The Paedophile Next Door

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:16PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope we are just miles apart in how we evaluate your conflation of attraction and action, and how we select those we trust based on more than who or what they are attracted to. As I said, the people I WOULD leave my children with are trusted for a multitude of reasons. Few, if any, of which would be over ridden or negated by learning of a previously unknown sexual attraction. I have no suspicion whatsoever that there is any actual difference between us in our dedication to, or interest in, the safety of our children.

Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused ........ I would feel bad enough if something happened to my children as it is but if it was because I trusted someone who I knew to be sexually attracted to children and still put them at risk ........... I wouldn't even be able to look them in the eye or look at myself in the mirror ......... how would you even begin to explain to them how "daddy let them down" ......... hopefully you're "theory" is sound

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 11:19PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused

Agreed. But this is also true of anyone we ever leave our children with. These are the calls we make. I just make it based on the complete data set I have on a person, not one single aspect of it as you appear to. Otherwise, I see little to no difference between us, our motives, our agendas, or our goals.

looking_around · 26-11-2014 11:20PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I agree with most of this post ........... however I want to clarify something .......... are you saying that some paedophiles take jobs as teachers/childminders etc. because they have a great "love" of children and want to be around them but would never dream of hurting a child???
Or am I reading that wrong

No, but I understand how it comes across that way.

I'm saying that some do....with no intention of ever harming a child, and there's no reason to assume they will ever harm a child.

They are human, they understand right from wrong. They may be attracted to children that doesn't mean they want to harm the child and they know that pursuing their attraction would be harming the child.

We have no way of knowing how many pedophiles are out there. Many will love just about everything about children, not just attraction, how they act, their innocence etc. It makes sense that these people will do what they can to work with children, because they like children, not because they want to harm them.

looking_around · 26-11-2014 11:26PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I said it's not good enough for me .......... so you'd happily trust a paedophile alone with your child if he promises you he won't rape your child???

I don't think we can realistically compare grown men and women who are sexually attracted to each other to paedophiles ........ can we?

I can't imagine how sexually frustrated I would get if I could never ever relieve my sexual urges with another person ......... for the rest of my life!!! :eek:

FYI, many paedophiles are also attracted to adults...shocker I know! :rolleyes:
So there's dress up...there's cgi/fictitious child porn. Which considering porn itself has lowered rape statistics, so should fictitious child porn.

It's not like they spend their lives desperate for sex.

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:28PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Agreed. But this is also true of anyone we ever leave our children with. These are the calls we make. I just make it based on the complete data set I have on a person, not one single aspect of it as you appear to. Otherwise, I see little to no difference between us, our motives, our agendas, or our goals.

Agreed???

Jesus that's a casual approach to your children's safety :eek:

There's a difference between trusting someone with your children because you feel you know them well enough and you have no reason to feel otherwise and leaving your children with someone you know to be sexually attracted to children ......... you must (I hope!!) be in the minority parent-wise.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 11:31PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Agreed??? Jesus that's a casual approach to your children's safety

Nothing I have said so far is casual. It is very in-depth and thought out. I feel you have now just moved from discussing this with me, to simply misrepresentation of me and what I have been saying. What for, I simply do not know. Or care.

MadDog76 wrote: »

you must (I hope!!) be in the minority parent-wise.

The two posts just above yours would suggest otherwise as they are applying the exact same thinking to their posts as I have to mine.

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:31PM

looking_around wrote: »

No, but I understand how it comes across that way.

I'm saying that some do....with no intention of ever harming a child, and there's no reason to assume they will ever harm a child.

They are human, they understand right from wrong. They may be attracted to children that doesn't mean they want to harm the child and they know that pursuing their attraction would be harming the child.

We have no way of knowing how many pedophiles are out there. Many will love just about everything about children, not just attraction, how they act, their innocence etc. It makes sense that these people will do what they can to work with children, because they like children, not because they want to harm them.

That's very very shaky ground .......... I love children, lot's of people love children ........ but being sexually attracted to children and seeking them out through work or otherwise is crossing a line

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:32PM

looking_around wrote: »

FYI, many paedophiles are also attracted to adults...shocker I know! :rolleyes:
So there's dress up...there's cgi/fictitious child porn. Which considering porn itself has lowered rape statistics, so should fictitious child porn.

It's not like they spend their lives desperate for sex.

Children are more vulnerable than adults .......... shocker! :rolleyes:

looking_around · 26-11-2014 11:33PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well let's hope for the sake of your children that your trust isn't abused ........ I would feel bad enough if something happened to my children as it is but if it was because I trusted someone who I knew to be sexually attracted to children and still put them at risk ........... I wouldn't even be able to look them in the eye or look at myself in the mirror ......... how would you even begin to explain to them how "daddy let them down" ......... hopefully you're "theory" is sound

Because uncle Joe who is "normal"..is more trustworthy?

This is only your assumptions, and less about the safety of the child.

Most abuse happens by people we know, by people we assume to be safe and normal.

Think I'd prefer the paedophile who has the courage to tell me, than the one who doesn't. Think about it, the one who tells you, simply by alerting you, is less of a risk, than just about any other person. They made you aware.

Of course, I wouldn't be expecting them to add it to CV's or anything. But ifI truly trusted a person, I wouldn't stop trusting them over a fetish.
(being attracted to children, is less orientation and more fetish.)

looking_around · 26-11-2014 11:34PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Children are more vulnerable than adults .......... shocker! :rolleyes:

eh...I think you missed the fact, that my post was about them not being as sexually frustrated as you make them out to be.

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:35PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing I have said so far is casual. It is very in-depth and thought out. I feel you have now just moved from discussing this with me, to simply misrepresentation of me and what I have been saying. What for, I simply do not know. Or care.

The two posts just above yours would suggest otherwise as they are applying the exact same thinking to their posts as I have to mine.

I am not misrepresenting you ......... I'm replying to the the posts you wrote, they are your words

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 11:36PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I am not misrepresenting you ......... I'm replying to the the posts you wrote, they are your words

Calling my attitude to this subject and the thought I put into it "casual" is in fact a misrepresentation of everything I have written. Your goal in doing this is unknown. Nor do I care.

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:38PM

looking_around wrote: »

Because uncle Joe who is "normal"..is more trustworthy?

This is only your assumptions, and less about the safety of the child.

Most abuse happens by people we know, by people we assume to be safe and normal.

Think I'd prefer the paedophile who has the courage to tell me, than the one who doesn't. Think about it, the one who tells you, simply by alerting you, is less of a risk, than just about any other person. They made you aware.

Of course, I wouldn't be expecting them to add it to CV's or anything. But ifI truly trusted a person, I wouldn't stop trusting them over a fetish.
(being attracted to children, is less orientation and more fetish.)

It's always risky and if Uncle Joe told me he was sexually attracted to my children then he would not be babysitting ........... because that would just be putting my children in harm's way.

Maybe the paedophile is telling you he is attracted to your children as warning, a cry for help ......... which shouldn't be ignored.

MadDog76 · 26-11-2014 11:40PM

looking_around wrote: »

eh...I think you missed the fact, that my post was about them not being as sexually frustrated as you make them out to be.

How sexually frustrated would you be if you'd never had sex with the object of your desires?

Eamondomc · 26-11-2014 11:53PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I am genuinely shocked to know that you have children of your own and would allow them to be knowingly left alone with a "trusted" paedophile ........ we are miles apart on our thoughts regarding the safety of our children.

Me too I think its really f***ed up thinking and tempting fate.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope we are just miles apart in how we evaluate your conflation of attraction and action, and how we select those we trust based on more than who or what they are attracted to. As I said, the people I WOULD leave my children with are trusted for a multitude of reasons. Few, if any, of which would be over ridden or negated by learning of a previously unknown sexual attraction. I have no suspicion whatsoever that there is any actual difference between us in our dedication to, or interest in, the safety of our children.

I d say there is a good bit of a difference and to me your thinking is irresponsible.
I wouldnt let a known thief mind my money and I certainly let a known paedophile whether he or she never acted on their urges mind children.
Thats my attitude.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 11:55PM

Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.

Eamondomc · 26-11-2014 11:58PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.

Sorry but this a public thread and I will comment if I wish. You make public comments that I think are irresponsible and I will answer them with my thoughts. Not trying to cause offence but I just dont agree with you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-11-2014 11:59PM

I do not recall suggesting you can not or should not comment. So you can pocket the feux offence at being asked not to. I simply said you have no basis for the comment. Learn the difference.

As I said the full data set on these people are what I base my judgement on, and that data set would not be altered significantly by such a revelation in any way that would even make me suspect ill will or harmful intent. They are just not capable of it. You are not seeing past one single attribute, because you do not have that data set. You know nothing about them. Trust is built on more than merely knowing what compulsions a person has, but on your judgement of what that person can or will or would do with them.

But this is not about me, despite two of you making it about me. It is about the original point I was making which is that curtailing the freedoms of people for simply stepping forward and saying they have this attraction, is both useless AND harmful. A) It would stop them stepping forward.

The people who step forward in the first place are NOT the people we need to be worrying about.

Laura Palmer · 27-11-2014 12:01AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

I am genuinely shocked to know that you have children of your own and would allow them to be knowingly left alone with a "trusted" paedophile

Yeh I definitely wouldn't be comfortable about doing so.
Even though I'd deem it very unlikely for something to happen, I simply couldn't be 100% certain.

Murray007 · 27-11-2014 12:02AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing irresponsible about it. As I said my choice about who I trust in my life is based on a full data set about them. You know nothing about these people, or what I base it on, so you have no basis to comment.

If this is true and not trolling, my heart bleeds for the kids. Russian roulette and you will say you we're let down if something happens, but really you are letting them down from the start off.

LoganRice · 27-11-2014 12:03AM

Good luck in getting help to all the pedophiles of Boards.ie

Eamondomc · 27-11-2014 12:03AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not recall suggesting you can not or should not comment. So you can pocket the feux offence at being asked not to. I simply said you have no basis for the comment. Learn the difference.

As I said the full data set on these people are what I base my judgement on, and that data set would not be altered significantly by such a revelation in any way that would even make me suspect ill will or harmful intent. They are just not capable of it. You are not seeing past one single attribute, because you do not have that data set. You know nothing about them. Trust is built on more than merely knowing what compulsions a person has, but on your judgement of what that person can or will or would do with them.

Well fair play to you for your good attitude but my attitude is prevention is better than cure so I am just saying I would not put children in my care under the care of a known paedophile.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2014 12:05AM

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Yeh I definitely wouldn't be comfortable about doing so.
Even though I'd deem it very unlikely for something to happen, I simply couldn't be 100% certain.

We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.

Murray007 wrote: »

If this is true and not trolling, my heart bleeds for the kids. Russian roulette and you will say you we're let down if something happens, but really you are letting them down from the start off.

We would be let down regardless of who betrays our trust.

But once again I repeat this is not about me. My point still stands that the idea of curtailing the freedoms and more of people who simply step forward and say "Look I have this attraction, I do not want it, what can I do?" is simply a poor point of view. It is both useless (because it would stop people stepping forward if this is what they would be met with) and ineffectual (because it is the people who do not step forward that are the ones to worry about).

Eamondomc wrote: »

Well fair play to you for your good attitude but my attitude is prevention is better than cure so I am just saying I would not put children in my care under the care of a known paedophile.

And "prevention" to me is not leaving children under the care of someone you do not trust as much as you possibly can. And the people I trust I trust for a multitude of reasons, many of which in isolation would not be curtailed by such a revelation about their sexuality. But taken in total, together, as a whole..... as I said those of you who do not know the people I know, or what I trust them, have the right to comment, but no basis to do so.

Nor is this about me, despite the number of you wanting to make it so. It is about the point I was actually making, which no one has actually addressed in their desire to make it about me.

Laura Palmer · 27-11-2014 12:07AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.

The more knowledge we have though, the more precautions we should take, IMO.

It's a position I reckon that guy Eddie on last night's programme would understand.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2014 12:08AM

Laura Palmer wrote: »

The more knowledge we have though, the more precautions we should take, IMO.

The more knowledge we have the better a judgement call we can make. And it is the sum total of the knowledge of the people I trust that I make that judgement call on. And such a revelation would simply become part OF that data set. And for some people it would influence my judgement call on the entire data set. For some people it would not. Simple as.

All of this being entirely hypothetical of course because not one person I know, let alone the trusted core I speak of, has ever made any such revelation.

Eamondomc · 27-11-2014 12:10AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are never 100% certain of any person we leave our kids with. We make a judgement call when we do it. Every time.

We would be let down regardless of who betrays our trust.

But once again I repeat this is not about me. My point still stands that the idea of curtailing the freedoms and more of people who simply step forward and say "Look I have this attraction, I do not want it, what can I do?" is simply a poor point of view. It is both useless (because it would stop people stepping forward if this is what they would be met with) and ineffectual (because it is the people who do not step forward that are the ones to worry about).

Look at it this way, is there an educational or sporting or indeed any type of gathering place in Ireland now for children that would let a known paedophile
work with let alone care for children who are members of said gathering. I think not but maybe you know some.

Murray007 · 27-11-2014 12:18AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The more knowledge we have the better a judgement call we can make. And it is the sum total of the knowledge of the people I trust that I make that judgement call on. And such a revelation would simply become part OF that data set. And for some people it would influence my judgement call on the entire data set. For some people it would not. Simple as.

All of this being entirely hypothetical of course because not one person I know, let alone the trusted core I speak of, has ever made any such revelation.

Bet a lot of money the closest you have had to a child yourself is a pocket baby!

The alternative is the the ideologies of the pedophile network, your data set is not on the same platform as people who don't believe that sexual activity with a child is ever tolerable.

Laura Palmer · 27-11-2014 12:21AM

The childminding thing is something that's possibly difficult for some folks to know until actually in the situation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 27-11-2014 12:22AM

Eamondomc wrote: »

Look at it this way, is there an educational or sporting or indeed any type of gathering place in Ireland now for children that would let a known paedophile
work with let alone care for children who are members of said gathering. I think not but maybe you know some.

Of course not, that is what is in discussion here is it not? The idea of a change in our thinking. A way to foster a society where rather than hide in the shadows with such an attraction people can come forward and say "Look I have this, what can we do about it together?"

The point being that the idea being espoused that such people should come forward... but our first response should be to slap all kinds of curtailed freedoms on them, monitoring, restricted movement and accesses, and more (one user even suggested they should be instantly and without question simply removed from society) is clearly not the clear headed and intellectual response to the idea.

As multiple users, not just me, have pointed out... the best we are going to achieve with this attitude is to simply maintain the status quo of these people simply not standing up and coming out with it.

And the complete abject uselessness of the attitude becomes clear when you realize that it is likely NOT the people who do step forward with it that need to be targeted or worried about anyway. It is the ones who do NOT.

One dreams of a medical advancement in this area anyway. I hope we one day make it. We are becoming better and better at identifying thoughts, emotions and responses through all kinds of neural imagining techniques, measurements of galvanic skin response and much more. One hopes some day the test for paedophilia will be as simple as a test for fever.

But one also wonders if paranoia about paedophiles, especially those who openly admit to it and seek assistance, is even that useful. Every person working with our children in any way are potential risks. Some might not even know themselves they are a risk until one day they find themselves alone with them and in a position to do something and suddenly dark thoughts well up that were never there before. What truly useful effect does our well meant paranoia bring us?

I would rather the structures that provide opportunity be over hauled to deal with this. An admitted paedophile working in a kindergarten is a lot less disturbing to me than the idea the working structure of such a kindergarten allows for one to get alone with a child in such a way, for such a time period, as to allow them to conduct the kinds of acts that every single person on this thread, myself included, strongly wish to prevent. THAT would be more worthy of being looked at than anything else I can think of.

Murray007 wrote: »

Bet a lot of money the closest you have had to a child yourself is a pocket baby!

Given I have two children I am happy to take that bet. It is christmas time, I could use the cash.

Murray007 wrote: »

The alternative is the the ideologies of the pedophile network, your data set is not on the same platform as people who don't believe that sexual activity with a child is ever tolerable.

No idea what you think you mean by this or what your point is. I certainly doubt anyone on this thread thinks sexual activity with a child is tolerable. And I am certainly unconvinced that the majority of paedophiles do either.

animum · 27-11-2014 12:25AM

great film starring Kevin bacon...the woodsman....on Netflix...tells the story from the paedophiles point of view...

for me it was really conflicting, I didn't want the main character to harm any child, but it was to save him and the child...really got me thinking from another angle..

these people are people, regular everyday people, that battle demons I hope to never have to battle anything like it myself..

I think alot of child abuse cases, are abuse of power, alcoholism, and alot of other factors, celibacy in priests, mental health issues etc...

paedophilia I think is different, and is a sexual orientation, that actually upsets the mind it is in...

a child abuser is not necessarily a paedophile. and vice versa

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments