Gardai cricitise paedophile hunters

Flippyfloppy

joeguevara wrote: »

Biological is conception. My belief is a 13 year old girl is not physically sexually mature to have sex with a fully grown man. The argument in this thread is a 13 year old girl has reached full sexual maturity. I disagree with that assertion.

Nobody on here thinks it’s right for a 13 year old girl to have sex with a man. It’s completely wrong of the man.

I think the point the other posters were making is that because in most cases 13 year olds can conceive, they are sexually mature. Some people might also term that ‘being physically mature’.

From what I’ve read, on this thread, nobody thinks that it’s ok, or should be done, or it’s right for an adult to be physically atttracted to a 13 year old.

Now I’ve said my piece, if you try and twist my words around like you did with the other posters (really abhorrent of you btw) I will be using the report facility.

joeguevara

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Nobody on here thinks it’s right for a 13 year old girl to have sex with a man. It’s completely wrong of the man.

I think the point the other posters were making is that because in most cases 13 year olds can conceive, they are sexually mature. Some people might also term that ‘being physically mature’.

From what I’ve read, on this thread, nobody thinks that it’s ok, or should be done, or it’s right for an adult to be physically atttracted to a 13 year old.

Now I’ve said my piece, if you try and twist my words around like you did with the other posters (really abhorrent of you btw) I will be using the report facility.

Read back on everything I have said and I haven’t twisted anything. I have distinguished between the ability to conceive and being physically mature. I termed it biolically mature. If you go back to the whole reason of this debate is that I disputed the fact that statutory rape is any less heinous than paedophilia.

joeguevara

Just to clarify I never thought any person thought an act was not disgusting. I tried to argue that it couldn’t be less or more heinous based on age. I am sorry if posters misconstrued what I was saying to mean I thought they were less disgusted to what we all know is a despicable crime.

DEFTLEFTHAND

At a house part in Canning Town in 68, Tony Lambrianou, gangster and member of the Kray Firm accidentally walked into Reggie Kray sexually assaulting a 14 yr old boy, Reg got him by the throut and told him to forget about what he saw.

Tony didn't, he told his brother Chris and Kray Captain Freddy Foreman.


It was known that Ronnie was gay and a nonce but they never thought that Reg was the same.


They hatched a plan that night to kill both of the deviants and take over the Firm.




Unfortunately Nipper Read arrested all the gang 10 days later. The Lambrianos got 15 yrs a piece and Foreman got 20.


The two nonces got 30.

Garibaldi?

Someone, a law-abiding citizen needs to entrap one of the "entrappers", absolute loose cannons taking the law into their own hands!

Garibaldi?

The legitimate agents of law and order have to work within certain parameters. If they don't do this they are accountable and will face disciplinary action. We know that they do not always get it right and sometimes are called to task. That is a separate issue. If these vigilante clowns cause an individual to be harmed by inciting suspicion and ultimately violence, they will probably seek a fool's pardon. Their attitude is reminiscent of the worst excesses of the water charge protests.

Anyone who pretends to be a child online and takes such obvious glee in their role is not a happy bunny.

Gimme A Pound

I don't agree that a 13-year-old is fully sexually mature but I found it interesting the way the pronouns defaulted to "he" for the predator and "she" for the preyed on.

Marty Bird

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyone who pretends to be a child online and takes such obvious glee in their role is not a happy bunny.

I think the ones that are seeking out these phantom children are the ones we all should be worried about.

Marty Bird

Marty Bird wrote: »

I think the ones that are seeking out these phantom children are the ones we all should be worried about.

I personally would have thought that went without saying, but there you go

timthumbni

Jmsg wrote: »

It's not my or an opinion but a scientific fact. A 13 year old girl is on a physical level mature enough to have sex with a grown man, and in far ancient times every girl of said age did and it was no problem. Civilization is another kind of scheme altogether though, where there are socially imposed restrictions namely wedlock traditionally (though what they are today have become very confused due to massive social dissolution and disfiguration). These social restrictions placed on sex are necessary for our organisation into coherent large groups and have a most profound ingrained effect on our psyches such that if we deviate from them we may potentially suffer terrible neurosis's, the most terrible of all is the effect of sexual abuse on a child before the sexual instinct awakens in them, in such a case when it eventually does in time after the fact it will become fixated on those encounters and seem to be entirely blocked psychically from the reproductive process. Whereas if one passes through early puberty without having had sex imposed upon one, though such abuse happening subsequently can too have a very substantially damaging effect it nevertheless pails in comparison to the former.

Another very important fact in the distinction is the intent of the abuser. It is natural to be aroused on a purely sexually base level by a girl of 13, many of whom can look to be far older. With girls before puberty on the other hand only a most minute portion of people feel sexual urges towards them (far below 1%). This is why it's so important to make a clear distinction and keep pedophilia defined as separate as it is done in all clinical settings.

Well This is a pretty disturbing post.

timthumbni

joeguevara wrote: »

If the whole structure of our legal system of innocent until proven guilty is inherently flawed to you then I cannot debate this. If your duck argument is what you rely on then criminal trials in front of a jury of your peers is meaningless.

Your belief that untrained vigilantes have the right to be judge jury and executioner based on unverified text messages means that a persons life should be ruined without any righ to defense. I hope the society that you purport to want serves you well bud! Hope your subscription to the daily mail is worth it.

Stop being a drama queen bud. The ones i saw weren’t being executioner as they called the psni.

I simply have no sympathy for nonces. If someone is a nonce then their life deserves to be ruined. Better that than some young kid whose life will be ruined.

But civil rights for nonces and all that I suppose. Nothing surprises me these days.

Garibaldi?

I can't believe that this conversation is now actually centred on the "rights and wrongs" of child sexual exploitation. We were discussing lowlifes on a high from taking the law into their own hands!

timthumbni

Garibaldi? wrote: »

I can't believe that this conversation is now actually centred on the "rights and wrongs" of child sexual exploitation. We were discussing lowlifes on a high from taking the law into their own hands!

I’m waiting on someone to say they were born that way and they need to be facilitated...

Cartroubles

These groups always seem like they are from a scummy background.

timthumbni

Cartroubles wrote: »

These groups always seem like they are from a scummy background.

As opposed to those they catch who always seem to be from better stock. Nonces but middle class nonces.. ffs.

Cartroubles

timthumbni wrote: »

As opposed to those they catch who always seem to be from better stock. Nonces but middle class nonces.. ffs.

Pedophiles come from all classes/backgrounds. Not sure what your point is. These groups on the other hand always seems to very rough around the edges. Probably the only thing in life that they have the moral highground on.

timthumbni

Cartroubles wrote: »

Pedophiles come from all classes/backgrounds. Not sure what your point is. These groups on the other hand always seems to very rough around the edges. Probably the only thing in life that they have the moral highground on.

What???? Would they not have the high ground on the paedos every time???

Snobbery is obviously alive and well in the republic anyway.

No wonder society is fecked when people seem more concerned about the social status of people trying to out nonces than the deviant acts they are trying to stop. Ffs...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

timthumbni wrote: »

I’m waiting on someone to say they were born that way and they need to be facilitated...

I've wondered about that one too be honest: nature or nurture?

Some people see it as an orientation (in which case it would be more likely to be birth) rather than a fetish (more likely developed).

If it is something that develops though, then the questions are: what causes it? And can something be fine to stop it beforehand?

timthumbni

Cartroubles wrote: »

Pedophiles come from all classes/backgrounds. Not sure what your point is. These groups on the other hand always seems to very rough around the edges. Probably the only thing in life that they have the moral highground on.

I’m not sure sure what your point was. Scummy background? Do you mean working class? What’s the issue with that?

Credit Checker Moose

I am sure Louise and her merry gang wouldn't like it if a gang show up outside their houses shouting the odds.

Garibaldi?

timthumbni wrote: »

I’m not sure sure what your point was. Scummy background? Do you mean working class? What’s the issue with that?

They are twenty-first century versions of the Parisian mob hanging around the guillotine watching the heads roll!:D:D:D

Auguste Comte

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

I am sure Louise and her merry gang wouldn't like it if a gang show up outside their houses shouting the odds.

If nothing else it would give her and her "security" a chance to destroy any evidence of alleged offences committed by themselves.

A bit like the opportunity they give to the alleged sex offenders whose doors they rock up to.

Gimme A Pound

timthumbni wrote: »

I’m not sure sure what your point was. Scummy background? Do you mean working class? What’s the issue with that?

They don't mean working class though. Working class people work.

Jmsg

timthumbni wrote: »

Well This is a pretty disturbing post.

Do you have anything to back up your assertions and show you haven't just misread my post?

It should be made clear is that the perversion to feel arousal towards a 13 year old girl is NOT the same as the perversion to feel arousal towards a girl of say 8. The first is wrong but the second is a far more heinous matter altogether.

In a huge number of these vigilante schemes, they were going after men just looking for sex with women in general (often on sites in which you need to be of adult age to register) then after the decoy proclaimed to be underage (but post-pubescent) the men still went along with it. That's a completely different thing to men who operate by specifically targeting pre-pubescents, in such cases any attempts to bring them to justice be it via vigilantism or state means should be supported by any sensible person.

Discodog

We are obsessed with, often non existent, abuse & "stranger danger". The result is that kids don't play outside but are glued to screens. Groups like Scouts etc can't function, because no man will risk being a helper in case of rumours. There is a shortage of male teachers because of the risk of being falsely accused.

All this is doing far more harm to children that the, incredibly rare, chance of being abused by an online stranger. If the parents took responsibility for their kid's online activity most of these underage chats wouldn't happen.

And if a peadophile genuinely wanted to seek treatment & advice they would be too scared to do so.

Garibaldi?

What are these people's own kids doing while their parents are driving all over the place usurping the authority of professional law enforcers? Probably watching all sorts of dodgy stuff online, drinking in a field or breaking the neighbours' windows.

timthumbni

Garibaldi? wrote: »

They are twenty-first century versions of the Parisian mob hanging around the guillotine watching the heads roll!:D:D:D

It is really strange and weird imo that some seem more concerned with the social status of those trying to catch nonces, than the crimes or potential crimes of the nonces themselves.

It’s quite sad actually.

timthumbni

Garibaldi? wrote: »

What are these people's own kids doing while their parents are driving all over the place usurping the authority of professional law enforcers? Probably watching all sorts of dodgy stuff online, drinking in a field or breaking the neighbours' windows.

Yep. Aside from being a complete snob Drinking in a field is more serious than what nonces get up to.

paleoperson

Jmsg wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up your assertions and show you haven't just misread my post?

It should be made clear is that the perversion to feel arousal towards a 13 year old girl is NOT the same as the perversion to feel arousal towards a girl of say 8. The first is wrong but the second is a far more heinous matter altogether.

In a huge number of these vigilante schemes, they were going after men just looking for sex with women in general (often on sites in which you need to be of adult age to register) then after the decoy proclaimed to be underage (but post-pubescent) the men still went along with it. That's a completely different thing to men who operate by specifically targeting pre-pubescents, in such cases any attempts to bring them to justice be it via vigilantism or state means should be supported by any sensible person.

What "assertions"? All he did was remark that your post was pretty disturbing, which I can understand where he's coming from.

You got all that from seven fairly passive words, then drove into another tirade insisting that perversions towards 13 year olds are absolutely NOT in any way like perversions towards lower ages and nobody should ever confuse the two. Nobody's claiming they're similar... you're not exactly making yourself look stable or free from pervsersions yourself. :rolleyes: