ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th April 2011, 10:40 PM   #81
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by tesscaline View Post
The problem though, is that not everyone who is convicted of those crimes is actually a pedophile.
Hmm...

Maybe that is why I said, "actual, convicted pedophiles"

Quote:
So, by advocating action against actual, convicted pedophiles" you are advocating the same actions against these same children.
That is just stupid. I am advocating action against, "actual, convicted pedophiles", ie adults convicted of crimes related to pedophilia. That's why I said what I said. If lawmakers make laws that allow over zealous prosecutors to go after children for making child porn of themselves, that is hardly my fault. And since, by definition, they are not "actual, convicted pedophiles," it, clearly, is not what I was talking about.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 10:50 PM   #82
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Hmm...

Maybe that is why I said, "actual, convicted pedophiles"



That is just stupid. I am advocating action against, "actual, convicted pedophiles", ie adults convicted of crimes related to pedophilia. That's why I said what I said. If lawmakers make laws that allow over zealous prosecutors to go after children for making child porn of themselves, that is hardly my fault. And since, by definition, they are not "actual, convicted pedophiles," it, clearly, is not what I was talking about.
You've missed my point. No one is a convicted pedophile, legally speaking. They can't be. Whether they're actually a pedophile or not, it is impossible to be convicted of being a pedophile.

These behaviors I mentioned are not only carried out by pedophiles. Nor are the only adults carrying them out pedophiles. They are not an appropriate way to determine whether or not someone is, actually, a pedophile.

Case in point, my friend mentioned above.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 11:04 PM   #83
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by tesscaline View Post
You've missed my point. No one is a convicted pedophile, legally speaking. They can't be. Whether they're actually a pedophile or not, it is impossible to be convicted of being a pedophile.

These behaviors I mentioned are not only carried out by pedophiles. Nor are the only adults carrying them out pedophiles. They are not an appropriate way to determine whether or not someone is, actually, a pedophile.

Case in point, my friend mentioned above.
I understand this. What the phrase meant is clear though. And it could not possibly apply to a teenager sending nude pictures of herself, since she, by definition is not a pedophile.

I think you know that, but are trying to pick a fight for some ridiculous reason.

And what happened to your friend sucks, but he isn't an actual pedophile either since the term applies to adults.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 11:19 PM   #84
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by tesscaline View Post
The problem is the "handling properly".

I don't think that sites like the one listed in the OP are "handling things properly". In fact, that's rather the point of them -- they're going entirely outside of due process. And given how much trouble we have with false convictions even with due process... I'm sorry, but going vigilante and ignoring it is liable to result in even more false "convictions." I can't get behind that.
What does that site do that would cause a crazy prosecutor to do what he did w/ your friend? Or to cause a woman who wants custody of her kids and is a vindictive evil bitch to claim that their father molested them? The problems we were just talking about were problems WITH due process, not anything leading up to it, really. So far, I haven't heard of any false convictions resulting from something someone posted on a website.

Correct me if anyone has any info about this actually happening, though.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 11:22 PM   #85
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I understand this. What the phrase meant is clear though. And it could not possibly apply to a teenager sending nude pictures of herself, since she, by definition is not a pedophile.

I think you know that, but are trying to pick a fight for some ridiculous reason.

And what happened to your friend sucks, but he isn't an actual pedophile either since the term applies to adults.
I'm trying to get you to understand why the reactions to your post were not, by any means, inappropriate.
tesscaline is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 11:24 PM   #86
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
A friend of my father got accused of molesting his daughter during a rather nasty divorce. He got convicted of it, and committed suicide.

A couple of years later the daughter confessed it was all just made up.

Just an accusation of something like this, even if you're not convicted, has the power to destroy lives forever. A site like this, where in theory everyone can contribute, can utterly destroy someone's life.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th April 2011, 11:30 PM   #87
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Kind of like foot fetishists are 'wired up?' Something like that?
Could be, I'm not up on foot fetishism. I'm just inclined to take paedophiles' word for it that they never decided to be paedophiles. If you have evidence otherwise I'd love to see it.

Until then I'm going to go with the theory that you believe paedophilia to be a choice so you can hate paedophiles, much as Christian conservatives like to pretend that homosexuality is a choice, and that there is no more to it than that.

Child molestation is a choice, of course. Hate actual child molesters all you like.

Quote:
Nah, I don't believe the "I was born this way" thing about pedophilia, but there's no proof either way. I do know that I would be horrified if I were a pedophile, and would try to get help for it, rather than posting on pro-pedophile websites about the "rights" of pedophiles, comparing themselves to jews and gays. I don't think that helps their situation much, personally, or in the eyes of the "hysterical" public.
Whether something is true and whether something plays well in Peoria are two different things.

Do you have any evidence that you can "get help for" paedophilia in the sense of being made into someone who finds adults sexy and children non-sexy?

If all you can "get help for" is help to resist the temptation to diddle kids, then I agree that people who need help with that should seek it, but I don't agree that those who don't need help with that should seek it too.

Quote:
That's the problem I have with these sites is that pedophiles congregate on them and justify whatever they like to each other. I guess if you want to blame it on genetics, this would be akin to a bunch of alcoholics gathering together to talk about how good alcohol tastes, and how good the buzz feels. Not a recipe for abstaining, I'm afraid.
There are similar concerns about pro-anorexia sites and such. However right now it's not a crime to argue that something shouldn't be a crime. If I want to I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it should be legal for me to rob a bank, but you can't arrest me for it.

Quote:
Well, besides the supply and demand argument,
I never quite figured out how non-paying customers constitute "demand" in the economic sense. The intellectual property industries seem to think the opposite for some strange reason.

Quote:
there is also the fact that pedophiles gain trust and "fame" in pedophile circles by providing "new material." No, I do not have the belief that viewing cp "reharms" the victim of cp, but I do know that many child molesters show cp to the children they are grooming or abusing.
Since child molestation is already illegal I don't see that as a relevant issue.

Quote:
There are a lot of articles and studies and etc which say that viewing cp emboldens pedophiles to act on their urges, but there is also the idea that, if someone really is a pedophile and really does not want to molest children, maybe cp or virtual cp will give them an outlet. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done, but people who haven't been caught, convicted or identified are unwilling to participate in these studies, for the most part.
As far as we know adult porn, freely available, either leaves the sexual assault rate unaffected or slightly decreases it. I see no reason to think the effects of freely available CP would be any different.

Quote:
I'll disregard your attack against the people who are able to stomach the things they read on pro-pedophile boards in order to identify them, but, yes, that particular type of pedophile does frequent and post on those boards. Here's one: http://evil-unveiled.com/Jizzony
I don't see where he's sexually assaulted any adults. Did I miss it?

Or maybe you're one of those people who think gay men never marry women?

Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I will assume you mean that people who go after pedophiles online are pedophiles themselves. So would that mean that the armchair sleuths over on websleuths are latent (or active) murderers, kidnappers, rapists, etc? What I've actually seen is that people who do this kind of work are, many times, CSA victims themselves, and would like to prevent children from suffering what they did.
That's in no way contradicts my suspicions. Statistically speaking it reinforces them if anything, since CSA victims are more likely than the general population to grow up to commit CSA crimes.

Quote:
I'm sure my position on the subject is obvious: If someone is going to go around the internet posting pro-pedophile propaganda, I think it's very fair, and even a public service, to let their communities know what they are.

However, I am not for mob rules, such as any violence towards anyone. I have been in a position where my own child was harmed, and have had the occasion to do harm to the person responsible, but I haven't, and wouldn't. I don't think that the system is perfect, by any means, but I think that the system should handle the justice part of this whole thing, not just random citizens. I do, however, believe that random citizens have the right to investigate anything that is on the public internet and remark about it in whatever form they wish.
As I believe you said yourself, because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

You cannot possibly pretend to be unaware of the fact that outed paedophiles are highly likely to be the victim of vigilante attacks, social ostracism and other forms of discrimination that in many cases make it impossible to live a normal life. I don't believe that anyone involved with that web site is unaware of that fact, and I strongly suspect that they revel in it.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 12:52 AM   #88
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Could be, I'm not up on foot fetishism. I'm just inclined to take paedophiles' word for it that they never decided to be paedophiles. If you have evidence otherwise I'd love to see it.

Until then I'm going to go with the theory that you believe paedophilia to be a choice so you can hate paedophiles, much as Christian conservatives like to pretend that homosexuality is a choice, and that there is no more to it than that.

Child molestation is a choice, of course. Hate actual child molesters all you like.
There's no evidence either way, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. I don't need a reason to hate pedophiles, if I even hated them. Choice or not, just haven't known of many who didn't offend. Not that there's not like a million out there suffering in silence, tho, yeah? Probably wouldn't be a good idea to compare me with a christian who thinks homosexuality is a choice, though, but you don't know me, so I'll let it go. But, yeah, "hate" is too strong a word to use. I used up most of my hatred in the 80s.

Quote:
Do you have any evidence that you can "get help for" paedophilia in the sense of being made into someone who finds adults sexy and children non-sexy?

If all you can "get help for" is help to resist the temptation to diddle kids, then I agree that people who need help with that should seek it, but I don't agree that those who don't need help with that should seek it too.
No, I don't think that therapy can take away the urge/attraction/whatever, completely, but I do believe it can help people keep themselves from offending. There is an excellent program in a couple of prisons, but it's only a couple. The recidivism rate is lower from that than any other program. I think that's an excellent reason to make it available in ALL prisons, but prison economy doesn't look at it that way. Plus, it's only available to convicts, so. But I think that specialized CBT could work for some people. I'm no shrink or counselor, tho, obviously.

Quote:
There are similar concerns about pro-anorexia sites and such. However right now it's not a crime to argue that something shouldn't be a crime. If I want to I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it should be legal for me to rob a bank, but you can't arrest me for it.
I'm not talking about talking about crime. I'm talking about the problem of resisting urges that may cause someone to commit crimes. If you're hanging out with and talking in a positive way about committing crimes (or whining to each other that you can't), you're not helping yourself or anyone else. And, yeah, I can see that it would be hard to have an anorexia support site without some problems like the ones I'm talking about. Just depends on who's running it, I guess.

I once knew of a RSO website that offered some really good support without the activism part of it. The two people who ran the site were a RSO and a compliance officer. They were a great team, especially because the RSO went through the program I mentioned earlier. It's been a while since I read/watched the videos, so I'm not sure what to google for to find it, but I think it was in Texas. Anyway...

Quote:
I never quite figured out how non-paying customers constitute "demand" in the economic sense. The intellectual property industries seem to think the opposite for some strange reason.
I wasn't talking about the economical sense. As I said, "there is also the fact that pedophiles gain trust and "fame" in pedophile circles by providing "new material,"" which is a pretty big deal to them.

Quote:
As far as we know adult porn, freely available, either leaves the sexual assault rate unaffected or slightly decreases it. I see no reason to think the effects of freely available CP would be any different.
Okay, if you want to compare those two things, you're free to. I don't see it the same way.

Quote:
Or maybe you're one of those people who think gay men never marry women?
Wow, I have no idea where that came from. Unless you're calling this pedophile a gay man? Sorry, lost me there.

Quote:
That's in no way contradicts my suspicions. Statistically speaking it reinforces them if anything, since CSA victims are more likely than the general population to grow up to commit CSA crimes.
But I thought you said pedophiles were born that way.

Quote:
You cannot possibly pretend to be unaware of the fact that outed paedophiles are highly likely to be the victim of vigilante attacks, social ostracism and other forms of discrimination that in many cases make it impossible to live a normal life. I don't believe that anyone involved with that web site is unaware of that fact, and I strongly suspect that they revel in it.
I don't know about attacks. I do know that, yes, they can and probably will lose their jobs (depending on the job), families, etc, and that, yes, their families are victims of them being outed, too. For many years, they went about their business, trading cp, trading children, cheering each other on to molest children, and now people are starting to track them. The current rules of their chat boards reflect this. I have no doubt that LE was tracking boychat, girlchat, etc, the whole time they've been up, but basically free manpower is free manpower. There have been several (or maybe like 50) times that LE has referenced that site and asked for assistance on cases which led to convictions (specifically when it was PeeJ's site, not sure about the new site). I think that, and maybe an occasional frantic "thank you" from a parent whose child might have otherwise been involved with a pedophile activist is what they revel in. Anecdotal evidence might not be good enough for some, but it's definitely better than suspicions.

In any case, I can't keep doing these point by point thingy things with you. So, feel free to do that with my posts if you want, but I'll probably just post back with a big blurb that you've probably already heard.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 02:05 AM   #89
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
So, I guess if this were a poll, it'd look like: What should be done about evil-unveiled.com?

1. Take it off the internet
2. Take it off the internet and sue everyone involved
3. Take it from the source: civilians, and decide what you think for yourself
4. Kill everyone on that site
5. Laugh it off, it's the same as ED
6. Other

Should I do a poll? lol
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 03:05 AM   #90
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
1. Take it off the internet
2. Take it off the internet and sue everyone involved
3. Take it from the source: civilians, and decide what you think for yourself
4. Kill everyone on that site
5. Laugh it off, it's the same as ED
6. Other
You know that 1 and 5 are the same, right?
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 03:30 AM   #91
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
No, not really.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 03:46 AM   #92
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
There's no evidence either way, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that. I don't need a reason to hate pedophiles, if I even hated them. Choice or not, just haven't known of many who didn't offend. Not that there's not like a million out there suffering in silence, tho, yeah? Probably wouldn't be a good idea to compare me with a christian who thinks homosexuality is a choice, though, but you don't know me, so I'll let it go. But, yeah, "hate" is too strong a word to use. I used up most of my hatred in the 80s.
By definition you aren't going to hear about the ones who aren't offending. They aren't doing anything to attract your notice.

Quote:
I wasn't talking about the economical sense. As I said, "there is also the fact that pedophiles gain trust and "fame" in pedophile circles by providing "new material,"" which is a pretty big deal to them.
The crime of CP production is hardly unique in that aspect. Graffiti "artists" vandalise property for the same reason, yet I don't see that as sufficient grounds to criminalise speech in favour of it, or to criminalise looking at it.

In any case there has been plenty of content produced which was legal at the time and place in which it was made but is illegal just about everywhere in the world now. If we legalised that old stuff the paedophiles would have plenty of stuff to look at.

Quote:
Okay, if you want to compare those two things, you're free to. I don't see it the same way.
Why not? What's your evidence there is a difference? If you don't have evidence then what do your base your opinion on?

Quote:
Wow, I have no idea where that came from. Unless you're calling this pedophile a gay man? Sorry, lost me there.
The only "evidence" on the page you provided that the subject was a general-purpose sexual predator as opposed to a paedophile was that he was married with kids. Since you cited him as an example of an omnivorous sexual predator as opposed to an obligate paedophile I presumed that was the evidence you meant us to see, because otherwise your page had no evidence at all to support your claim.

Quote:
But I thought you said pedophiles were born that way.
You think all sorts of funny things. It's simply a fact that victims of CSA are more likely than the general population to become child molesters, just as people who go to single-sex schools are more likely to become homosexuals. These traits arise out of an interaction between genes and environment. Paedophiles may not be born that way but they still didn't choose to be that way, and that's the only morally relevant point.

Quote:
I don't know about attacks. I do know that, yes, they can and probably will lose their jobs (depending on the job), families, etc, and that, yes, their families are victims of them being outed, too. For many years, they went about their business, trading cp, trading children, cheering each other on to molest children, and now people are starting to track them. The current rules of their chat boards reflect this. I have no doubt that LE was tracking boychat, girlchat, etc, the whole time they've been up, but basically free manpower is free manpower. There have been several (or maybe like 50) times that LE has referenced that site and asked for assistance on cases which led to convictions (specifically when it was PeeJ's site, not sure about the new site). I think that, and maybe an occasional frantic "thank you" from a parent whose child might have otherwise been involved with a pedophile activist is what they revel in. Anecdotal evidence might not be good enough for some, but it's definitely better than suspicions.
Which is a greater crime: destroying someone's life, or fantasising on an internet message board about having sex with the only people you happen to be sexually attracted to (through no fault of your own)?

I don't much care if people thank you for your acts. Villagers surely thanked the witch-hunters for ridding them of witches.

If you help catch a child molester that's fantastic. No sarcasm whatsoever, it's a wonderful thing to do. People who molest kids need to be put away.

However if you destroy the life of someone who has never in their life harmed an actual child, you're as bad as a child molester or worse.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 03:53 AM   #93
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
No, not really.
So you haven't been to ED lately, then.. It's gone.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:01 AM   #94
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Which is a greater crime: destroying someone's life, or fantasising on an internet message board about having sex with the only people you happen to be sexually attracted to (through no fault of your own)?
Depends. If the "destroying" of a life means his kids, other kids, etc kids are safer, then okayfine.

Quote:
However if you destroy the life of someone who has never in their life harmed an actual child, you're as bad as a child molester or worse.
Depends on what you mean by "destroyed," really. Most of the time it just means you can't work with kids. Get your CDL and go on the road.*

*This is a parody about pedophiles discussing "molestation."
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:02 AM   #95
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,166
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
I'm sure you're being sarcastic but that's exactly my view. Just looking at pictures harms nobody and nothing.

Paying people who produce hardcore CP, or producing hardcore CP, are entirely different. Lock those people up and throw away the key with my blessing.

But only "hardcore" child pornography? I've had the displeasure of having seen some pretty bad things on the internet, and while one can't even begin to compare the videos and pictures where someone has had sex with their child or something like that with "child modeling" i don't believe that either should be legal to produce or purchase.

Though I'm not certain how one would make a meaningful legal distinction between "pornographic" child modeling and just normal child modeling...
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:14 AM   #96
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
It is even worst than that. As far as I remember a few 16 year old giving their OWN naked picture got convicted as sex offender for "publishing paedophilia pornography".
Are these guys even aware of what "paedo-" means ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:16 AM   #97
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I've got no problem with exposing pedophiles online so long as they are actual, convicted pedophiles. Don't want the whole world to know that you like to molest little kids? Well, not molesting little kids would be a good start.
Quote:
I'm fine with any of those options.
When people get out of prison, we assume that their debt to society is paid. Putting them on such a list not only indicates otherwise but opens them to violent abuse as mentioned earlier in the thread, which isn't surprising considering the current attitude concerning all things minor-related.

Also, why wouldn't this registry also apply to thieves, frauds, etc. ?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:22 AM   #98
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
So you haven't been to ED lately, then.. It's gone.
Oh, it switched names! Haven't been there in a while, but even so, I guess this is new. ED is kind of like the anti-pedophile timecube, IMO.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:24 AM   #99
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
When people get out of prison, we assume that their debt to society is paid. Putting them on such a list not only indicates otherwise but opens them to violent abuse as mentioned earlier in the thread, which isn't surprising considering the current attitude concerning all things minor-related.

Also, why wouldn't this registry also apply to thieves, frauds, etc. ?

It should. If they're gonna do it, they need to do it right!
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:25 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
That's why I said what I said. If lawmakers make laws that allow over zealous prosecutors to go after children for making child porn of themselves, that is hardly my fault.
No, but when you're talking about convicted pedophiles, one has to assume you're talking about pedophiles convicted according to actual laws, not imagined ones. Why you'd expect anything else is puzzling.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:25 AM   #101
JFrankA
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,054
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I've got no problem with exposing pedophiles child molesters online so long as they are actual, convicted pedophiles child molesters. Don't want the whole world to know that you like to molest little kids? Well, not molesting little kids would be a good start.
There. Fixed it for you. There's nothing illegal about being a pedophile.
JFrankA is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:26 AM   #102
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
It should. If they're gonna do it, they need to do it right!
I disagree. Otherwise, any crime you commit, at any time, for any reason, pretty much destroys the rest of your life. People should be expected to make mistakes.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:26 AM   #103
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Are these guys even aware of what "paedo-" means ?

Shoes, right?
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:28 AM   #104
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,364
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
A friend of my father got accused of molesting his daughter during a rather nasty divorce. He got convicted of it, and committed suicide.

A couple of years later the daughter confessed it was all just made up.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:31 AM   #105
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Oh, it switched names! Haven't been there in a while, but even so, I guess this is new. ED is kind of like the anti-pedophile timecube, IMO.
It's a little more than that. Quite more, actually. They had some problems getting sponsors because of the content, so the owner of the site changed it into a kid friendly version over night, and all the old content is now gone. It's also not a Wiki anymore.

And I have to smirk a bit at calling 4chan's Wiki anti-pedo.. Sure, they trolled some pedos there, but that's because Anon is an equal opportunity troller..
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:34 AM   #106
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
When people get out of prison, we assume that their debt to society is paid.
There are all sorts of negative consequences of being a felon once one gets out of prison. This is one of them.

Quote:
Putting them on such a list not only indicates otherwise but opens them to violent abuse as mentioned earlier in the thread, which isn't surprising considering the current attitude concerning all things minor-related.
Oh well. Should've thought about that before they started molesting children.

Quote:
Also, why wouldn't this registry also apply to thieves, frauds, etc. ?
It wouldn't bother me.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:35 AM   #107
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I disagree. Otherwise, any crime you commit, at any time, for any reason, pretty much destroys the rest of your life. People should be expected to make mistakes.
Well, here's the thing. Anyone with any kinda determination can find out what's going on with you, your criminal records, etc. Even if there wasn't a RSO list, there is still the FoI act and you can find a ton of information online and off.

Not that anyone would do it.

Which is the point.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:38 AM   #108
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Well, here's the thing. Anyone with any kinda determination can find out what's going on with you, your criminal records, etc. Even if there wasn't a RSO list, there is still the FoI act and you can find a ton of information online and off.

Not that anyone would do it.

Which is the point.
True. I am able to find records of every traffic ticket I have ever had just by going to the court website.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:44 AM   #109
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Ryokan View Post
It's a little more than that. Quite more, actually. They had some problems getting sponsors because of the content, so the owner of the site changed it into a kid friendly version over night, and all the old content is now gone. It's also not a Wiki anymore.

And I have to smirk a bit at calling 4chan's Wiki anti-pedo.. Sure, they trolled some pedos there, but that's because Anon is an equal opportunity troller..
Wait, I missed the spot where you called 4chan's ANYTHING anti-pedo. I've long suspected it was a honeypot. Before anon became famous, the chans were notorious for having cp. I, personally, won't go anywhere near one. Oh, you're talking about ED. I get it now.

Yeah. I hope they put the ytask thing back up, though. I think that was some important ****, even though they weren't mature enough to handle the info in a mature way.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 04:46 AM   #110
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I understand this. What the phrase meant is clear though. And it could not possibly apply to a teenager sending nude pictures of herself, since she, by definition is not a pedophile.

I think you know that, but are trying to pick a fight for some ridiculous reason.

And what happened to your friend sucks, but he isn't an actual pedophile either since the term applies to adults.
I think what you are advocating is

1. Make the laws perfect, so that only genuine, real, pond scum are convicted under the laws.
2. Really do something nasty to those convicted of being pond scum.


That's all very well and good, except that number 1 never happens. Laws are deliberately written to make sure that they are broad enough to cover every possible instance of genuine pond-scummery, and any law broad enough to do that inevitably catches a bunch on not so scummy people in the same net.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:17 AM   #111
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Depends. If the "destroying" of a life means his kids, other kids, etc kids are safer, then okayfine.
If you don't know for certain in advance that it will make anyone safer (and in practice you don't) my criticism stands.

