92 arrested in Paeodphile ring.

vonhelmet said:
Yes, it does, but the chances are that all we'll get in here is bloodthirsty demands for violence, which doesn't really help anyone.
Click to expand...

As opposed to posts that help who or what exactly? These types of threads are usually here to just allow people to express their joy of paedophiles being arrested. It's good news at the end of the day that there's 92 less of them at the moment.

I know it's a drop in the ocean, but I don't think it's harming anyone to take a swipe at these paedophiles. Lord knows they deserve all the abuse they're going to get.
 
Are we talking about paedophiles or sexual child abusers?

Actually nevermind, KILL THEM ALL WITH COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF FIRE!!!!!1111eleven1
 
Hope they get locked up.

To the poster above who works with this kinda thing, good luck - i wouldn't have the the ability to deal with that kind of thing - at least not professionally. Keep up the good work.
 
So these paedophiles are innocent then? Or are you just planning on riding the pedantic train to dinner? :p

These paedophiles are involved in a child-pornography ring, so yeah, it's pretty illegal and they're right to arrest them.

Adults who have a sexual interest in children, but do not act upon it are innocent. I agree, but this thread isn't about those.
 
iCraig said:
Paedophiles. Why?
Click to expand...

I haven't had the chance to read the article, so didn't know if they were actually talking about paedophiles or doing the Daily Mail pitchforks and fire sensationalist press thing.
 
Last edited:
iCraig said:
So these paedophiles are innocent then?
Click to expand...

He didnt say that.

Anyway I agree with him, if it was illegal to be a paedophile it might as well be illegal to be homosexual or any of the other sexual preferences that the majority of society deems to be wrong.

I do not agree with paedophilia or child abuse, however I’m not sure looking at pictures on the internet is really something I would consider child abuse. They need to concentrate on the people who are producing this material.
 
Kobrakai said:
He didnt say that.

Anyway I agree with him, if it was illegal to be a paedophile it might as well be illegal to be homosexual or any of the other sexual preferences that the majority of society deems to be wrong.

I do not agree with paedophilia or child abuse, however I’m not sure looking at pictures on the internet is really something I would consider child abuse. They need to concentrate on the people who are producing this material.
Click to expand...

You are so very, very wrong.

A child by nature, both in reality and in the eyes of the law cannot consent to sex.

Every time a person views an image or video of child abuse, that is, in my view another abuse of that child. Once on the internet, that material can circulate for years.

I am exceedingly passionate about this, I suggest you think about the distinctions I have attempted to highlight for you.
 
Anyway I agree with him, if it was illegal to be a paedophile it might as well be illegal to be homosexual or any of the other sexual preferences that the majority of society deems to be wrong.
Click to expand...

The reason pedophillia is so wrong is
a) they HAVE SEX with CHILDREN
b) it's abuse whatever way you look at it, just as doing someone with mental retardation would be

Sexual preferences so long as they contain no abuse, are fine, people can do whatever they want so long as everyones happy, I have gay mates, I'm fine with it, hell I act camp sometimes, girls love it.

But pedophillia, rape, brutality, beastiality. That kind of stuff, illegal for a reason.
 
vonhelmet's point is clear. Those who think about it are not breaking the law. These are paedophiles.

Those who act, or support (for example by purchasing videos, as in the article) those who do act upon those thoughts are breaking the law and are child abusers.
 
iCraig said:
So these paedophiles are innocent then? Or are you just planning on riding the pedantic train to dinner? :p

These paedophiles are involved in a child-pornography ring, so yeah, it's pretty illegal and they're right to arrest them.

Adults who have a sexual interest in children, but do not act upon it are innocent. I agree, but this thread isn't about those.
Click to expand...

And just to case more controversy some of the people arrested may not actually be paedophiles. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to "prepubescent youths", and the age of the older kids abused were up to 16(i.e. post-pubescent youths).;)

BBC said:
Mr Hagemeijer said the videos had been "tailor made", with customers ordering specific acts to be performed by specific children.
Click to expand...

That is the bit that really sticks out, a lot of the people arrested may not have been looking at generic video but actually asking the sellers to do certain things to the children.:(
 
Amp34 said:
And just to case more controversy some of the people arrested may not actually be paedophiles. A paedophile is someone who is attracted to "prepubescent youths", and the age of the older kids abused were up to 16(i.e. post-pubescent youths).;)
Click to expand...

Indeed, sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents is Ephebophilia, something which is not actually illlegal in many countries.

This story however is about sexual abuse, and abuse is abuse whatever the age.
 
Last edited:
vonhelmet said:
Because it's not illegal to be a paedophile, nor should it be.
Click to expand...

I guess you're right about it not being illegal to be a nonce in the sense you can think about children in disturbing sinareos :mad:. But thankfully looking at pictures, videos and the next level going trough with the act is illegal. I also believe in some parts of the world the death sentence is used if convicted thank the lord:).
 
pitchfork said:
lets redefine than, they want to have sex with children
Click to expand...

By definition, yes, a paedophile is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. However just because somebody is a paedophile, it doesn't mean they have abused children.

This is the point we are trying to get across, the term 'paedophile' is often used to describe child abusers, but it is perfectly possible to be a paedophile and go your entire life without having sex with a child.

If we make being a paedophile itself illegal, then it amounts to thought police.

pitchfork said:
16+ aint really pedophillia, not unless they're forced to do it anyway
Click to expand...

And neither is ~12-16 :)
 
Last edited:
pitchfork said:
lets redefine than, they want to have sex with children
Click to expand...

Still not even strictly true, they fantasize about having sex with children or perhaps even more accurately about children and sexual acts.

The people in the article have gone beyond this and are quite rightfully arrested however the thought itself (while extremely distasteful) should not be illegal in any society with pretensions to calling itself civilised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom