South Dublin Paedo Vigilante Group

MizzLolly

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Perhaps the English department...?!

Oi!! I'm doing English there

castie wrote: »

Heres a thought...

I really hate this guy lets call him Jack. I go buy a gun to shoot Jack with.
I walk to Jack's house and I am arrested.

There is no evidence of what i was going to do or IF i would even go through with it.

John Terry INTENDED to score that penalty, didn't make it happen.

Understood. Good point but I'm still not convinced. Any man with even the intention of harming a young child makes my skin crawl. So I can't have sympathy for them. You made a good point earlier when you said that they could easily attack the wrong person, I agree and that's why I said I didn't exactly agree with the vigilante group.

MizzLolly

iFight wrote: »

If you like.



You can be a paedophile without thinking about raping a child, just as you can be heterosexual without actually thinking about sex or having it. Paedophilia is merely an attraction to children physically. You can bicker over a definition if you like.



Since you seem to be sure you know what i am talking about, i am wondering if you are neglecting that i am asking people to make the distinction between child molesters (the paedophiles who act on their thoughts) and paedophiles (as explained).



Lovely image, why don't we have a nice sh1t throwing day so? It can be a new national holiday. Gotta love that Celtic Tiger.



I am asking people to make the distinction; i am not defending child molesters (although i am defending paedophiles).

The sarcasm must just be natural, as i am a pr1c, but i don't throw faeces at people so i am happy.

*shudder to that whole post


I didn't call you a prick. I said men who thought about raping children were pricks. Assuming you don't think about molesting children, why take offence to that??

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

only1stevo wrote: »

will you give me break and stop being such a cynic.
I made a mistake.

Stop defending perverts
im out

This from soemone praising a group called "perverted" justice?

Seriously, though, sorry if I came on too strong, but txtspk is one of my pet hates and I think you need to so some research into paedophilia before you start tarring. Most of what you're said appears to be emotive and factually incorrect.

What's a Paedho? Sounds like a hooker with pedals.

iFight

MizzLolly wrote: »

*shudder to that whole post


I didn't call you a prick. I said men who thought about raping children were pricks. Assuming you don't think about molesting children, why take offence to that??

I called myself a prick. Excellent response by the way: Interesting insight in your use of "*shudder". Was a pleasure it is doing business with you.

I am merely saying that paedophiles shouldn't be punished as half the people on here are suggesting. People are getting confused between paedophiles and child molesters, which, dare i say, makes me "shudder at their whole posts". (We have something in common.)

Hence the whole discussion that you have bypassed.

TequilaMockingBird

Are you a teacher?

Sam Vimes

iFight wrote: »

If you like.



You can be a paedophile without thinking about raping a child, just as you can be heterosexual without actually thinking about sex or having it. Paedophilia is merely an attraction to children physically. You can bicker over a definition if you like.



Since you seem to be sure you know what i am talking about, i am wondering if you are neglecting that i am asking people to make the distinction between child molesters (the paedophiles who act on their thoughts) and paedophiles (as explained).



Lovely image, why don't we have a nice sh1t throwing day so? It can be a new national holiday. Gotta love that Celtic Tiger.



I am asking people to make the distinction; i am not defending child molesters (although i am defending paedophiles).

The sarcasm must just be natural, as i am a pr1c, but i don't throw faeces at people so i am happy.

yes people should make the distinction as i have argued myself before on this forum. People shouldn't be punished for their thoughts. But you seem to be making the wrong distinction here.

someone who is attracted to children is a paedophile. He can't help having that attraction and has committed no crime. But someone who goes into a chat room, chats up a child and then goes to meet that child has crossed over from paedophile to child molester. Whether or not he actually gets the chance to molest a child is really beside the point. He tried to do it, which is different to thinking about it.

he should be tried the same way an attempted murderer is tried. The fact that he failed at it really shouldn't come into it. Maybe they should arrange to meet the guy and when he gets there there should be an A2 size fail pic waiting for him

kowloon

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Anyone else gleefully waiting for the vigalante's too meet up with another group of vigalantes, both of whom are expecting to meet a paedo only to find another gang?

Will they be themed gangs like in The Warriors? Complete with petrol bombs hidden in afros.

castie

sueme wrote: »

Are you a teacher?

Do you wear a hat?

We are playing Guess Who ......yes?

Intothesea

I'd agree with your approach, MizzLolly. Despite
the 'entrapment' complaint it's no bad thing to
make the internet an unreliable, unsafe place
for pedophiles to search for victims. A good
egging is no substitute for state-sanctioned
punishment for expressing the intention, IMO.

iFight

Sam Vimes wrote: »

someone who is attracted to children is a paedophile. He can't help having that attraction and has committed no crime. But someone who goes into a chat room, chats up a child and then goes to meet that child has crossed over from paedophile to child molester. Whether or not he actually gets the chance to molest a child is really beside the point. He tried to do it, which is different to thinking about it.

I haven't once said that going into a chat room to talk to children is okay. I'm making the same point as yourself. Sorry if it didn't come across like that - just trying to get people to direct their "abuse" towards child molesters instead of paedophiles, at least then they have grounds (sort of).

Sherifu

Sounds like they're bored...

Dudess

Exactly. If there was no such thing as paedophiles they'd go after someone else. They don't give a sh1t about kids who are abused. Morons.

stovelid

the_syco wrote: »

+1, esp if the peado's plan B happens to be a shotgun.

I like this line of thinking.

Five to six South Dublin college 'vigilantes' in a single blast.

Decent inroads could be made in no time.

Sam Vimes

iFight wrote: »

I haven't once said that going into a chat room to talk to children is okay. I'm making the same point as yourself. Sorry if it didn't come across like that - just trying to get people to direct their "abuse" towards child molesters instead of paedophiles, at least then they have grounds (sort of).

fair enough :pac:

NaiveMelodies

Here,was just thinking, is it illegal to solicit a minor to have sexual acts in ireland?
It is in in USA, anybody know bout here?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

only1stevo wrote: »

Here,was just thinking, is it illegal to solicit a minor to have sexual acts in ireland?
It is in in USA, anybody know bout here?

Was thinking that myself. I'd imagine so, but the question is, how much proof do you need? I think the courts here would be stricter about what's needed before a conviction.

NaiveMelodies

Anybody hear of anything?

Apparently UCD is a regular haunt for "internet" couples, so im guessing this is where the vigilante is stemming from!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

only1stevo wrote: »

Anybody hear of anything?

Apparently UCD is a regular haunt for "internet" couples, so im guessing this is where the vigilante is stemming from!

Sorry, but my money's still on it being either ficticious or inactive...

NaiveMelodies

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sorry, but my money's still on it being either ficticious or inactive...

Hmmm, my investigating goes on...

Notorious

If they're a vigilante group, covering a pedophile in flour is a bit soft. If they've good proof that the pedo is meeting them with the intention of meeting up with a minor, either they do what vigilantes do best and break out the baseball bats, or they should just report him to the police.
Playing pranks on them just says, "Hey, we don't like what you're doing, but you keep doing it and we'll laugh". I can't imagine the state would punish them enough, so I'd opt for a good beating.

Riddle101

Good on them, JUSITICE TO THE PEOPLE. I'd rather just a normal vigilante who take on all forms of crime then just the paedos but this is a start

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

riddle101 wrote: »

good On Them, Jusitice To The People. I'd Rather Just A Normal Vigilante Who Take On All Forms Of Crime Then Just The Paedos But This Is A Start

Anarchyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Acid_Violet

Idiots. I'm surprised that covering the 'paedho' in eggs/flour/dog food is all they're doing....

Dinter

I would have thought to get a paedo to actually meet you, you’d have to give him loads of encouragement.

I wonder do they realise what he's up to as they act out his fantasies on the internet. They're also presuming he'll be stoopid enough to walk into what could be a police sting.

Takes a pretty sick mind to chat up a sick mind if you ask me.

NaiveMelodies

Ummmm Ikky Poo

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=2843276274

It wasn't me!

I went to school with them. FFS. *facepalm of the highest order* About as hard as butter too. I'm slow clapping in my mind.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

only1stevo wrote: »

Ummmm Ikky Poo

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=2843276274

Ah, Bebo. The moment I read the word bebo, I knew what I was in for.

I thought you said these guys were adults pretening to be underage girls, not underage girls pretending to be adults...?

Acid_Violet

Now I wanna set up a vigilante group of paedo-hunter-hunter's....... Could be done quite effectively.

kowloon

only1stevo wrote: »

Ummmm Ikky Poo

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=2843276274

How professional.