To catch a predator

[Nolan]

I have recently become addicted to this show:

This sting is not far from where I'm from.

LyDWnpiRn6s

fuggin pervs


any revlefters been on there???????????????????

[Kuppo Shakur]

In before people who preach sexual liberation for children.

[Nolan]

That's why "libertarianism" is a disease.

[Magón]

Yeah, there was an episode I saw where this guy didn't walk into the house any farther than the door, and when the Dateline guy came walking in, he ran. Of course, the cops were outside waiting.

[Tjis]

O6-psmcDWps

[Wanted Man]

Umm, yeah. Entrapping a bunch of people who would otherwise have simply played out their sick fantasies at home on their own, harming no-one. Sounds like a great show.

[Nolan]

Umm, yeah. Entrapping a bunch of people who would otherwise have simply played out their sick fantasies at home on their own, harming no-one. Sounds like a great show.

So you don't think they would have solicited real kids online or otherwise impose themselves sexually on minors?

Also, from the perverted justice website:


To the people who like to make that claim, let's deal with an analogy real quick. Pretend that there is a twelve year old sitting in a park dancing around and asking older males for sex. Yes, that extreme of a situation. What should the male say? Yes, or no? Is the prospect of an underage kid so irresistible that we now consider a willing underage kid to be so persuasive that a male can't do anything but say yes? Get real.

So are the files we post "entrapment"? No. Not on any level. These people IM our names first. We don't IM them. They choose to say the things they say, to agree to the things they agree to, and to give their phone number for the verification call. Entrapment is a situation where you go out of your way to entice a citizen as law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise would not commit. For example, if a department sent around female police pretending to be prostitutes to knock on the doors of private citizens offering sex, that's entrapment. We don't do the figurative "knocking on doors." Rather we sit, wait, and allow them to knock upon our online "door." And when they do, they're in for a surprise. As the law states regarding entrapment, the defense fails when it can be shown that the person being charged had a predisposition to the crime in question. Anyone who knows the law will never make the entrapment argument towards these crimes, because people who know the law understand that these people are predisposed to commit these crimes. It's why they hit us up to begin with.

Hundreds upon hundreds of convictions... zero successful entrapment defenses. Zero.

[Robespierre Richard]

Since that segment got cancelled he's been doing the same thing except confronting people who scam old people and do fake A/C duct cleaning, still dong the same thing with hidden cameras and confrontation, it's quite funny.

[L.A.P.]

In before people who preach sexual liberation for children.

Those people are stupid.

[Princess Luna]

In before people who preach sexual liberation for children.
Except most of those "children" are around 16, 2 years later and it would be perfectly acceptable but since she is 16 and not 18 everybody laughs when the guy is humilated on national televison then put in jail for 10 years.
I think the show is disgusting, and so is anybody who enjoys it.

[Wanted Man]

So you don't think they would have solicited real kids online or otherwise impose themselves sexually on minors?

I don't know. If yes, then the full force of the law should be brought upon them. But that's a completely different story than this. All they prove about the "predator" is that they went to a location to meet up someone who they thought was a child and solicited sex from. Does that make them sick fucks? Definitely. Is it a basis to put someone in jail? If it is, I'm glad that I live in another country, even though I would have nothing to fear from this form of sting operation (because I find their sexual "preference" revolting) and I also don't feel particularly sorry for these "predators".


Also, from the perverted justice website:

Maybe this is a difference between different legal systems. The US is not the centre of the universe. In the US, sting operations occur regularly, whereas other countries ban them. I'm generally opposed to them because of ethical concerns.

I'm not sure what the law on these operations is in my country, but I do know that they often make pretty ridiculous proposals here:

- Enlisting undercover children to ask adults to buy them booze.
- Using "sting gays" to walk through neighbourhoods with lots of youngsters of Islamic background to provoke homophobic abuse.
- Same as above, but with "sting Jews" and antisemitism.
- Prostitution stings and such.

In most of these cases, they draw widespread ridicule for obvious reasons. Even if adults in supermarkets are inclined to buy booze for kids, and even if Moroccan boys are liable to be antisemitic or homophobic (this assumption made by the state is racist itself, BTW), then they should be arrested when they actually buy booze for children, when they actually beat up someone for being gay. Preventing them from happening in the first place is also important, just like with sexual predators, but it should be done in a different way than by abusing law enforcement to provoke people and scare them straight.

The difference with the predator thing is that people lose all sense of rationality when it concerns children and sexual predators. One way we're being constantly kept on our toes is the idea that there are paedophiles and child rapists lurking in every bush in the park, and that the best way to deal with them is to expose them in public (even if they haven't committed any crimes), and, by preference, castrate them with a pair of rusty scissors because they are sick fucks.

The fact that, apparently, in US law it's only entrapment when the police officer or Perverted Justice somehow pressures or coerces the "predator" into initiating sexual conversations, does not mean that there aren't any legal or ethical concerns with the act, or that it's somehow supportable. It has nothing to do with "liberalism" (the series is shown on one of your most liberal channels, I believe), but everything with how society treats its worst elements, a good measure for society by a movement that has adopted "socialism or barbarism" as a principle.

My conclusion is that I fail to see how one can possibly call himself a "revolutionary" and support the act of executing sting operations on, and publicly shaming people simply for being sick scumbags (a moral judgement on them which I fully agree with). In this case, the only point is to be commercially attractive for a TV station, and a good PR exercise for the state and its armed bodies, because everybody hates sick paedos. It's mean trickery and a barbaric kind of "justice" that says as much about the kind of culture that enjoys it as about the sickos who solicit sex from minors.

[Red Commissar]

SDqZc6rY6Is

[Nolan]

I don't know. If yes, then the full force of the law should be brought upon them. But that's a completely different story than this. All they prove about the "predator" is that they went to a location to meet up someone who they thought was a child and solicited sex from. Does that make them sick fucks? Definitely. Is it a basis to put someone in jail? If it is, I'm glad that I live in another country, even though I would have nothing to fear from this form of sting operation (because I find their sexual "preference" revolting) and I also don't feel particularly sorry for these "predators".

This is, and should be reason enough to go to jail. They showed up to a house after a chat with a child in which they clearly showed their intent. As a bonus, many of them have condoms, alcohol, etc.





The difference with the predator thing is that people lose all sense of rationality when it concerns children and sexual predators. One way we're being constantly kept on our toes is the idea that there are paedophiles and child rapists lurking in every bush in the park, and that the best way to deal with them is to expose them in public (even if they haven't committed any crimes), and, by preference, castrate them with a pair of rusty scissors because they are sick fucks.

People have a completely normal reaction to paedophilia. When adults target children for disgusting sexual encounters, human beings understandably have little sympathy.

This is a terrific way to approach the problem.


The fact that, apparently, in US law it's only entrapment when the police officer or Perverted Justice somehow pressures or coerces the "predator" into initiating sexual conversations, does not mean that there aren't any legal or ethical concerns with the act, or that it's somehow supportable. It has nothing to do with "liberalism" (the series is shown on one of your most liberal channels, I believe), but everything with how society treats its worst elements, a good measure for society by a movement that has adopted "socialism or barbarism" as a principle.

Again, what should be judged is not whether or not a child was actually violated, but intent. These men (and all of them have been men so far) saw an underage person in the chat room and started chatting them up for sex. It's pretty straightforward. Perverted Justice emphasizes that they let them initiate contact.

I don't see any ethical issue. You catch fish by fishing.


My conclusion is that I fail to see how one can possibly call himself a "revolutionary" and support the act of executing sting operations on, and publicly shaming people simply for being sick scumbags (a moral judgement on them which I fully agree with). In this case, the only point is to be commercially attractive for a TV station, and a good PR exercise for the state and its armed bodies, because everybody hates sick paedos. It's mean trickery and a barbaric kind of "justice" that says as much about the kind of culture that enjoys it as about the sickos who solicit sex from minors.

In this case I certainly agree that there is a potential for a conflict of interest because of the profit-driven nature of the institution airing this.

But in the hands of the proletarian state and media this is ideal. The point would not be ratings but deterrence.

If you think that this "child" you're hitting on has a %75 chance of being a decoy and when you show up you'll be on national television for all friends, family, and coworkers to see, only the most obsessed will still do it. I don't think creating such a perpetually chilling atmosphere is such a tall order even if televised stings are actually rarely used as a percentage of all stings.

I think this type of public punishment fits the crime, honestly. After all, sex offenders are already publicly punished. This takes it to the next level. The simple fear of having your extremely stigmatized urges exposed on national television will keep many, many potential paedos in line. Then there is the issue of the crime and the legal system.


...that says as much about the kind of culture that enjoys it as about the sickos who solicit sex from minors.

Certainly. What it says is "We don't tolerate deviants."

Or in more liberal-friendly terms, "We don't tolerate paedos."

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

oft, I enjoy raping children, sometimes these fuckers chase me, but the anarcho-trot conspiricy protects me.

[Ele'ill]

I do not like this show at all. It's at a level slightly above 'cops'.

[The Douche]

oft, I enjoy raping children, sometimes these fuckers chase me, but the anarcho-trot conspiricy protects me.

Great...rape jokes.

[Princess Luna]

ertainly. What it says is "We don't tolerate deviants."

