Pedophile

It's safe to say these guys are everywhere... Sick bastards.

He looks like a paedophile though, I know it's strange but you can kind of tell.

Not sure... Is that link work safe or not?

Fairly yes, nothing bad is shown, it looks like a news report or not dissimilar. Like watchdog or something.

That was from a special the other night called "To catch a predator" or something similar. They set up these guys and arrange meetings to bust them on camera. It is amazing to me how many guys they nab and how quickly they can set up these meetings (sometimes just hours after first online contact). Another scary thing is this show was the 6th installment!

I disagree, and that is from personal experience. And yes, it seems they are everywhere

Must be a set up, didn't even look the slightest bit surprised.

I thought that too... Either very bad acting, or he was trying to keep his cool.

No, it is a legit news show that has aired about 6 installments of their stings.

Why can't these guys get sent to Iraq...

Line 'em up and shoot 'em, no second chances.

Sorry I didn't mean that in general, I just meant with this scumbag. Sorry, didn't mean to touch a nerve .



P.S I would genuinely vote in favour of castrating serious paedophiles.

did you guys see the one where the guy brought this 4 year old son with him?

NBC's special. I saw one of the first ones when they were cathing guys who went to little boys houses. One of the people was a rabbai...its disgusting.


After the interview with that one guy they go out side and they immidiatly get arrested.

Yeah, its a Dateline report. They were actually working with the local law enforcement this time so they could arrest the pervs instead of letting them leave like the first installment. Sick b*stard looked scared s*itless when the host came out.That guy has got to be one of the worst. I don't doubt that he abuses his son either.

Time to play devil's advocate, with everyone screaming "pedo's need to burn alive!"...
I'm asexual (simply not interested in anything), which is why I can express a neutral point of view on this topic.

Someone who goes out to seek a partner where mutual consent isn't established is a sexual predator. A "pedophile" is not someone who tries to take advantage of your kids.
Why does our society consider reproduction to be a taboo at these ages?
Let's say you have a teenager, 17 or so, who happens to be interested in 13 year old kids (but hasn't, and won't ever "take advantage" of any situation). Should this kid still face the wrath of society? What if it's a physical trait, not always a choice, much like heterosexuality / homosexuality?

Let's say this kid has some amazing design talent, and creates photorealistic renders of minors engaging in sexual activity, who then posts them publically (along with proof that they're renders). Is it wrong? Moreso, should it be illegal to distribute such images, and why?


Meanwhile, here's a couple of quotes from page 1 in this thread.












Edit: If you wish to argue, debate, flame, question, or talk to me in greater detail, please do so via aim/msn (available in my profile). Unfortunately I'm unable to be around neowin as much as I'd like

I'm not sure where your coming from there Saguratus.

I mean a 4 year age gap of course isnt so bad but when you have 30 odd men preying on 13 year olds its a completley different matter.

Im not particularly sure your 17/13 comment has any relevance....

My reasoning being that the age difference would technically make him a pedophile, and seen as one for that matter. People are harsh when it comes to this, and if a person is "technically" a pedophile, that's all they need (and want) to put a nail in the coffin. Haven't you heard about the kids taking pictures of themselves getting charged with child pornography? If that weren't wrong enough, let's say you had some fun with technology as a kid and had some explicit pictures or videos of yourself. Later on, you distribute them for whatever reason. You will be charged with a felony. Why is this?




With the age of photorealistic cg, we're running into a very harsh topic here. Do we ban such material without justification, just because of what it is? Let's say our talented cg artist decides to make a 3d model from scratch of a minor to use in a photorealistic scene, and omits no details. This artist then makes the model public, for use and manipulation in other projects. Should this person be arrested?

The US has deemed "simulated" cp to be legal in 2002. How would you view a person who produced simulated photorealistic cp?


Edit:
Browsing through a wikipedia article...


Yes, that means that a 5 minute sketch or doodle on some scratch paper could send you off to jail for 5 years in NZ. Give it to someone? Distribution.
Where do you draw the line here? 20 words could easily constitute as "something which supports or promotes the sexual exploitation of children or young people".

It looks like they have the law very well covered in my opinion.

You cant have loopholes or they will just be exploited. The laws in place make sure that anyone doing wrong and some not doing anything wrong are dragged into court. At this point you find that the 13 year old with pictures of himself is put back into school and the 30 year old trying to cover his ass by keeping his kiddy pix on his 12 year old sons laptop is sent to jaill.

so someone making photorealistic imagery of minors in compromising situations isnt a whacko

Using such reasoning, detailed depictions of minors in any media for any reason should come with 5 years of jailtime. Luckily, the US isn't so strict, but if laws similar to those in NZ were to go in, things would become rathor chaotic with the "point a finger at me and I'll sue" attitude seen in the US.




Compromising situation isn't defined. You'll have a lot of wrongful oppression when it comes to science and computer graphics. Besides that, what makes such a person a "whacko" to begin with? Would you call someone who sketches nude woman a "whacko"?

The bit I have put in bold, I do not understand. Predatory paedophiles, those who carry out paedaphilic behaviours, do take advantage of children.

This is obviously just my opinion, children are too young to make informed and reasoned decisions about sex. Their understanding of what is right and wrong sexually and morally and even their preferences, are underdeveloped. This makes them vulnerable to abuse and easy to manipulate as they don't have a strong sense of what they want/agree with.


I think society has issues with children and sex because of the things I have stated above. Also, from an evolutionary sense, it doesn't make sense for children to be having sex. They aren't supposed to be sexually attractive because they can't reproduce yet.

Obviously by age 13, most girls are quite able to reproduce, and girls as young as 9 are married off in some places but most Western societies wish to preserve and protect that childhood innocence. 13 year olds are still usually very naive, in Western society at least. Anyway I'm just rambling now so I'm giong to give it a rest!

Yeah, I've seen quite a few of the Dateline installments and am so glad they are getting these sick people away from the computers and in jail. Now there's even a site (Corrupted-Justice) that is against the site that works with Dateline (Perverted-Justice) saying that Perverted-Justice's methods of catching these pedophiles are illegal. That's sad that there are people who are basically trying to help these people from getting caught.

I fully agree, predatory pedophiles need to be dealt with. My issue comes around when people are being punished (very severely at that) for "thought crime".

Regarding dateline's methods, some controversy could come around. Essentially, they simply have people working for dateline soliciting and enticing people. Afterall, they need to pull more than just a few to have a show. I suppose it could be attributed to going around offering free drugs, and busting anyone who takes them.



People standing up for American rights, it's horrible. Just because they do it doesn't mean they want to protect pedophiles.

Do you consider undercover drug busts controversial? The average American doesn't. If it wasn't an undercover cop, and in this case people from Perverted Justice, then it would've been a child. The act of merely soliciting drugs, prostitutes, underage-sex, etc. are crimes. As they very well should be.

And those people are not standing up for American rights and liberties. No American has the right to walk away from justice because they mistakenly solicited undercover agents instead of a real child. What is the law supposed to do or say? "Oops! Good luck, maybe next time you'll get an actual 13 year-old to utilise for your depravity?"

There's a serious difference between undercover drug busts (passive, people come to them) and going out and soliciting to a large number of people (active), as perverted justice does.


Which is exactly what perverted justice does, in order to have a show.


Then the same could be said about privacy and fair use advocates. Do fair use advocates support piracy? Do privacy advocates support terrorism?

If that were true there would have been a lot of lawsuits by now claiming entrapment.

The members of Perverted Justice do not solicit sex posing as minors. They go into chat rooms and wait for someone to chat with them. If you watch the show and see the chat logs (which can be read on the site as well) the pedophiles ask "ASL?", they shoot the s*it for a few minutes and it turns sexual after that. At no point do the members ask the men if they want to come over and have sex, nor do they initiate any sexual conversations themselves with the men. They are as you said, passive.

I haven't done my research on it, so I'll take your word for it. I was under the impression that the controversy was over them going out and moreso soliciting conversations, and turning it from there. If they are doing this passively, then I have no quarm with them.

no i woulden't because it is healthy to want a sexual relationship with a woman, nude is she so wants, whereas it is not healthy to recreate scenes or sketch pictures which suggest abuse of a child, if you have the desire to do this the you are in my opinion, a whacko... afterall art is about expessing your feelings and with reference to the affore-mentioned controversial art what would that suggest the artist was feeling?

What makes this healthy, and likewise unhealthy to want a sexual relationship with your own gender? different race? different species? different age, say a 20 and 60 year old?
Not everyone is the same, and you cannot claim your own orientation and preferences to be "healthy" without evidence that it is beneficial to physical or mental health, or similarly, detrimental effects for what you claim to be "unhealthy".

The taboo on the issue of pedophilia is that it deals with minors who are not fully developed mentally (and physically for females), and aren't fully aware of the potential religious or physical issues (such as STD's). Pedophilia involving prepubescent minors may also involve the subject having a lack of interest or desire for such contact, and be forced to participate from a statutory influence. That covers the predatory pedophiles, but what about the ones who commit "thoughtcrime"?

I've talked with a few pedophiles who can't explain why they're attracted to minors, and actually hate themselves for it. This may indicate that it is not entirely a choice, much like homosexuality, however it poses a very severe problem for society. Why should passive, non-predatory pedophiles have stones thrown at them for this "thoughtcrime", and how would you differentiate this from racism or homophobia should this be proven to be attributed to physical traits in the brain, or even gentically?


I can't really say "suggest" is the right word to use here. If someone sketches a murder, suicide, or someone jumping off a cliff, it doesn't mean the artist "suggests" such actions. This is of course assuming you imply suggest as it's first definition of: "To offer for consideration or action; propose". If you mean otherwise, I'd suggest using a different word for this argument.


This goes back to our original topic, should thoughtcrime be punishable?

This argument obviously cannot apply to photos, sketches, designs, or art which are inexplicit in nature. A CG artsit designing and modeling a child in full detail does not imply that they have pedophiliac thoughts. The same could be applied to those sketching a nude male or female in art class.

How many of these non-predatory pedophiles do you think actually exist? If it is at times an innate attraction then how can it possibly be ignored? How could it possibly be suppressed to the point where they do not act upon it? I doubt there are many such cases. One need only at the media coverage of pedophile priests within the church. Not even God or the religion they subscribed to could restrain their attractions and keep them from coming to fruition. "Thoughtcrime" is punished because incessant and insuppressible thoughts often don't just remain harmless thoughts.

There's quite a few more than you think, and obviously predatory pedophiles are the ones most prone to being caught, and thus receive media coverage. I'm not very familiar with the pedophiles on freenet, but by far the majority I had talked with were not what I would consider to be predators. Take this with a grain of salt though, as this is taken from an area where CP is freely available and limited to the somewhat competent. There's a lot of predators out there, but I get the feeling that because they can utilize freenet to transfer materials, they don't have such a need to go seek outlets in the real world. This can also bring up the debate as to whether such materials is beneficial to reduce such offenses against minors.


Actually, thoughtcrime is not punished here in the US. Both CG and art of this nature are allowed under free speech, so long as no actual minors are involved. It's not quite the same however in places like New Zealand.

I don't believe "incessant and insupressible" is quite accurate either. As an asexual, I can't quite comment on what the quantity or supressiveness of sexual thoughts would be for a person on a daily basis, but I'm pretty sure this goes just a tad too far. There's no way to gather statistics and evidence on such information either, however I believe criminalization of thoughtcrime will only lead to more violent crimes in the end. If you overpunish sexual offenses against children, you'll see more child molestation cases from predatory pedophiles turn into homicide cases, because they don't want the kid going home and saying anything that might lead to their arrest and prosecution, which may end up carrying a sentence that's not far off from murder. Don't know about you, but if I had kids, I'd much rather see them alive and well with a potentially bad or embarrasing experience.

Edit: Let me rephrase that last sentence. I'd much rather see them alive and well and with a bad or embarrasing experience from the start than rather have even a small chance that they may end up worse, soley because child molestation or statutory rape was overpunished.