The Paedophile Next Door

floggg · 02-12-2014 05:30PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah ........... but what if you admitted to Rob's manager that you sometimes fantasised about raping Rob .......... I don't believe you would have a positive reaction.

Btw your taste in men is **** ........... but that's not a crime in itself

Much like I can be sexually attracted to Rob without wanting to rape him, I am very sure there are peadophiles who are attracted to children but no desire to rape them.

You are refusing to even accept that a possibility so are framing everybody with these attractions as somebody who wants to rape a child.

That's not really true though. It's only a desire to rape if they actually want to act on the desires. If they don't, and I would assume many with these desires are repulsed by them and want never to do so, then it's inaccurate to describe them as somebody who wants to rape a child.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 05:30PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah............. but you are still ignoring my comment about how you have now moved the goal posts by bringing rape into this at all. Up until now we were talking about merely having the attraction. Your points failed utterly. So you have upped it to rape now to try again.

It is you not reading posts. My response stands. As usual you found a way to dodge replying to any of it. Duck and dodge really is the MO you like.

Rape came into the conversation because somebody foolishly tried to compare being attracted to adults as being the same as being attracted to children ......... it's not.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 05:31PM

floggg wrote: »

Well obviously it goes without saying that he said everything he said. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said it.

What I took issue with was YOUR misrepresentation of what he said. He never said that he put the interests of a peadophile over those of a child and there was no basis for you to conclude he would do so (if you actually considered what he did say).

Perhaps you might want to give the :rolleyes: a rest.

Eh ........... but he did say it :P

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 05:32PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Rape came into the conversation because somebody foolishly tried to compare being attracted to adults as being the same as being attracted to children ......... it's not.

And yet you appear to be entirely unable to adumbrate the differences you think we should simply psychically know on your behalf.

The differences simply are not as stark as you want to imply. An implication you are making by assertion but not substantiating in any way.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 05:33PM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Since you've just added in the rape part for the craic, because it suits the argument in your head, I'll add a bit more.

What if you admitted to Rob's manager and also Rob's mother that you sometimes dressed up in the Leinster away kit and fantasized about sodomising Rob Kearney while Dave watched.

See all those extra details? They're about as relevant here as "raping" in your sentence.

You might assume that being a paedophile means you want to rape kids. It doesn't, as clearly shown by the subject of the TV show that prompted this thread. This will be my only contribution to the thread, so you can reply with what you like.

Ok I will ............ that post was utter nonsense!

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 05:34PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok I will ............ that post was utter nonsense!

Another one of your replies that does not actually directly address _anything_ in the other persons post. More of your dodge.

floggg · 02-12-2014 05:35PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Eh ........... but he did say it :P

Where exactly?

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 05:36PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have been. Very much so. Despite your distortions, misrepresentations and warping of what I have been saying. And everyone else, but you, has understood my points, including the small pittance handful of people who have disagreed with them. And lots of people have noted, not just me, your distortions of them.

And the CLEAR answer to that is based on that information ALONE, no I would not. But I would not consider that information ALONE. I would consider everything and anything I know about that person !as a sum total whole! and make my judgement call based on the !entire! data set available to me.

And it is your egregiously nonsense idea that things like this require a one size fits all answer to apply to !every! situation.... context and other data be damned..... that I disagree with.

That and your other abhorrent concepts such as pedophiles that are not a threat of any kind not warranting any help of any kind.

So .......... at the end of the day (if you trust the person blah blah blah) ......... your answer is yes.

Whereas my answer (regardless of who the person is) is a definite no.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 05:39PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

So .......... at the end of the day (if you trust the person blah blah blah) ......... your answer is yes.

Whereas my answer (regardless of who the person is) is a definite no.

Clearly. That needed no clarification. What your opinion is needs no repetition. It is your basis for yours, and your issues with mine, that are utterly failing in substance however.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:07PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok I'll say it again for the hard of understanding.... there is not as much difference as you want there to be. At the end of the day BOTH sets of people you describe have an attraction. BOTH sets of people have no reason, much less any you have attempted to lay out, to act inappropriately on those urges any more than the other. To simply ignore this makes you look foolish at best.... in my opinion.

And what are you??? Considering you openly admit that you would put your children in harms way ..........

looking_around · 02-12-2014 06:09PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

And what are you??? Considering you openly admit that you would put your children in harms way ..........

How many times, and in how many different ways, must it be said that an attraction doesn't automatically equal dangerous?

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:10PM

looking_around wrote: »

Why not?

Because the adults is "acceptable"?
It's an attraction, the paedophile is saying they have an ATTRACTION, not that they believe any sort of romantic relationship would be possible.

You understand that yes?
You understand the different between an attraction to an impossible relationship and an attraction to rape?

I know, you like to assume that this attraction = rape, because children can;t consent. and in reality this is true. What you are not understanding, is that in fantasy, what the paedophile sees, could be very different and not rape in FANTASY. This is why they wouldn't act on it, because reality does not match up with their fantasy.

IE. Like fantasising about the married work colleague, doesn't equal reality, does not equal rape, does not equal want to rape.

Please please tell me you understand these comparisons??????

You have officially left the reservation!! You are implying that an adult being attracted to children is acceptable???? Wtf

Adult to adult attraction ........... acceptable.
Adult to child attraction .............unacceptable.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:11PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

And what are you??? Considering you openly admit that you would put your children in harms way ..........

I admitted no such thing. That's the lie you keep telling yourself, I have corrected you on on numerous occasions, and so have numerous other people.

You do love your little distortions though.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:11PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have officially left the reservation!! You are implying that an adult being attracted to children is acceptable???? Wtf

Adult to adult attraction ........... acceptable.
Adult to child attraction .............unacceptable.

Assuming no action or intent on their part of any kind, what is not "acceptable" about it? Thought crime is it now?

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:12PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are the only one here who has been skipping, dodging, misrepresenting and distorting whole swaths of the thread. Get a mirror here, you are not the one to be giving the above advice. You are the one that should be receiving it.

From you??? A person who would allow their children in the care of an admitted paedophile???
Oh wait .......... you know the paedophile well and trust him/her as a whole person .......... that's ok then!!

looking_around · 02-12-2014 06:13PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have officially left the reservation!! You are implying that an adult being attracted to children is acceptable???? Wtf

Adult to adult attraction ........... acceptable.
Adult to child attraction .............unacceptable.

how did I imply that? you really do like to take things out of context.

However an attraction, does not mean a person will act on it. And last I checked, thoughts aren't a crime, nor evidence to potential crimes.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:14PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

From you??? A person who would allow their children in the care of an admitted paedophile???

And straight back to your ad hominem dodges.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Oh wait .......... you know the paedophile well and trust him/her as a whole person .......... that's ok then!!

Exactly. Now you are getting it. Only took 406 posts to get there.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:15PM

floggg wrote: »

Much like I can be sexually attracted to Rob without wanting to rape him, I am very sure there are peadophiles who are attracted to children but no desire to rape them.

You are refusing to even accept that a possibility so are framing everybody with these attractions as somebody who wants to rape a child.

That's not really true though. It's only a desire to rape if they actually want to act on the desires. If they don't, and I would assume many with these desires are repulsed by them and want never to do so, then it's inaccurate to describe them as somebody who wants to rape a child.

So I should allow the paedophile in the same room as my children so he/she can leer at them ........... fantasise about them .......... "enjoy" their company ......... maybe your children, not mine!

looking_around · 02-12-2014 06:16PM

I'm not even sure you realise it Maddog, but to you paedophile is synonymous with abuser.
It comes through in your posts.

Do you agree with this, "a person being attracted to children doesn't mean they'll act on those thoughts"?
And if you do agree, than why claim that there's a risk that they will act on those thoughts?

or do you think every paedophile is a potential child abuser?

_____
edit.
and to rephrase the question.
a person thinks of killing his boss, does that mean he's instantly a potential murderer? or are there other factors involved?

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:16PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet you appear to be entirely unable to adumbrate the differences you think we should simply psychically know on your behalf.

The differences simply are not as stark as you want to imply. An implication you are making by assertion but not substantiating in any way.

Answered.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:19PM

floggg wrote: »

Where exactly?

Numerous times, even a couple of posts back ............ either you can't read his posts, didn't bother reading his posts or don't understand his posts ......... I think you, in particular, are in way over your head in this conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:19PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Answered.

Not on this thread you did not. You merely asserted one to be unacceptable, the other not, then ran.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Numerous times, even a couple of posts back ............ either you can't read his posts, didn't bother reading his posts or don't understand his posts ......... I think you, in particular, are in way over your head in this conversation.

Everything you just said here applies to you, no one else. Hence your dodges, distortions and assert and run tactics.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:21PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly. That needed no clarification. What your opinion is needs no repetition. It is your basis for yours, and your issues with mine, that are utterly failing in substance however.

Really? So my opinion is less important or valid than yours because ............. I don't agree with you

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:22PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really? So my opinion is less important or valid than yours because ............. I don't agree with you

Did I say that? No. I did not. Another one of your many misrepresentations of my posts. The list is getting rather long now.

The validity of your opinion would be based on the substance you use to argue it. But you are doing no such thing. You are just throwing out a number of assertions and either not backing them up, or ad hominem dodging those that call you on them.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:23PM

looking_around wrote: »

How many times, and in how many different ways, must it be said that an attraction doesn't automatically equal dangerous?

How many times and in how many ways must I say that I am not willing to take that chance with my children?
What parent would ........... oh wait ........

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:25PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

How many times and in how many ways must I say that I am not willing to take that chance with my children?
What parent would ........... oh wait ........

None it seems. Nor would I. The difference is how we evaluate risks and I am telling you that some people simply are not risks in my opinion.

If you have never had a friend you trust enough to know they would never harm you no matter what desires they might harbour, then you have my sympathy. Given how you conduct yourself on this thread however it is not surprising.

But the fact is I do. I have people who I know would not harm me or mine no matter how intense the compunction. Certainly not for something as petty as satisfying a sexual desire.

You have no one in your life of that sort, then as I said you have my sympathy, and it explains your position on the matter neatly.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:27PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again not what I said yet your misrepresentation and ad hominem abound. I said there are people I trust implicitly with my children, and if THOSE particular people turned out to have such an attraction then I would not change mz opinion of the safety of my children. That is not quite the same thing, at all, as you are attempting to paint it to be.

And your irrelevant ad hominem commentary continues. Anytime you are ready to address the things I have _actually_ said however, I am here for you. But throw away comments about the length of peoples post is just a way to dodge actually replying to a thing they say.

Irony. Meter. Exploding. Does. Not compute.

You at this point are the last person to admonish ANYONE on this point.

Or is it one rule for you and one for everyone else? Is that how it works now?

Some people fantasize about raping others or being themselves raped. Some people imagine killing their boss in obscene and painful ways. Do you obsess over what goes on in peoples head often? I do not. I realize that there is a difference between what happens in peoples head, and what they actually intend on acting out or engaging in. Are you so short of things to worry about that you need to worry about trivialities than will not actually affect the world in any measurable way?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure how to keep telling you the same thing, to deflect you from your campaign of making this about me while ignoring the substance of my posts in, for example, the long post you simply dodged behind a personal ad hominem comment about me.

But for the people I am speaking of, I do not even SEE it as a risk. Because as I keep telling you !everything! I know of them tells me that if they did have such attractions they simply are not the people who would act on them at all, let alone against my children.

You might as well ask me if I trust my partner alone with other men for no other reason than I know they personally find her attractive.

It is clearly your entire rhetoric is based on conflating attraction with action, and desire with intent in some kind of 1:1 ratio. As has been said, on that basis all males are likely rapists too. Because they are attracted to women they can not be trusted alone with them.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I admitted no such thing. That's the lie you keep telling yourself, I have corrected you on on numerous occasions, and so have numerous other people.

You do love your little distortions though.

But you have admitted it ........

nozzferrahhtoo · 02-12-2014 06:29PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

But you have admitted it ........

I "admitted" nothing. I have explained my position and you have consistently misrepresented and dodged it. It seems everyone gets it but you in fact.

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:29PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Assuming no action or intent on their part of any kind, what is not "acceptable" about it? Thought crime is it now?

So now you are saying that not only would you allow the paedophile to care for your children but that it's actually acceptable for him/her to be attracted to your children!!!

WOW!! :eek:

MadDog76 · 02-12-2014 06:31PM

looking_around wrote: »

Why not?

Because the adults is "acceptable"?
It's an attraction, the paedophile is saying they have an ATTRACTION, not that they believe any sort of romantic relationship would be possible.

You understand that yes?
You understand the different between an attraction to an impossible relationship and an attraction to rape?

I know, you like to assume that this attraction = rape, because children can;t consent. and in reality this is true. What you are not understanding, is that in fantasy, what the paedophile sees, could be very different and not rape in FANTASY. This is why they wouldn't act on it, because reality does not match up with their fantasy.

IE. Like fantasising about the married work colleague, doesn't equal reality, does not equal rape, does not equal want to rape.

Please please tell me you understand these comparisons??????

looking_around wrote: »

how did I imply that? you really do like to take things out of context.

However an attraction, does not mean a person will act on it. And last I checked, thoughts aren't a crime, nor evidence to potential crimes.

I believe you implied it in the first paragraph of the above post ........

The Paedophile Next Door

Comments