jace_da_face wrote: » Is intention to commit a crime against a fictitious person illegal? Therein lies the dilemma. You could argue that the vigilante group is guilty of incitement. But then incitement to do what? Commit a crime against a fictitious person?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Probably the same reason as most other vigilante groups. They have somehow been affected by, or seen, some crime being committed that (in their eyes at least) no one seems willing to do anything about. So they feel they need to do something about it themselves. After my discussions with the police about the things I was seeing online in my college days around pedophilia..... like MIRC scripts that other chatters could log into and upload porn for "credits" to download porn from your hard drive........ no body seemed to be doing ANYTHING about it. So I myself was tempted on occasion to try and form such a group. Then AND perhaps even now, if such a group approached me and asked me to help out I would find myself very tempted to consider it. But I think a lot of such people rush into such groups and do not stop to consider the negative sides of their actions. The ends justify the means and everything in between. But even that would tempt me to join such a group more, as I would see it as a chance to work from their inside in reforming their methods to be more ethical as best I could. Not saying I WOULD join such a group. But if asked to, I certainly would not give a quick answer either way. I would think long and hard about it.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » THIS is why they've got to be careful. As long as the guy makes all the moves and suggests the encounter then there's no incitement. He's intending to have sex with what he believes is a real underage girl, regardless of whether she exists or not. His only defence would be to somehow prove he was there for some other reason.
anna080 wrote: » Imagine being the Internet
gozunda wrote: » Not this sh!te again ... Paedophillia is understood very well. It remains correctly a Pyschriatic Disorder. To suggest that behaviour which is characterised by the sexual predation of children is an orientation is the same as sexual activity between consenting adults is simply vile and perverse. Where are the figures to support your assertion*? I would wager that like the current guy - many many such individuals are active paedophiles but have not been caught or convicted. These monsters walk amongst us. Post vile and frankly disgusting comments and you can expect that call from lots more than just me. :mad:A sexual orientation describes attraction and activity amongst consenting adults. It is not so those with a recognised pyschriatic disorder pushing their agenda to abuse children. Psychiatric diagnosis does not recognize paedophilelia as a sexual orientation. It is of note that this agenda is the reserve of pro-paedophilia groups. And yes I am disgusted by the actions and behaviour of paedophiles. The majority of people are. I would suggest you get help.
Chrongen wrote: » First of all, your shabby and cynical attempts at redefining what you think other people have said in order to lend weight to your own emotionally fuelled outbursts sap all credibility from your posts.
Chrongen wrote: » You shoehorn the word "predation" into the concept of paedophilia even though it has been made quite clear to you that *paedophilia is an attraction to children that in most cases never results in any kind of interference or abuse of a child or minor.
Chrongen wrote: » Can you not have an intelligent, scientific discussion without having a mental meltdown or putting words into other peoples' mouths.
Chrongen wrote: » what qualifications to YOU have to be an authority on what constitutes paedophilia? There are many doctors and professors who would disagree with you and they are eminently more qualified.
Chrongen wrote: you shoehorn the word "consenting" into your own personalised definition of orientation. Consent has nothing to do with one's orientation. You just rammed that word in there to suit your own narrow and inaccurate definition of what you THINK it means. A homosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual male. The attraction is not going to be mutual, is it? So how can the heterosexual male be consenting. Likewise a heterosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual female who in turn may not feel the same way as she may find him repulsive.
A sexual orientation describes attraction and activity amongst consenting adults. Repeat I said attraction and activity
wakka12 wrote: » Just impossible. Paedophilia is an endemic problem that will plague humanity forever until theres some type of technology to cure the illness in the brain
gozunda wrote: » Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition. Being gay is not.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Just to be clear, this was a 41 year old who travelled across the country to rape a 12 year old, the evidence gathered by "the scumbag" as you so eloquently put it, was substantial enough for the police to have begun proceedings against this sick individual.... and yet you speak of empathy?
gozunda wrote: » Well as for all boards posters - it is within anyone's remit to challenge baseless or frankly misleading statements such as "Paedophilia is not a mental illness".
A. Over a period of at least 6 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). B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Strazdas wrote: » Online grooming does not carry the death penalty to the best of my knowledge. If I was a vigilante and I caused a man to commit to suicide, I would be absolutely wracked with guilt and self doubt in the aftermath, no matter what he was accused of.....it would be the most human of reactions. These chavvy creeps with their criminal records pretending to be "concerned citizens" is utterly laughable.
gozunda wrote: » Just you wind your thick neck back there boyo. Attempting to rationalise a psychiatic disorder and glossing over the impacts of paedophile behaviour is to put it simply vile and disgusting. Some of the comments on here deserve every bit of reproach and negativity they recieve. I will reserve logical, emotion-free discourse for those not posting frankly disturbing posts. Pretending something is ok does not make it so.
drkpower wrote: » I definitely dont want to get drawn into this debate (its one you never get out of!) but just to point out that it is only one aspect of 'peaedophilia' which is recognised as a psych disorder, namely 'pedophilic disorder' which has 3 criteria (DSM V) So, if you dont actually act on the urges, or the urges dont cause any particular distress/interpersonal difficulties for you, you dont have a psych disorder. Those persons are said to have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not a pedophilic disorder. Some might say its a bit of an arbitrary distinction, but it is worth noting that paedophilia simpliciter is not - in fact - a psychiatric illness. Whether pedophilic disorder should be one is another question i suppose. Ive always been more comfortable with the old adage - still kinda used by psychiatrists actually - that you are either 'mad, bad or sad'. I'm not sure that trying to shoe horn everyone into the 'mad' category is necessarily the right or effective thing to do.
Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.
Chrongen wrote: » Have you come across ANY post here that suggests that child-molestation is ok? Because if you have then I strongly recommend you report that post to a moderator. Have you encountered ANY post that promotes or encourages violence? If so, the same recommendation applies.
gozunda wrote: » Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.
gozunda wrote: » The basic point here though is that pyschriatic evaluation is required before it can be declared that those who are attracted or have urges towards prepubscet children do not have Pyshriatric disorder. Posters claiming that there is no problem whatsoever with those who have not been seen to have acted in the it attraction or impulses are misinformed.
Omackeral wrote: » When someone says that a 13 year old asking an adult to meet for sex is a difference maker and/or entrapment, yeah I'm gonna comment on that. If you think it makes a jot of a difference, then you're a sick puppy in my view. My health is fine btw, apart from a bit of a head cold. Bring me some Lemsip if you're over 18 please. Ta lovey x
wakka12 wrote: » I said it didn't excuse his actions regardless of the circumstances that led to him meeting a child, and should be punished accordingly. But it does matter, it will matter a lot when it comes to his sentencing. Certain drugs are illegal but theres different sentences depending on whether you were offering people the drug or if you bought it off somebody So can you please stop with they hysterics and claiming Im excusing paedophilia or something something else dramatic
Omackeral wrote: » I'd rather that than be related to a sexual predator of children. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone?
drkpower wrote: » The general rule is that psychiatric evaluation is required before it can be declared that anyone has a psychiatric disorder, rather than the other way round. But i have made by point.
'pedophilic disorder' ... has 3 criteria (DSM V) ... So, if you dont actually act on the urges, or the urges dont cause any particular distress/interpersonal difficulties for you, you dont have a psych disorder.
end of the road wrote: » i'd rather be related to none of them. except that isn't happening. such has never been stated anywhere in this thread. every single poster in this thread has made it clear that paedophilia is wrong. however, some of us have decided we would like an actual debate on the issues in a calm and rational manner.
pilly wrote: » It does NOT matter legally, morally or any other way when it comes to an adults interactions with a child. You're wrong, accept that. It will not make a blind bit of difference to a judge if the child suggested meeting or the adult did, the adult is to blame.
Saruhashi wrote: » I'm wondering if it's because people don't fully understand how these vigilante groups operate? It seems to me that catching these sub-humans is a worthwhile endeavor and since they are being pretty successful I don't have any complaints at all. After all, those caught by the vigilante groups have clearly laid out who they think they are going to meet and what they think they are meeting them for. There's another unsettling part to this though. The idea that there are these people out there who are posing as kids and getting into f*cking disgusting conversations with these creeps really turns my stomach and makes me think maybe the vigilantes are quite a bit f*cked up too. The are nowhere near as bad as the people they are catching but you get my point here? It's deeply disturbing. It comes from my incomplete knowledge on how these vigilante groups operate and, to be honest, my unwillingness to do internet searches on it or to ask too many questions about it in public. I think it's just a case of you either support these groups 100% and applaud their results OR you are some kind of apologist for the criminals. I understand that the police work closely with these groups so there is some kind of oversight and regulation and that puts my mind at ease, to an extent. I'm not seeing anyone here explain the logistics of all this. Just that the process works and so that should be good enough. Hell, I agree that the ends justify the means actually. Maybe that's irrational though. I just can't shake that feeling that something is "off" about these groups and there are concerns about how they do things. Again, that's likely down to lack of knowledge but I think it's understandable that people would have serious questions here. The "live streaming" aspect, for example. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm kind of inclined to question why.
KKkitty wrote: » They live stream it because the accused can't say they were hit or whatever. Obviously to be a decoy takes some doing with what they're seeing but I'm sure they're a bit desensitised by it all.
PARlance wrote: » Recording it would serve that purpose too though? I think it would be a lot better if they recorded it, waited until the person was charged and then release the video.
gozunda wrote: » Talking out of the side of you mouth there perhaps? You are referring to "child molestation" and "violence". I have commented on specific posts. I have found some comments to be frankly vile and deserving of the opprobrium they recieved imo.
....... wrote: » You are not capable of any kind of rational discourse on the matter so I will leave you to your hysterical pitchfork waving].
Chrongen wrote: » What comment have you found so vile? Or have you taken it upon yourself to select a legitimate or valid post/comment, twist it to misconstrue it to mean something else or try to paint the poster of that comment as something they are not, and then spew it back out as being, in your words, vile and disgusting?