Or in more liberal-friendly terms, "We don't tolerate paedos."
Oh get the fuck back to Stormfront. I think having sex with children (actual children,as in 13 or younger not 16 years old) is wrong, but saying "we don't tolerate deviants" is saying you don't tolerate anybody who deviants from the sexual norms including gays and people with foot fetishes and is the kind of bullshit spouted from people like Jerry Falwell.

[#FF0000]

paedophilia is sick.

so is schadenfreude though

[Nolan]

Oh get the fuck back to Stormfront. I think having sex with children (actual children,as in 13 or younger not 16 years old) is wrong, but saying "we don't tolerate deviants" is saying you don't tolerate anybody who deviants from the sexual norms including gays and people with foot fetishes and is the kind of bullshit spouted from people like Jerry Falwell.

Haha I knew that would set someone off.

Paedo's are deviants. Gay people are not. Suppressing paedophilia is suppressing deviance.

Many libertarians make that exact same argument to argue that paedophile's are not bad. I'm just turning it on its head.

[black magick hustla]

yea how great a bunch of fucking internet trolls and rich people baiting probably some of the most miserable and tragic people in this country fuck that shit

[Princess Luna]

Haha I knew that would set someone off.

Paedo's are deviants. Gay people are not. Suppressing paedophilia is suppressing deviance.

Many libertarians make that exact same argument to argue that paedophile's are not bad. I'm just turning it on its head.
You clearly don't know what the term "deviant" means. it means anybody who deviates (or moves away from) from the cultural or sexual norms, so do a little research before you make yourself look like a neo-fascist moron.

[Nolan]

You clearly don't know what the term "deviant" means. it means anybody who deviates (or moves away from) from the cultural or sexual norms, so do a little research before you make yourself look like a neo-fascist moron.

I'm saying this in the context of a post-revolutionary society. You should seek a cephalanalectomy before you hurt someone.

[Princess Luna]

I'm saying this in the context of a post-revolutionary society. You should seek a cephalanalectomy before you hurt someone.
I think wanting to hurt a ignorant little piss stain who goes around spouting Stormfrontesque posts about "suppressing sexual deviants" is quite justified. but i'll shut up because its obvious you are a moron, a troll, or both.

[Nolan]

i'll shut up

That's right you will.

[khad]

yea how great a bunch of fucking internet trolls and rich people baiting probably some of the most miserable and tragic people in this country fuck that shit
I was with you until you started talking about pedos as "miserable and tragic."

[Fawkes]

You mean people that have to suppress all of their sexual urges and desires because of the intense violence, ostracizing, ridicule, and derision they would face combined with their own intense feelings of guilt, worthlessness, disgust, and self-loathing aren't "miserable and tragic"?

These are people we're talking about here, not sick monsters or freaks.

[9]

yea how great a bunch of fucking internet trolls and rich people baiting probably some of the most miserable and tragic people in this country fuck that shit

BAN!!!1! BAN!!! PEDOPHiLE LIBERATIONIST, BANNNN!!!!1!1!1

[psgchisolm]

You mean people that have to suppress all of their sexual urges and desires because of the intense violence, ostracizing, ridicule, and derision they would face Their sexual urges and desires are having sex with CHILDREN not 17 year olds and they themselves are 18 or 19. KIDS. There are plenty of people their age they can have sex with.


combined with their own intense feelings of guilt, worthlessness, disgust, and self-loathing aren't "miserable and tragic"?Can you prove ANY of this?


These are people we're talking about here, not sick monsters or freaks.This is about the only part of your post I can agree with.

[Fawkes]

Their sexual urges and desires are having sex with CHILDREN not 17 year olds and they themselves are 18 or 19. KIDS. There are plenty of people their age they can have sex with.


CHILDREN! KIDS! :rolleyes: Believe me, I'm well aware of what constitutes pedophilia (actually, a lot of the people on To Catch a Predator are hebephilic). You can capitalize "children" and "kids" all you want for whatever moralistic shock value you're hoping to get out of it, but perhaps it would be a better approach to actually address what I said instead of hoping that if you somehow textually scream "KIDS" loud enough, you'll cover up for the fact that you obviously don't know shit (your last sentence is proof of that).


Can you prove ANY of this?

DSM-IV's definition of what constitutes a pedophile:




Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.



This is about the only part of your post I can agree with.
Yeah, given your response to the first part, I can totally tell :rolleyes:

[khad]

You mean people that have to suppress all of their sexual urges and desires because of the intense violence, ostracizing, ridicule, and derision they would face combined with their own intense feelings of guilt, worthlessness, disgust, and self-loathing aren't "miserable and tragic"?
Of course they aren't. When unleashing those sexual desires would entail victimizing people in the community, they are socially obligated to keep it under wraps.

It's the same reason I don't have much sympathy for serial killers.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, but think about how that social obligation manifests itself, it's torturous. Having to keep one's sexual urges and desires completely "under wraps" for fear of a whole host of violent and ostracizing repercussions must be nothing short of a "miserable and tragic" existence.

And what's so crazy about having sympathy for a serial killer?

[Tablo]

This is all around a very sensitive issue. Obviously we should not in any way shape or form approve of people going around and taking advantage of children, but that doesn't mean we should target a whole group of people who already suffer a great deal. Some of you really need to rethink your perspective and contemplate what it would be like if you were attracted to pre-pubescent individuals. Also, in light of past problems with this debate, it might be a good idea for someone to set some ground rules for this discussion to ensure no one gets in trouble.

[black magick hustla]

Maybe because I am a communist and have a materialist understanding of psychic distress? I am not going to line with the clergy and my class enemies who have no desire to understand what it is to grow in Hell. Then you have a bunch of worthless internet troll and assorted media scum trying to bait this people's urges and trigger them.

[Princess Luna]

i would like to point out that the people who appear on to catch a predator are not pedophiles, pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubesent children generally 12 and younger, Hebephilia is the attraction to early puberty generally 12-15, and Ephebophilia is the attraction to mid to late puberty generally 15-19 almost all humans have some degree Ephebophilia.

[khad]

Then you have a bunch of worthless internet troll and assorted media scum trying to bait this people's urges and trigger them.
I agreed with that part. The problem with PJ is that, in at least some of the cases I've seen, they've actually convinced people to overcome their reluctance.


Maybe because I am a communist and have a materialist understanding of psychic distress?
Maybe I don't give a shit?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Umm, yeah. Entrapping a bunch of people who would otherwise have simply played out their sick fantasies at home on their own, harming no-one. Sounds like a great show.

+1

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i would like to point out that the people who appear on to catch a predator are not pedophiles, pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubesent children generally 12 and younger, Hebephilia is the attraction to early puberty generally 12-15, and Ephebophilia is the attraction to mid to late puberty generally 15-19 almost all humans have some degree Ephebophilia.


Maybe because I am a communist and have a materialist understanding of psychic distress? I am not going to line with the clergy and my class enemies who have no desire to understand what it is to grow in Hell. Then you have a bunch of worthless internet troll and assorted media scum trying to bait this people's urges and trigger them.

+1

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

...then again, trying to have a serious conversation about this on RevLeft (especially in Chit Chat) is like trying to talk about human emancipation with a prison warden.

[PhoenixAsh]

I do not like this show at all. It's at a level slightly above 'cops'.

The whole idea of enticing people to commit a crime is imo a criminal act in itself. The show hinges on that very enticement. I have no problem with actually catching people who abuse and use kids for their sexual pleasure.

But actually trying to convince them is passing a line....its creating criminal behaviour. I simply can not shake the feeling when I watch this. That is why I hate this show as well.



oft, I enjoy raping children, sometimes these fuckers chase me, but the anarcho-trot conspiricy protects me.

:rolleyes: something tells me that some wires are really not connected well with you. You may have not deserved the infraction over that queens comment but this one ices the cake IMO.


I was with you until you started talking about pedos as "miserable and tragic."

agreed.



You mean people that have to suppress all of their sexual urges and desires because of the intense violence, ostracizing, ridicule, and derision they would face combined with their own intense feelings of guilt, worthlessness, disgust, and self-loathing aren't "miserable and tragic"?

I think he actually meant that it victimizes children and can have a devastating impact on their psychological and physical development.

If someone has the intense sexual desire to violently rape people...that does not mean he/she should be allowed to actually do that.

I am 35. I may like and find girls of 18 attractive...and its legal...but that does not mean I should just go around and seduce these girls. THere is a responsibility here and that means that the age difference is an important factor. I am not arguing that the age difference is always a problem...but it does mean that when there is such an age difference you should act responsibly and actually consider the consequences over your own desire for the other person involved.



Now...what I think you are also saying is that there is a whole group of paedophiles who do not act on the feelings simply because of the conseuqneces. But most of them do not do so because of the consequence it has for the child but for themselves.Another group simply does not do so because the safe oppertunity has not presented itself.

This basically means that if society would not persecute so violently they would actualy go out and enact their feelings.

I can understand the emotions and psychology behind it all. But that does not mean I would ever, ever trust a paedophile around kids.




These are people we're talking about here, not sick monsters or freaks.That is something I agree with. However...the consequence should be that they can get help, not that when they act out their desires that they should not be removed from posing a threat to others in society.

I also agree that the demonisation has gotten to such an extend that every adult should be constantly walking on egg shels around and near children...saying the wrong thing to a child...no matter how innocently meant can be considered as paedophilic behaviour.

Case in point...a friend once said to 14 year old who dressed up like a princes with make-up and all (some parents :rolleyes:) and was poking him in the grocery store with a wand....that she looked really cute and pretty (I believe his actual words were something like: "my, my...don't you look all cute, pretty and sexy.") ....which immediately caused a whole rant by her mother that he should get away from her daughter even getting the attention of the security who asked him to leave and never come back.

People are getting paranoid and that is caused by lack of education on what it actually is.


Their sexual urges and desires are having sex with CHILDREN not 17 year olds and they themselves are 18 or 19. KIDS. There are plenty of people their age they can have sex with.

Its actually 13 years or younger...which makes it all the more strange.

[Comrade J]

Never seen this show but I've heard about it. It seems pretty cruel to fuck someone's life up because they wanted to sleep with a 15 year old or whatever. That isn't abuse. It might be taking advantage slightly, but it isn't abusive, they're not children.

Also, for an apparently radicalised, free-thinking group of people, there are still reactionary comments here when it comes to paedophiles, as though there is an absolute morality and they must all be despised. It is important to make a distinction between a paedophile (somebody who is sexually attracted to kids) and a child molestor (someone who acts on this). However, because society is not at all rational when it comes to this, they just vehemently hate all paedophiles and wish to kill them, when in fact for those that abstain their should in fact be no stigma and they should be given treatment to overcome their desires.

For people who actually rape children, I think that is unforgiveable, cause you're essentially ruining someone's life just for quick personal pleasure. But then that also brings to mind the question of to what extent is an abused child traumatised by adult/social response to what they went through?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Also, for an apparently radicalised, free-thinking group of people, there are still reactionary comments here when it comes to paedophiles, as though there is an absolute morality and they must all be despised. It is important to make a distinction between a paedophile (somebody who is sexually attracted to kids) and a child molestor (someone who acts on this). However, because society is not at all rational when it comes to this, they just vehemently hate all paedophiles and wish to kill them, when in fact for those that abstain their should in fact be no stigma and they should be given treatment to overcome their desires.

Bourgeois family values and children as property... it's as widespread on the left as anywhere.

[Robespierre Richard]

Bourgeois family values and children as property... it's as widespread on the left as anywhere.

Are you saying that opposing the idea of a sexual relationship where significantly older men use girls of ages 10-15 is bourgeois?

I mean I don't like this show either, for making a social issue into a form of entertainment and a witch hunt, but I don't believe that this sort of thing should be tolerated.

[Jazzratt]

Nearly all the comments I wanted to make about this show, and the concepts around it in general have already been made. Especially well by Wanted Man, Comrade J and Nothing Human Is Alien.

I've never actually watched the show but if it's true that a lot of the "children" on that show are 16 or over it seems especially bizarre to me that people would be screaming for the head of the "paedos" involved given that 16 is the legal age of consent where I live.

I think it's quite pathetic that the tactics used by those on the moralist side of the debate have forced those with more rational opinions to append "obviously I don't want children to be raped" disclaimers to their posts. It just goes to show that the unthinking thugs and suppressors of "deviants" share the absolutist "either you fully support us or you're everything we dissaprove of" mentality of their allies on the right.

[Robespierre Richard]

I think it's quite pathetic that the tactics used by those on the moralist side of the debate have forced those with more rational opinions to append "obviously I don't want children to be raped" disclaimers to their posts. It just goes to show that the unthinking thugs and suppressors of "deviants" share the absolutist "either you fully support us or you're everything we dissaprove of" mentality of their allies on the right.

You literally support patriarchy right here.

[Jazzratt]

You literally support patriarchy right here. I don't think you know what any of those mean or you're reading what I said in a truly bizarre fashion. I'm simply pointing out that it's fucking stupid that because these pathetic wankers have decided that moving an inch from their orthodoxy means that we want people to go out and rape all of the children we have to state the bloody obvious every time we make a point.

[Robespierre Richard]

I don't think you know what any of those mean or you're reading what I said in a truly bizarre fashion. I'm simply pointing out that it's fucking stupid that because these pathetic wankers have decided that moving an inch from their orthodoxy means that we want people to go out and rape all of the children we have to state the bloody obvious every time we make a point.

Or it supports the idea that a relationship between people of very different ages is normal and not something from the medieval/ancient era when this was completely acceptable and infringed on the rights of girls/women. Of course mentioning rape is in some cases going too far, but the general reason for age of consent laws is pretty clear.

[Comrade J]

You literally support patriarchy right here.

As opposed to metaphorically supporting patriarchy?


Or it supports the idea that a relationship between people of very different ages is normal and not something from the medieval/ancient era when this was completely acceptable and infringed on the rights of girls/women. Of course mentioning rape is in some cases going too far, but the general reason for age of consent laws is pretty clear.

Nobody in this thread has said they think it's ok to fuck kids. We're saying simply that for people with that desire, they shouldn't be universally despised, stigmatised and alienated, but instead offered help to overcome the desire. But anyone who makes this point then has to add the fact that they're not a paedo and don't endorse child rape, because people like you seize on any comment where somebody deviates from the standard reactionary non-thinking stance that all paedophiles are inherently evil.

[Jazzratt]

Or it supports the idea that a relationship between people of very different ages is normal and not something from the medieval/ancient era when this was completely acceptable and infringed on the rights of girls/women. Of course mentioning rape is in some cases going too far, but the general reason for age of consent laws is pretty clear. I don't really need to respond because J said everything I was going to (well, he didn't call you a terminally moronic pile of baboon shit or tell you to piss off but I think that's because he draws from a much deeper well of patience than I do) but you should realise that you're making my point for me. You've noticed that my views aren't in lockstep with the value system you support so you immediatly draw up some ridiculous strawman about my wanting to give legitimacy to sexual relationships between young children and adults. Critical thinking has encroaches on your kneejerk reactions and you go fucking nuts.

[Robespierre Richard]

I don't really need to respond because J said everything I was going to (well, he didn't call you a terminally moronic pile of baboon shit or tell you to piss off but I think that's because he draws from a much deeper well of patience than I do) but you should realise that you're making my point for me. You've noticed that my views aren't in lockstep with the value system you support so you immediatly draw up some ridiculous strawman about my wanting to give legitimacy to sexual relationships between young children and adults. Critical thinking has encroaches on your kneejerk reactions and you go fucking nuts.

You must feel like a big man then.

[Comrade J]

Does Revleft have a prize for Most Profound Retort of the Year, and if not can the admins make one cause I am just in awe at the moment.

I don't know why you have "Damn, how do I respond? under your name, Kiroff, cause you're the fucking master of reply. I particularly loved how your response was not in any way nonsensical and ridiculous, and I enjoyed the way you addressed the point Jazzratt made about your strawman attacks and your unreasonable, unquestioned reactionary viewpoints. You are just fucking phenomenal man.

[Robespierre Richard]

Does Revleft have a prize for Most Profound Retort of the Year, and if not can the admins make one cause I am just in awe at the moment.

I don't know why you have "Damn, how do I respond? under your name, Kiroff, cause you're the fucking master of reply. I particularly loved how your response was not in any way nonsensical and ridiculous, and I enjoyed the way you addressed the point Jazzratt made about your strawman attacks and your unreasonable, unquestioned reactionary viewpoints. You are just fucking phenomenal man.

People must really appreciate you in life because you are a good person.

[Robespierre Richard]

Wait now that I think about it, why is jazzratt so angry at this as to throw insults at people that will slide because he's and admin? Isn't there a history of pedophiliac admins on revleft? Is there something to this story that we are not beig told?

[black magick hustla]

edit: snip nvm the sad clowns here are unable to discern between what is real and what is a joke

[Tablo]

Wait now that I think about it, why is jazzratt so angry at this as to throw insults at people that will slide because he's and admin? Isn't there a history of pedophiliac admins on revleft? Is there something to this story that we are not beig told?
How about we just don't talk about it.

[Fawkes]

Wait now that I think about it, why is jazzratt so angry at this as to throw insults at people that will slide because he's and admin? Isn't there a history of pedophiliac admins on revleft? Is there something to this story that we are not beig told?

No, there is no history of "pedophiliac admins," dumbass. He (and I) get angry because you hold an incredibly moralistic and reactionary position that is dangerous and whenever the stupidity of those views are contested, we get accused of condoning child molestation/rape/etc. simply because we like to use logic rather than pathetic dichotomous rationale that makes everything seem neat and easy.

[9]

You literally support patriarchy right here.
:lol: you're trolling, right? (p.diddy avatar + hilarious self-parody = dead giveaway)

[Agnapostate]

Except most of those "children" are around 16, 2 years later and it would be perfectly acceptable but since she is 16 and not 18 everybody laughs when the guy is humilated on national televison then put in jail for 10 years.

The age of sexual consent in most U.S. states is 16. The average self-reported age of decoys on To Catch A Predator was 15, so the "victims" would have generally been several months away from legal status, not 2 years.

[coda]

I've watched the show a few times. good thing it's off the air as far as filming new episodes...

I have mixed feelings about the show...

the entrapment predicament was completely unethical.. but..most likely helped in the long run,, making the charge unable to hold up in court... unless he had extenuating circumstances..

the hidden camera aspects... again.. totally unethical.. the "sexual predator" had not yet violated any laws.. so therefore ruining his life by airing on world-wide public television... how do you recover from that one? not easy I would think...by current law... a person is innocent until proven guilty... so, not cool at all...

on the other end... the "predator" for lack of another word... were always masquerading as teenage boys or young 20-something when setting up the internet meeting.. when in all actuality they were usually always middle aged men.......I think if it was really going down in real life.. it would be a big bummer... not a lot of people want to fuck their Dads... I saw one episode that the guy actually left his toddler out in the car while he waited patiently in the kitchen eating milk and cookies...

the other thing.... did these guys (they were always guys) all live under the same rock!!! They didn't know about this show!!! Talk about not doing your homework! And whenever the host came out to bust the guy.. they still were completely oblivious and thought he was the father.... "Hey Dad.... I'm Suzy's teacher..I just stopped by.... she left her book at school and it's out in my car"... ... duh!!!

anyone see the episode where the host revealed the hidden cameras and the guy proceeded to have an elaborate heart/anxiety attack on the floor and they had to call in the paramedics.... I think he was the only one who realized "this is that guy from Dateline. i am up shit's creek...."

Reality TV.... :rolleyes:

[psgchisolm]

The age of sexual consent in most U.S. states is 16. The average self-reported age of decoys on To Catch A Predator was 15, so the "victims" would have generally been several months away from legal status, not 2 years.That's if the person is under 18 and they have to be having sex with another person under 18 that is with-in three years of their age. So if they were 17 and they came to the house they couldn't be prosecuted. States laws vary, but if someone can find what the laws are for florida, that's where they usually film.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't really need to respond because J said everything I was going to (well, he didn't call you a terminally moronic pile of baboon shit or tell you to piss off but I think that's because he draws from a much deeper well of patience than I do) but you should realise that you're making my point for me. You've noticed that my views aren't in lockstep with the value system you support so you immediatly draw up some ridiculous strawman about my wanting to give legitimacy to sexual relationships between young children and adults. Critical thinking has encroaches on your kneejerk reactions and you go fucking nuts.


No, there is no history of "pedophiliac admins," dumbass. He (and I) get angry because you hold an incredibly moralistic and reactionary position that is dangerous and whenever the stupidity of those views are contested, we get accused of condoning child molestation/rape/etc. simply because we like to use logic rather than pathetic dichotomous rationale that makes everything seem neat and easy.



It reminds me of another topic in which posters have to profusely make disclaimers over and over again for engaging in debates about issues which are emotionally charged...even hypothetical arguments.

[khad]

No, there is no history of "pedophiliac admins," dumbass. He (and I) get angry because you hold an incredibly moralistic and reactionary position that is dangerous and whenever the stupidity of those views are contested, we get accused of condoning child molestation/rape/etc. simply because we like to use logic rather than pathetic dichotomous rationale that makes everything seem neat and easy.
http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

[coda]

<<It reminds me of another topic in which posters have to profusely make disclaimers over and over again for engaging in debates about issues which are emotionally charged...even hypothetical arguments.>>

I find that the people who support this stance are usually either aficionados or not much older than the age in question and defend it on those grounds. I like to ignorantly think it is latter...

[Agnapostate]

That's if the person is under 18 and they have to be having sex with another person under 18 that is with-in three years of their age. So if they were 17 and they came to the house they couldn't be prosecuted. States laws vary, but if someone can find what the laws are for florida, that's where they usually film.

The age of consent in the majority of states is 16, aside from close-in-age exemptions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png

[PhoenixAsh]

<<It reminds me of another topic in which posters have to profusely make disclaimers over and over again for engaging in debates about issues which are emotionally charged...even hypothetical arguments.>>

I find that the people who support this stance are usually either aficionados or not much older than the age in question and defend it on those grounds. I like to ignorantly think it is latter...

I am not sure that is always the case, but by and large I do agree with your argument.

Its a highly complex issue with people having different understandings about definitions and laws. Which is aggravated by the international aspect of the debate and the situation varying from culture to culture. I think its wise to state how argumenst should be read. This may be a bother from time to time, but it does alleviate the issue of misunderstanding arguments made for nuance sake with actually advocating the act.

The confusion is highlighted by the below post:




The age of consent in the majority of states is 16, aside from close-in-age exemptions.

* snip image *


That is age of consent (AOC). THere are several problems with using the age of consent to illustrate anything in a debate about paedophilia.

AOC is something which can not be confused with the clinical definition of the term paedophilia. And violating AOC is not considered paedophilia at all...but may be considered sexual abuse of a minor. There is a difference here.

But you can not reduce AOC to a global accepted norm which has the same meaning everywhere.

For one AOC has different meanings and applications in different countries and definately has different consequences....and may be applied differently accoding to gender and sexual preference (distinguishing in the specific sexual act).


In some countries AOC is considered a guidline and there are numerous exemptions to it making it a fluctuating limit. Such as closeness in age...or positions of authority...which can repspectively alter the entire AOC definition or make it more stringent.

Notworthy is also the fact that age of consent is often varied by gender within the same country and so your map is also incorrect on that account. Boys have a much higher AOC. Which appears to give women more sexual freedom but given the application of the AOC it is actually opening the doors for legal sexual abuse of younger girls and making it harder to prosecute these cases.

Its also homophobic in nature. Making the act of sodomy require to have a noticeably higher AOC. For example.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is no known cure for peadophilia.

Peadophilia is not a black-white disorder. Which means that the severity of the disorder may vary from induvidual to induvidual.

Paedophilia is however a regressive disorder. Meaning that if left unchecked the paedophile, man or woman, will eventually act or try to act on the urge...the nature and or succes of the act can vary from touching to sexual intercourse or attempts to do so.

Severe behavioural and cognative therapy often accompanied with severe medicational regimes MAY keep urges in check. But the form of therapy that is most succesful in doing so limits the civil liberties of the one suffering the disorder often placing them under stringent supervision. There is no argument against treatment reducing recidivism but it also does not prevent people from actually carrying out their fantasies if they have not yet acted upon them.

There are two types of peadophiles...these are generalisations but do exist in their extremes. This means you ahve two type of people who fall under the current definition of pedophile:

* This who exclusively want to have sex with prepubescent children. ( aka. true peadophile)
* Those who also have sexual urges towards other age groups.

The group of people who abuse minors and do not fit the criteria of peadophilia are those that rape children because of lack of another victim in their preferential group and commmit the act not because of sexual arrousal but because of other disorders or intend. In that case the offender is NOT a peadophile but committed peadophilic acts. People who suffer from cognitive association disorders or impairment of brainfunction (meaning those who can not distinguish correctly between age difference and correct sexual partners because they are unable to distinguish between age groups or understand the impication of their actions) are also not peadophiles


A noticeable distinction should be made for those who do not get sexually arroused by children, but do get sexually aroused by sexual or pornographic material depicting children. This is often a behaviourally learned arousal stemming from pornographic desensitivity. Which means you need more explicit or extreme imagery to maintain the same level of arousal....you can see this in action on 4chan if you wat to be disgusted. Masturbating to specific images gives people an emotional attachment to the image. THis means that people who often watch porn will eventually desensitise to the sexual act...and instead form emotional attachment with the porn itself. In other words: watching to much porn can lead to not wanting to have sex IRL Behavioural therapy can unlearn this arousal effectively....but...again...there is also evidence that in some induviduals this will eventually lead to a peadophilic disorder which will lead to action.
Note that the category descibed here is different from peadophiles who DO have the urges and collect and/or manufacture childpornography to feed the urge

The causes for peadophilia are unknown. But there has been shown to be causes ranging from brain disfunction, anatomical differences in brain structure, disrupted sex drives, genetic components and nature components involved.


There are current debates going on to distinguish hebephilia from peadophilia....and again from ephebophilia. Here is a chart to distinguish (roughly) in what is proposed in this debate:

<10 peadophile (sexual preference for prepubescent)
11-14 hebephile (sexual preference for early/mid pubescent)
15-19 ephebophile (sexual preference for late- and post pubescent)

There are two other categories

> 19 < 65 Teleiophilia (sexual preference for adults)
>65 Gerontophilia. (sexual preference for the elderly)

All together these classifications are known as Chronophilia...or the sexual preference for a certain age group.


Obviously this distinction needs to keep into account the age of the person who has the urges. For the fist three categories the required age is ate least 16 with 5 years seperation. Age closeness not taken into account.

All other categories are not confined by the age of the person having the urges.

All adults who have sexual preference for adults for example...are teleiophiles. But pre-pubescent teens who have sexual fantasies about adults are also teleiophiles.




I hope this makes something clear for everybody...and we can now continue the arguments and debate with proper definitions and background. This post is not conlcusive. Its not advocating anything. It merely profiding background information so we do not get things confused.

[PhoenixAsh]

My personal opinion:


Advocating that paedophiles and to a large extend hebephiles are not always a liability is ignoring the fact that it is a regressive disorder. I think paedophiles or those that show the urges should be watched and monitored.

I agree that there is a lot of clutter in terminology in vernacular and that debate is not made easy because there is a clear lack of understanding definitions and the emotions attached to the topic....and that this impairs correct and adequate dealing with the problem.

People who voluntarilly express the need to undergo treatment should noty be demonized and should have free acces to treatment. But part of that treatment should be recognition by that person that he or she is a liability

People who conform with the clinical definitions are always a liability and should be removed from the presence of children or should at the very least be carefully be watched around children.

[Fawkes]

Ooh yay, the picture game
http://www.shortarmguy.com/pathetic.jpg

[RedAnarchist]

I'm going to go ahead and close this, because this train wreck of a thread is going nowhere.