Quote:
Depends on what you mean by "destroyed," really. Most of the time it just means you can't work with kids. Get your CDL and go on the road.*

*This is a parody about pedophiles discussing "molestation."
I don't think you'll get far downplaying the harm done when the web site you came here to publicise does its best to play up the harm done.

You destroy marriages, careers and lives, in cases where you have no evidence at all any actual child is being harmed. I don't see that as moral behaviour. Your mileage obviously varies, but there's a reason why it is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:18 AM   #112
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Never say never, friend.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:19 AM   #113
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
I don't think you'll get far downplaying the harm done when the web site you came here to publicise does its best to play up the harm done.

You destroy marriages, careers and lives, in cases where you have no evidence at all any actual child is being harmed. I don't see that as moral behaviour. Your mileage obviously varies, but there's a reason why it is said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I do, or they do? I think they do. That's just my opinion.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:20 AM   #114
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Wait, I missed the spot where you called 4chan's ANYTHING anti-pedo. I've long suspected it was a honeypot. Before anon became famous, the chans were notorious for having cp. I, personally, won't go anywhere near one. Oh, you're talking about ED. I get it now.

Yeah. I hope they put the ytask thing back up, though. I think that was some important ****, even though they weren't mature enough to handle the info in a mature way.
Neither 4chan nor ED was ever a honeypot. And yeah, CP used to flourish on 4chan in the 'old days', but the public perception of such material has changed quite a lot over the years, so it's not tolerated anywhere on the net - and that includes 4chan. Sure, lurk in /b/ for an hour and you're guaranteed to see some, but it gets removed fast.

I think the 'real' pedos have abandoned the chans and the regular internet altogether these days, and are mostly using the TOR network.

If all you saw on ED was the trolling of some internet pedos, then you might have a wrong perception of the site.. And you must have missed the pages for all the underage camwhores.. But sadly, it's all gone now. It got wiped.

And talking about Anon and using the word 'mature'... I think that's a first!

Last edited by Ryokan; 20th April 2011 at 05:22 AM.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:37 AM   #115
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
Quote:
Neither 4chan nor ED was ever a honeypot.
Are you LE/ICE/FBI/ETC? If not, sry, udk.

I saw ED troll a bunch of things, actually 420chan's b attacked PeeJ and it was lulz for PeeJ, cuz we called that dude's mom.

I doubt it's the first time... I was saying that ED was not mature enough to handle the information that they had. Some of it was false, and so I'm really curious about why, say, newgon didn't go after it. Nah, actually, I know why: it's because they didn't take the seriously. ED, that is.

Which is probably a good thing.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:43 AM   #116
Ryokan
Insert something funny here
 
Ryokan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 9,973
Originally Posted by sillyhead View Post
Are you LE/ICE/FBI/ETC? If not, sry, udk.
Are those the only alternatives to knowing?

Moot has given LE data on users many times. Don't know if that is enough to call it a honeypot. I'd say not.
Ryokan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:45 AM   #117
sillyhead
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 408
No.
sillyhead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 06:14 AM   #118
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,582
I have no idea what either of you are talking about.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 11:55 AM   #119
simper
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 326
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to a 15 year old tennis star. A pedophile is someone who abducts and rapes and murders a 15 year old child.

Pedophile is a stupid word to categorise people regardless of whether they are a good or bad person.
simper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:38 PM   #120
slingblade
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,466
Originally Posted by simper View Post
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to a 15 year old tennis star.
No. It's not. Your vague "someone" could very easily be another 15-year-old.
Your "definition" is not at all correct.

Quote:
A pedophile is someone who abducts and rapes and murders a 15 year old child.
Again, no.

Quote:
Pedophile is a stupid word to categorise people regardless of whether they are a good or bad person.
Originally Posted by wiki
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The child must be at least five years younger in the case of adolescent pedophiles aged 16 or older.[1][2][3][4]
That's what a pedophile is.
slingblade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.