their mid teens. I think these young men were very wrong to do what they did to those girls.

 

You enjoy staying on the first step don't ya? Rude bastard... Okay then, if I've got any points to make, it's these:

* A child molester is automatically a pedophile (unless he's insane), but a pedophile isn't automatically a child molester

* All pedophiles are not exactly the same as each other. E.g. some feel a lot of guilt, where as others feel no guilt at all

* Believing that all pedophiles are exactly the same shows a fear of understanding things which you don't

* Most thoughts are uncontrollable and harmless, and have very little to do with future actions

* If a pedophile believes that he truly loves a child, then he shouldn't have sex with it. Doing so will only ruin the child's life

* Having sex with a teenager is different to having sex with a child

* Being sexually attracted to a 15 year old makes more sense than being sexually attracted to a 10 year old

* Not all underage sex is pedophilia. E.g. if two 15 year olds had sex with each other, it would be underage sex, but it wouldn't be pedophilia

* Nobody knows what causes pedophilia, and this is one of the main reasons why people despise it

* Hate and intolerance alone isn't a solution to something which we don't understand, nor can get rid of

* Every court case of pedophilia is different, and should be treated likewise

* The media frequently uses pedophiles to try and keep our minds off of things like the war

Edited March 22, 2011 by synchromesh

[dworx]

Wrong Then what is your reason

I said they were in the style of an interview, not that they were interviews. They were for my curiosity, and I did not and do not see any need to document them. right so it was just war stories about little kids?

No. I consider that private.

Possibly, and I am (as far as I am concerned) a good person. Better than most from what I've seen of the average Joe. I would doubt you have seen the average joe, you're so high up on your high horse

Not really, I honestly don't know what I intended to achieve with that admission, but acceptance is the last thing I expect. Well I for one accept it. You had pedo thoughts that made you think you are a pedo for a short while, you probably only thought tthat brcause you have held an interest for so long in pedos, but I accept it, but it's still wrong? So how old were you thinking about in that 4-13yr range?

I think they can be good people. Actions speak louder than words, or in this case, thoughts. Just an opinion. Not a very good opinion in this case,

Yes, I am actually sorry about that. Reading through again, I see that I have confused a few of your posts with dworx's, and have been viewing you in a light that you don't deserve. (particularly his castration comment, which I accidentally read as yours) Guess again, it wasn't my comment?I only suggested that it was put there for you It was a quote.

I do not disagree that seeing a child in a sexual way is wrong. I am defending paedophiles in that they can be good people, and that having thought of wrong, well, everyone has thought dark thoughts before. Yes but not ones of raping four year olds.

Edit: Could someone fill me in on why #116 has -2? I don't see anything offensive or wrong in there... Is it mention of the genetic fuckups?

Another Edit: removed a paragraph that I thought better of. Then that is what probably did it,hey?

[rahli]

Having no first hand insight into pedophile behaviour and with no desire to form relationships with pedophiles to discover insight into their position, I am having to rely on the results of studies undertaken on the subject and reported on Wikipedia in an attempt to put pedophiles into perspective with the rest of the community.

From Wiki

“As child sexual abuse may or may not be an indicator that its perpetrator is a pedophile, offenders may be separated into two types: Exclusive (i.e., "true pedophiles") and non-exclusive (or, in some cases, "non-pedophilic"). According to a U.S. study on 2429 adult male pedophile sex offenders, only 7% identified themselves as exclusive; indicating that many or most offenders fall into the non-exclusive category. However, the Mayo Clinic reports perpetrators who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia offend more often than non-pedophile perpetrators, and with a greater number of victims. They state that approximately 95% of child sexual abuse incidents are committed by the 88% of child molestation offenders who meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. A behavioral analysis report by the FBI states that a "high percentage of acquaintance child molesters are preferential sex offenders who have a true sexual preference for [prepubescent] children (i.e., true pedophiles)."

As noted by Abel, Mittleman, and Becker (1985) and Ward et al. (1995), there are generally large distinctions between the two types of offenders' characteristics. Situational offenders tend to offend at times of stress; have a later onset of offending; have fewer, often familial victims; and have a general preference for adult partners. Pedophilic offenders, however, often start offending at an early age; often have a large number of victims who are frequently extrafamilial; are more inwardly driven to offend; and have values or beliefs that strongly support an offense lifestyle. Research suggests that incest offenders recidivate at approximately half the rate of extrafamilial child molesters, and one study estimated that by the time of entry to treatment, nonincestuous pedophiles who molest boys had committed an average of 282 offenses against 150 victims.”

So taking into account the results of these studies, what benefit is there to legitimising pedophilia as a sexuality?

And if accepted how do pedophiles freely express and explore their now legitimate sexuality?

Will this then normalize pedophiles and their sexual attraction and relationship to others?

Who gains from this massive social shift toward accepting pedophilia and why?

[Sheather]

Then what is your reason

My reason is for me, as are my thoughts.

right so it was just war stories about little kids?

I spoke with paedophiles, not child molesters. I don't think I could bring myself to have a polite conversation with someone who has done such a thing. As such, I enquired about what they believed was the source of their thoughts, what they did about them, how they dealt with it etc. What their views on sexuality etc were and other unrelated topics.

I would doubt you have seen the average joe, you're so high up on your high horse

I'm only on a high horse because you're needlessly insolent, ignorant and rude. There's no reason for me to treat you as an equal right now.

So how old were you thinking about in that 4-13yr range?

Yes, probably closer to 8-10

Not a very good opinion in this case,

As you would say, why not?

Guess again, it wasn't my comment?I only suggested that it was put there for you It was a quote.

Hutch made the post, speaking in hypotheticals. You quoted him and suggested it was for me. You made the suggestion, to me, that that was appropriate. Hutch is better than that.

Yes but not ones of raping four year olds.

People who aren't paedophiles do it too. I'm not defending anyone who has sex with a minor.

Then that is what probably did it,hey?

That did nothing to answer the question. Be more clear in speaking. I edited the paragraph out of #121 not #116.

[FancyPants]

^^^ Synchro, as Sheather pointed out, sexual attraction to pubescents is ephebophilia, not paedophilia; so do you still want to say that it's no big deal because plenty of 8 or 9 year olds have sex?

How you were treated in this thread in regards to a common definition I find unbelievable. In any other thread, I'm sure Hutch would've labelled Sheather a "fucking little sook" ;) (please note, I'm not having a dig at Hutch here, it just popped into my head to think that and I had to share)

If your definition is so cut-and-dried, why do you say paedophilia isn't necessarily inclusive of sexual thoughts but is moreso about admiration and care? Wouldn't that - like ThunderIdeal said - equate most adults with being paedophiles? You're getting humphy about YOUR definitions which you've chopped and changed at your convenience.

We don't let 9 year olds drive cars, gamble, drink liquor, get married, sign contracts, serve jury duty etc etc. CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS. There are reasons there are laws to protect against the corruption of youths by those in position of trust or authority etc. The age of legal consent itself may very well be arbitrary but THAT is NOT this debate.

 

Yeah, but according to the politicians, the media, the police and some of you guys (etc); it isn't. So what are we really talking about here?

We're talking about paedophilia, not ephebophilia. So your saying "Which 13 year old girls or boys hasn't had sex these days?" (post 101) is irrelevant. We're talking CHILDREN, not TEENS.

When did Sheather say this? One thing you've gotta realise, okay, is that the media stereotype of pedophiles is largely bullshit. For example, I'm pretty sure that most pedophiles don't lurk outside of primary schools with a bag of candy!

To quote Sheather's post#47 "I would argue that in many cases, they are, seeing as the majority of paedophiles that I have spoken to would rather drive rusty nails through their genitals than hurt a child, especially one they felt an attraction to. Indeed, some form an almost fatherly protective emotion, they do not necessarily love children for their bodies, a solely sexual attraction. They are enthralled by the curiosity and adventure of children, their boundless enthusiasm and keenness to learn of the world. I can see where they're coming from in that respect too."

The media stereotype comes from paedophiles who have been caught MOLESTING CHILDREN. If a paedohile hasn't crossed the line and been caught with child porn or actually busted messing with kids, that's not such a long leap for one to make the assumption PAEDOPHILES = CHILD MOLESTERS.

Since when are 9 year olds pubescent? You just defeated your own argument...

Again, we're not talking teens, we're talking children. Children - hell even teens under 18 are included for this - aren't allowed to make big "adult" decisions because they're not mature - in general - to act appropriately! Thus those who are adults should know better, and should know better that to misuse the trust of a child.

 

[Sonny Jim]

"No, you just implied it... "

I did not imply that. The story was about the 13 year old who was taken advantage of by an older person. I re read my post and that is very clear. What's wrong with you?

"You enjoy staying on the first step don't ya? Rude bastard..."

I don't really understand what you mean by the first step.

Thanks for making your position clear but what has two 15 year olds having sex with each other got to do with pedophilia?

Nobody knows what causes pedophilia, and this is one of the main reasons why people despise it

That might be part of it but not the main reason. If you don't know the main reason why people hate pedophilia then there is probably nothing anyone can post here that would that would make you understand.

[Sonny Jim]

Synchro wrote this

"Since when are 9 year olds pubescent? You just defeated your own argument..."

That's the thing synchro, this is not just and "intellectual" debate to most people. It is not an argument between "know it alls" to sharpen their debating skills and "know it alls" should know better than to use such a serious issue just to to sharpen their debating skills. This is about people who hurt children or people who would think about hurting children. It is a real issue that effects real children and real parents and real pedophiles are doing real time and really being bashed and murdered in a real prison.

I don't think you understand the gravity the problems pedophilia causes people. That is ok, you are probably young and don't have children and have never been effected by this kind of thing. A lot of the comments you have made suggest you are still a child your self, so I don't expect you to understand why people are getting angry with you because you seem to be making light of pedophilia. Why else would you say that the main reason people hate pedophilia is because they don't understand it and it is a media beat up to take people minds away from war.

[CβL]

I've missed a lot of replies... But essentially, whatever happened to 'every man is born equal'? So what some of you are saying, is that mantra is not true for all humans, and those born with an unyielding attraction to children - are not deserved of compassion, or even of life? Have a think about that. What if your son/daughter was born with a compulsion towards children? Are you going to murder/jail your child to protect another simply because of what they think? Do you honestly believe that it's not possible for your child to live as normal a life as can be, and simply act out fantasies with their partner at a later stage in life?

Or what, you think that you'll tell them to "snap out of it", just as homosexuals were told to for hundreds of years?

I invoke the concept of your own child, because the people who seem to be unable to grasp these concepts also seem to have no empathy for their common man either.

And lastly, I think we should make a call to the Palaeontological Association and let them know we've found a few Pachycephalosaurs (pronounced /ˌpækɨˌsɛfəlɵˈsɔriə/, Greek for 'thick headed lizards').

[dworx]

My reason is for me, as are my thoughts.

I spoke with paedophiles, not child molesters. I don't think I could bring myself to have a polite conversation with someone who has done such a thing. As such, I enquired about what they believed was the source of their thoughts, what they did about them, how they dealt with it etc. What their views on sexuality etc were and other unrelated topics. OK

I'm only on a high horse because you're needlessly insolent, ignorant and rude. There's no reason for me to treat you as an equal right now. No you came brought up in another thread how every ones grammar is so bad and how the use of this and that is sickening or whattever term it was - you are saying we are bad for not accepting pedo's but you can't accept someone with bad grammar with out trying to change them - we aint all english 'Prim and proper' we are Australian w ith our own version of the english language, which most everyone here understands - well almost. You and I will never be equal I trust you on that.

Yes, probably closer to 8-10 SICK

As you would say, why not? Because fantasy is an underlying desire, that desire is sick and only one step short of the act.

Hutch made the post, speaking in hypotheticals. You quoted him and suggested it was for me. You made the suggestion, to me, that that was appropriate. Hutch is better than that. Hutch is better than a freak pedo [no ref: to you but what is the diff Hutch suggested I suggested it may refer to you - fuck ask Hutch to explain.

People who aren't paedophiles do it too. I'm not defending anyone who has sex with a minor. I don't think they do because if people that aren't pedos do it [Fantasize about kids sexually] They're pedos

That did nothing to answer the question. Be more clear in speaking. I edited the paragraph out of #121 not #116. I know - on both counts

I accept you have had some real nasty thoughts about sexual encounters with children, I think it is sick-so what it doesn't change your thoughts. I commend you for controlling your desire and not acting them out, and, I really hope you can continue to do so. We will never agree on this obviously.

I don't agree with you rmanner towards others on this forum in respect to their education, their grammar etcetc, but I accept that that is who you are, I wont try to change you. I do wonder how you would go in a conversation with most aussies, you know the ones withoout the plum in their mouth, because alot of the conversation would be rude grammatically incorrect and probably incomprehensible to you, while every one else is standing around laughing about a joke, you would be thinking "I don't understand and that is grammatically incorrect GOD how sickening. SOcial disorder maybe? but, I accept it as you. Good luck in your life and may you never end up surrounded by four big walls,ie jail, sorry gaol.

[synchromesh]

I don't like this thread much anymore. Too much bigotry. I mean, I've tried to be as honest, careful and realistic as I can with an emotional subject, and all I've really gotten for it is disrespect... Anyway...

So taking into account the results of these studies, what benefit is there to legitimising pedophilia as a sexuality?

Shitipedia isn't a good source for information on taboo subjects. There are several other studies out there which paint a different a picture.

Who gains from this massive social shift toward accepting pedophilia and why?

 

The only thing I personally ask you to accept is that pedophilia isn't going anywhere... It's a hard truth, but it's still the truth.

We're talking about paedophilia, not ephebophilia. So your saying "Which 13 year old girls or boys hasn't had sex these days?" (post 101)is irrelevant. We're talking CHILDREN, not TEENS.

My point about the politicians and so on still stands. Your ignoring of it hasn't shook it in the least.

To quote Sheather's post#47 "I would argue that in many cases, they are, seeing as the majority of paedophiles that I have spoken to would rather drive rusty nails through their genitals than hurt a child, especially one they felt an attraction to. Indeed, some form an almost fatherly protective emotion, they do not necessarily love children for their bodies, a solely sexual attraction. They are enthralled by the curiosity and adventure of children, their boundless enthusiasm and keenness to learn of the world. I can see where they're coming from in that respect too."

This just shows that you misquoted him. Anyway, what Sheather's said here is true. Sexual attraction isn't always the main attraction.

The media stereotype comes from paedophiles who have been caught MOLESTING CHILDREN. If a paedohile hasn't crossed the line and been caught with child porn or actually busted messing with kids, that's not such a long leap for one to make the assumption PAEDOPHILES = CHILD MOLESTERS.

 

This makes no sense at all.

Again, we're not talking teens, we're talking children. Children - hell even teens under 18 are included for this - aren't allowed to make big "adult" decisions because they're not mature - in general - to act appropriately! Thus those who are adults should know better, and should know better that to misuse the trust of a child.

 

Firstly, the original statement you quoted was talking about teens. And secondly, I'm done with you. Not only do you not argue fairly or clearly, but you have little respect for teenagers as well. Goodbye.

[synchromesh]

"No, you just implied it... "

I did not imply that. The story was about the 13 year old who was taken advantage of by an older person. I re read my post and that is very clear. What's wrong with you?

Whatever...

"You enjoy staying on the first step don't ya? Rude bastard..."

I don't really understand what you mean by the first step.

The first step was somewhere earlier in the thread. We all crossed it, but then some other people brought us back to it again...

Thanks for making your position clear but what has two 15 year olds having sex with each other got to do with pedophilia?

I thought I made it clear very early on. But anyway, that was just used as an example to dispel another pedophilia myth. I thought that that was obvious?

Nobody knows what causes pedophilia, and this is one of the main reasons why people despise it

That might be part of it but not the main reason. If you don't know the main reason why people hate pedophilia then there is probably nothing anyone can post here that would that would make you understand.

 

Notice I said one of the main reasons?

Synchro wrote this

"Since when are 9 year olds pubescent? You just defeated your own argument..."

That's the thing synchro, this is not just and "intellectual" debate to most people. It is not an argument between "know it alls" to sharpen their debating skills and "know it alls" should know better than to use such a serious issue just to to sharpen their debating skills. This is about people who hurt children or people who would think about hurting children. It is a real issue that effects real children and real parents and real pedophiles are doing real time and really being bashed and murdered in a real prison.

Words are cheap man... Stop turning this into a Jerry Springer episode!

I don't think you understand the gravity the problems pedophilia causes people. That is ok, you are probably young and don't have children and have never been effected by this kind of thing. A lot of the comments you have made suggest you are still a child your self, so I don't expect you to understand why people are getting angry with you because you seem to be making light of pedophilia. Why else would you say that the main reason people hate pedophilia is because they don't understand it and it is a media beat up to take people minds away from war.

 

You sound like a wounded animal man. Regardless, I'm calling for you to get a warn point. Because not only have you lied about many of the things I've said here (making you libelous), but you've also directly insulted me, as well as rallied other members' emotions.

Could someone fill me in on why #116 has -2? I don't see anything offensive or wrong in there... Is it mention of the genetic fuckups?

 

It's just fascism at work mate. There's obviously some people here who feel they can only argue this subject in the Fox News way... e.g. muddy the other person's arguments so much that they don't have to improve there's.

I wouldn't let it bother you too much.

[Sheather]

No you came brought up in another thread how every ones grammar is so bad and how the use of this and that is sickening

If you'd read that thread you would have realised that I'd ill considered my initial post. It was more meant to teach those who wanted to read and improve than to scold all you naughty children.

You and I will never be equal I trust you on that.

Good to see you acknowledge the fact. I don't trust that you see it as I do though.

but what is the diff

Hutch said that if he had to battle that he'd go for castration. You were the one that said it should apply to me. The difference is pretty apparent on its own is it not?

I don't think they do because if people that aren't pedos do it [Fantasize about kids sexually] They're pedos

But that's not what I said. I said people who aren't paedophiles engage in sexual action / molestation of children. That doesn't mean it's an attraction thing. It could be a power trip for them, control.

I really hope you can continue to do so.

I don't need to, I'm not a paedophile.

You love your assumptions don't you? You reckon that just because I started a thread to assist in proper English that I'm an uptight tard? You damned tool, I'm rather versatile in social situations. It's because of my grasp on the English language that I can talk so easily with people who don't. After a couple of sentences I can slip into the idioms and formality that they are comfortable with. I make friends with a snap of my fingers, can point to anyone in a given room and do so. You however probably hear someone say something that you don't like, and then cry out "eww gross!" and hurl abuse at them for hours (jumping to conclusions every single step of the way). You, who looks but never see, listens but never hear. I'm sure people get frustrated with that.

I don't agree with you rmanner towards others on this forum in respect to their education

If you'll read what I said earlier, you might have seen that I mentioned intelligence has nothing to do with level of education, and I could correct grammar in nearly every single post I see, but I decided to be nice and just start a thread about it, that anyone can elect to participate in, instead of shoving my face where it doesn't belong. Derp. Though whether you got an education or not, I hold your intelligence rock bottom.

but I accept that that is who you are, I wont try to change you

This is bullshit. Hah! And you told me to get off my high horse.

Good luck in your life and may you never end up surrounded by four big walls,ie jail, sorry gaol.

I'd wish you luck in yours, but you know I'd not mean it. In fact, quite the opposite.

If that was a goodbye from you then good riddance.

[GoOnThen]

Well that was an interesting read.

For those of you that think paedophiles are harmless

How would you feel if an adult had sexual thoughts/urges about your child would that be ok?

Would you leave your children in the care of an adult that has sexual thoughts/urges about children?

I would hope that the answer is NO.

Cheers

Got

[Sheather]

For those of you that think paedophiles are harmless

How would you feel if an adult had sexual thoughts/urges about your child would that be ok?

Uhm. How does this indicate in any way that paedophiles are harmful?

[GoOnThen]

Uhm. How does this indicate in any way that paedophiles are harmful?

I don’t play games it is simple how would you feel if it was your child.

Would you not feel sick and be concerned for your childs safety.

[Sheather]

I don’t play games

Well, yes, you do. You asked questions implying that they would revoke the "paedophiles are harmless" outlook, despite them not having any relevance to the matter. What people are concerned by, and afraid of, often have little to do with the reality of a matter. I know a person with a horrible fear of lizards. People are irrational, frequently illogical, and your questions do nothing to negate the original comment.

I would have equal concern for my child's safety, paedophile or not. I trust nobody until I know them, and if they earn my trust, then obviously I believe them to be honest, moral, and safe.

[FancyPants]

^^^^ Sheather, do you really think you're coming across as the better person here? "I'd wish you luck in yours, but you know I'd not mean it. In fact, quite the opposite." That's a pretty harsh thing to say after someone just wished you the best for the future. You may not agree with each other, but wishing someone ill luck isn't what I'd call an act of goodness.

I don't like this thread much anymore. Too much bigotry. I mean, I've tried to be as honest, careful and realistic as I can with an emotional subject, and all I've really gotten for it is disrespect... Anyway...

Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Everybody else here has been conversing in the same vein, from differing points of view. Do you really think Meeka wasn't shown disrespect for her - and by way of agreeing with her myself also - unintentional ignorance in the COMMON misconception between the labels 'paedophilia' and 'child molester'?

Shitipedia isn't a good source for information on taboo subjects. There are several other studies out there which paint a different a picture.

The only thing I personally ask you to accept is that pedophilia isn't going anywhere... It's a hard truth, but it's still the truth.

Rahli is asking questions in a respectable manner so why don't you at least give answering it a go?

My point about the politicians and so on still stands. Your ignoring of it hasn't shook it in the least.

The only place I can see you refer to politicians anywhere is in reply to ThunderIdeal's comments that politicians et al abusing positions of trust. We both agree on that. You said "You need to get a grip man. Which 13 year old girls or boys hasn't had sex these days?" as if 13yr olds having sex with adults isn't a big deal! There's enough adults who don't think smart in regards to sexual activity, let alone an immature (as the majority are) child. What about STIs, teen pregnancy, etc?

This just shows that you misquoted him. Anyway, what Sheather's said here is true. Sexual attraction isn't always the main attraction.

So what is the difference between a paedophile (as opposed to child molester as indicated throughout the thread) and a regular loving, caring, affectionate, child-loving adult? Nobody is worried if an adult loves and respects children, MOST people here are more concerned with the sexualisation (thoughts AND/OR actions) of children.

This makes no sense at all.

I weep for you.

Firstly, the original statement you quoted was talking about teens. And secondly, I'm done with you. Not only do you not argue fairly or clearly, but you have little respect for teenagers as well. Goodbye.

Here's that matyr complex again, just because someone has an opinion different to your own, you think they're not arguing fairly or clearly. Also, how does saying 13yr olds (AGE YOU SPECIFIED) are in general not mature enough to have a mature sexual relationship with an adult translate to having little respect for teenagers?

 

[FancyPants]

Well, yes, you do. You asked questions implying that they would revoke the "paedophiles are harmless" outlook, despite them not having any relevance to the matter. What people are concerned by, and afraid of, often have little to do with the reality of a matter. I know a person with a horrible fear of lizards. People are irrational, frequently illogical, and your questions do nothing to negate the original comment.

I would have equal concern for my child's safety, paedophile or not. I trust nobody until I know them, and if they earn my trust, then obviously I believe them to be honest, moral, and safe.

 

Sheather, I agree with you that paedophiles are not automatically child molesters by the direct definition. BUT, wouldn't you agree that child molesters started out as paedophiles in just thoughts alone? The fact that at some point child molesters have moved on from just fantasy to acting out this behaviour SHOULD be enough to think twice about leaving a child alone with them? They may NOT act on their fantasies the majority of the time, but is one - or many - child's potential destruction of body, mind, and spirit worth the chance? HELL NO.

[Sonny Jim]

"You sound like a wounded animal man. Regardless, I'm calling for you to get a warn point. Because not only have you lied about many of the things I've said here (making you libelous), but you've also directly insulted me, as well as rallied other members' emotions."

You have directly insulted me multiple times in this thread. There is nothing wrong with being a child. I assume you are quite young and don't understand the full weight of the damage these sexual thoughts of children end up having on everyone. They damage everyone, the pedophile, the parents, the children and the community. I suppose I could have used the word immature but you naturally would have been offended by this. I could have resorted to name calling (like you and others have done to me) but that wouldn't have conveyed the thoughts that I actually believe.

[ballzac]

Sheather, I agree with you that paedophiles are not automatically child molesters by the direct definition. BUT, wouldn't you agree that child molesters started out as paedophiles in just thoughts alone? The fact that at some point child molesters have moved on from just fantasy to acting out this behaviour SHOULD be enough to think twice about leaving a child alone with them? They may NOT act on their fantasies the majority of the time, but is one - or many - child's potential destruction of body, mind, and spirit worth the chance? HELL NO.

 

I disagree that child molesters are what they are as a result of a sexual attraction to children. Like other forms of rape, I believe that people molest children because of a 'need' to have control over another person and the power that they feel when they take advantage of a person who is unable to defend themselves. It is pretty much accepted these days that rape is not a "sex crime", but a "power crime". Why should rape of a child be any different?

Also, I think there needs to be an extra distinction made that I don't think has clearly been made. Not only do we need to distinguish between thoughts and actions (a distinction that some people still seem to have trouble grasping), but also between fantasy and attraction. What I mean is that a person can have an involuntary response to a stimulus. The stimulus may, for example, be visual. The response may be physical or emotional. I don't see how one could possibly condemn a person for having an involuntary response. Whether a person then explores this further in the form of sexual fantasies is another matter. Although I would still disagree that a fantasy could ever be immoral, I think it is more understandable for people to try to make that case because a fantasy is a deliberate 'act', unlike the involuntary response.

A lot of 'treatment' programs for child sex offenders actually test whether a person is rehabilitated by showing them suggestive images of children and seeing which parts of their brain light up on seeing certain images. I do not believe this is a valid way of protecting the community for the reasons that I stated in the first paragraph of this post. I think that the person has molested children because they have a disregard for the welfare of other humans, and probably an inferiority complex that makes them feel the need to dominate over someone who is not in a position to stand up for themselves. I find it hard to believe that it has much, if anything, to do with a sexual attraction to children. According to a lot of people in this thread, it would be totally fair to randomly subject people to this paedophilia test and if they failed the test because a certain part of their brain lit up when the saw an image of a child, they would be executed or castrated. That to me is the most repulsive idea and, yes, I believe that doing such a thing to a human being would be worse than child molestation. Yet the way many people are approaching this issue in this thread, it sounds like that is exactly what they would like to see happen.

[dworx]

If you'd read that thread you would have realised that I'd ill considered my initial post. It was more meant to teach those who wanted to read and improve than to scold all you naughty children.

Nah I don't want to read all of your BS

Good to see you acknowledge the fact. I don't trust that you see it as I do though.

I trust you are right

Hutch said that if he had to battle that he'd go for castration. You were the one that said it should apply to me. The difference is pretty apparent on its own is it not? Yeah just a suggestion. I'm trying to help you

But that's not what I said. I said people who aren't paedophiles engage in sexual action / molestation of children. That doesn't mean it's an attraction thing. It could be a power trip for them, control.

Ok my error?

I don't need to, I'm not a paedophile. Your post #60 your words

THAT IS MY ISSUE. It has been explained at least three times in this thread! An adult who has sex with a child is a CHILD MOLESTER, and adult who has an urge to do so but does NOT is a paedophile*. I can make a distinction between acting and thinking, yet you seem to be unable to. You don't discern the difference between paedophilia and child molestation, and believe that all paedophiles are intrinsically child molesters.

Paedophilia is nothing more than a way of thinking. Serial killers are people who act. I'm not going to waste my time with you any further.

* Edit: Paedophiles may act on said urges, and in such cases they fall under both categorisations. That comment sounds like I'm saying paedophiles can't molest children but I don't mean it that way.

then your post #130 you say in reply to my question So how old were you thinking about in that 4-13yr range?

Yes, probably closer to 8-10

so in your own WORDS by your definition you are! I don't know if it is true - I would rather think not, and that you were really here just to show us how smart you are with words but they are your words!

You love your assumptions don't you? You reckon that just because I started a thread to assist in proper English that I'm an uptight tard? You damned tool, I'm rather versatile in social situations. It's because of my grasp on the English language that I can talk so easily with people who don't. After a couple of sentences I can slip into the idioms and formality that they are comfortable with. I make friends with a snap of my fingers, can point to anyone in a given room and do so. You however probably hear someone say something that you don't like, and then cry out "eww gross!" and hurl abuse at them for hours (jumping to conclusions every single step of the way). You, who looks but never see, listens but never hear. I'm sure people get frustrated with that.

OOh I look, I see and I listen and hear and I don't like it - maybe I am seeing and hearing wrong

If you'll read what I said earlier, you might have seen that I mentioned intelligence has nothing to do with level of education, and I could correct grammar in nearly every single post I see, but I decided to be nice and just start a thread about it, that anyone can elect to participate in, instead of shoving my face where it doesn't belong. Derp. Though whether you got an education or not, I hold your intelligence rock bottom.

If what you have stated above is true there would be only one place I think your face would belong, and lording it over every one to the last minute I"I decided to be nice, like you did us all a favor?

This is bullshit. Hah! And you told me to get off my high horse. Yes but getting off your high horse won't change you - but if you fall off................

I'd wish you luck in yours, but you know I'd not mean it. In fact, quite the opposite.

If that was a goodbye from you then good riddance.

Not worthy

and by the way Thinking is acting. Thinking is deliberate thought.

Edited March 23, 2011 by dworx

[synchromesh]

"You sound like a wounded animal man. Regardless, I'm calling for you to get a warn point. Because not only have you lied about many of the things I've said here (making you libelous), but you've also directly insulted me, as well as rallied other members' emotions."

You have directly insulted me multiple times in this thread. There is nothing wrong with being a child. I assume you are quite young and don't understand the full weight of the damage these sexual thoughts of children end up having on everyone. They damage everyone, the pedophile, the parents, the children and the community. I suppose I could have used the word immature but you naturally would have been offended by this. I could have resorted to name calling (like you and others have done to me) but that wouldn't have conveyed the thoughts that I actually believe.

 

Oh, I'm so sorry for calling you a bastard after you insinuated that I was a pedophile! And calling somebody a child is less insulting than calling somebody immature?? You're a fucking joke man! Stop trolling the thread!

I have clearly shown that I know the sort of damage which child abuse can do. I have also put forward more facts and points than Sonny Jim could poke a stick at... Perhaps this is why character assassination is the only thing left in the bastard's arsenal? Pathetic!

[dworx]

I disagree that child molesters are what they are as a result of a sexual attraction to children. Like other forms of rape, I believe that people molest children because of a 'need' to have control over another person and the power that they feel when they take advantage of a person who is unable to defend themselves. It is pretty much accepted these days that rape is not a "sex crime", but a "power crime". Why should rape of a child be any different? You could be right, maybe I think it was rahli showed a study 95% [im not going back to check] of child molesters are pedophiles of course there are variables. Whatever cause the effect is same - it does damage.

Also, I think there needs to be an extra distinction made that I don't think has clearly been made. Not only do we need to distinguish between thoughts and actions (a distinction that some people still seem to have trouble grasping), but also between fantasy and attraction. What I mean is that a person can have an involuntary response to a stimulus. The stimulus may, for example, be visual. The response may be physical or emotional. I don't see how one could possibly condemn a person for having an involuntary response. Whether a person then explores this further in the form of sexual fantasies is another matter. Although I would still disagree that a fantasy could ever be immoral, I think it is more understandable for people to try to make that case because a fantasy is a deliberate 'act', unlike the involuntary response. Thought is action, an involuntary response is involuntary - part of the sub conscious I agree, Fantasy is thought?

A lot of 'treatment' programs for child sex offenders actually test whether a person is rehabilitated by showing them suggestive images of children and seeing which parts of their brain light up on seeing certain images. I do not believe this is a valid way of protecting the community for the reasons that I stated in the first paragraph of this post. I think that the person has molested children because they have a disregard for the welfare of other humans, and probably an inferiority complex that makes them feel the need to dominate over someone who is not in a position to stand up for themselves. I find it hard to believe that it has much, if anything, to do with a sexual attraction to children. According to a lot of people in this thread, it would be totally fair to randomly subject people to this paedophilia test and if they failed the test because a certain part of their brain lit up when the saw an image of a child, they would be executed or castrated. That to me is the most repulsive idea and, yes, I believe that doing such a thing to a human being would be worse than child molestation. Yet the way many people are approaching this issue in this thread, it sounds like that is exactly what they would like to see happen.

 

That is according to you no-one here has commented on testing.

[ballzac]

Dude, I know others have already mentioned it, but your unquotable posts really are annoying.

Fantasy is thought

Yes

That is according to you no-one here has commented on testing.

 

Well, that is the natural conclusion is it not? We, as a society, decide that something is immoral. We legislate against it. We find ways to prove a person has committed the act, and we punish them for it. If so many people believe that an attraction to children is in and of itself profoundly immoral and damaging to society, then surely we should test people randomly for the protection of the community, the way we test drivers to find out if they've been drinking. At the very least, people with this view must surely support warrants being obtainable to test someone who is suspected of having an attraction to children?

If an attraction, and an individuals private fantasies, are so reprehensible and endangers children, then why are we not punishing people for this vicious crime?

EDITED FOR SPELLING (Viscous means "of a thick consistency", lol)

Edited March 24, 2011 by ballzac