The Paedophile Next Door

sbsquarepants

MadDog76 wrote: »

Do you not think a parent should take the "extreme risk free option" when it comes to their own children's safety???

I think you can do more harm than good being overprotective sometimes. Not necessarily in this case mind, just in general! We all know ridiculously molly coddled and cotton wool wrapped kids, they invariably grow up to be less than capable adults.

Grayson wrote: »

Personally i think a 17 year old limit is both too young and too old. A lot of teenagers could manage to have sex responsibly (with each other). But as a society we grow up a lot later than we used to. An 18 year old now has less responsibility than a 15 year old did 100 years ago, or than a 13 year old 1000 years ago. Age of consent is based partly on the physical maturity of the body but it's also based on the maturity of the person. That is, are they able to handle sex? Whereas puberty is now occurring earlier than ever, teenagers are growing up slower than ever. We have a situation were 14 year olds are physically mature enough to have sex but 18 year olds aren't mentally mature enough.

It's one of the paradoxes of modern life. Kids are being sexualised etc from an early age, with the internet that is only going to get younger and younger I think - but due to modern affluence they are actually maturing (as in thinking like adults, responsibilities and repercussions and so on) later and later. Most 18 year olds these days would be entirely incapable of standing on their own two feet.

lanos wrote: »

Can I offer a simple solution
Chemical castration for those who seek help.
Physical castration for those who get caught.

Great solution, there'll be ques around the block to take it up no doubt.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

From what I've read online, I generally find that law-enforcement types generally prefer the 'born with/cannot be cured' argument as it is generally followed by a demand for more police and resources to monitor such people forever.

I generally find that law enforcement types can not really be trusted to rationalise anything whatsoever. Laws for the sake of laws is basically their mentality.

Eamondomc

lanos wrote: »

no thats a flawed analogy
your analogy suggests different levels of punishment
my idea suggested treatment for those that seek help
because chemical castration is not invasive or permanent.

Your original post called for "physical castration for those who get caught".
Is that your idea of treatment? I d say my analogy was pretty good.
When you have a suggestion within the law come back to me. Have a nice day now.

MadDog76

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?

Ok let me put it this way since you misunderstood me ........... I cannot except the fact that someone who is close to you and you trust implicitly already for x amount of years who then confesses to you that he/she has sexual thoughts about children is still someone you would continue to trust around your children alone ......... I find that fact repugnant, irresponsible and neglectful.

Don't worry about your paedophile mate's feelings being hurt .......... worry about your children, it's your job as a parent.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok let me put it this way since you misunderstood me ...........

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.

MadDog76 wrote: »

is still someone you would continue to trust around your children alone ......... I find that fact repugnant, irresponsible and neglectful.

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

looking_around

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.



Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. I understand you just fine. I just think what you are saying and.... more specifically.... trying to imply about me and my position are simply tosh and nonsense.



Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

As I keep pointing out, though you ignore this in favor of making it about me personally rather than any of the actual on topic points I have made, Attraction does not equate to action, and desire does not equate to intent.

looking_around wrote: »

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???
You both would say yes .............. I, like most parents, would say definitely not!!!

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???
You both would say yes .............. I, like most parents, would say definitely not!!!

I wouldn't see it as a risk.

The same way I wouldn't be afraid of being around every male.
(as a woman every male is a potential rapist....using your line of thinking)

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is it worth taking that risk when it comes to your children???

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.

sbsquarepants

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is none of those things because the basis for my trust in that select few people are so large, that I simply have ZERO expectation that their thoughts would be anything _but_ thoughts.

If I knew someone for x amount of years and they out of the blue dropped a bombshell on me like that - my immediate reaction would be to realise I didn't know them as well as I thought I did and rapidly reassess their relationship to me.
If my best mate says to me tomorrow I often think about raping your kids while I'm **** - My reaction would not be T.M.I you little scamp you, sure thinking is harmless and we all think of something, he'd be getting a box in the jaw and a warning to never show his face near me or my kids again.
If an admission like that wouldn't lead you to question how well you actually know the person, wouldn't have you question their place in your life, and you would in fact let him babysit that very night as if he'd casually said "that blondie one off countdown's a bit of alright isn't she" then you really need to take a cold hard look at your priorites, cos that is fúcked up!

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

another thing important to mention, is a paedophile isn't attracted to every child. So there's no reason to assume, unless they say so, that they are specifically attracted to your children.

Oh that's ok then isn't it .............. as long as the paedophile isn't abusing his children we'll just leave him be shall we :rolleyes:

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as a risk.

The same way I wouldn't be afraid of being around every male.
(as a woman every male is a potential rapist....using your line of thinking)

Nope .......... using my line of thinking every man who admits to having urges to rape is a potential rapist :rolleyes:

MadDog76

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If I knew someone for x amount of years and they out of the blue dropped a bombshell on me like that - my immediate reaction would be to realise I didn't know them as well as I thought I did and rapidly reassess their relationship to me.
If my best mate says to me tomorrow I often think about raping your kids while I'm **** - My reaction would not be T.M.I you little scamp you, sure thinking is harmless and we all think of something, he'd be getting a box in the jaw and a warning to never show his face near me or my kids again.
If an admission like that wouldn't lead you to question how well you actually know the person, wouldn't have you question their place in your life, and you would in fact let him babysit that very night as if he'd casually said "that blondie one off countdown's a bit of alright isn't she" then you really need to take a cold hard look at your priorites, cos that is fúcked up!

Exactly ............ he just doesn't seem to get how warped his opinion and sense of reality is ............ very very strange stance to take

nozzferrahhtoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If I knew someone for x amount of years and they out of the blue dropped a bombshell on me like that - my immediate reaction would be to realise I didn't know them as well as I thought I did and rapidly reassess their relationship to me.

You do not know anyone as well as you think. They all have thoughts you do not know about. They simply do not, and would not, act on them. If such desires were revealed to me in the select people I mention, it would not affect the rest of the things I do know about them, and from which I draw my judgement, and which you nor anyone else know about given you do not know these people. My priorities are just fine.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If my best mate says to me tomorrow I often think about raping your kids while I'm **** - My reaction would not be T.M.I you little scamp you, sure thinking is harmless and we all think of something

There is a lot more going on there than just pedophilia. You are talking about someone openly expressing sexual desires in a way that is not socially appropriate. Leave pedophilia out of this, you would likely have a negative reaction to anyone saying anything of that sort about ANYONE, let alone your kids.

Secondly like MadDog, who also just thanked your post which is not surprising, you are shifting idly between attraction for children and desire to rape children almost as if the two things are the same. They are not. At all. No more than a man being attracted to women means he wants to rape them. Or would rape them even if such thoughts occurred.

As long as things that should not be conflated are being conflated, this conversation on this thread is not likely to progress meaningfully.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Oh that's ok then isn't it .............. as long as the paedophile isn't abusing his children we'll just leave him be shall we :rolleyes:

Yes. Frankly. Why would you not leave them be? Thought crime is not a thing, nor should it be. That YOU seem to obsess over what people have going on in their heads is your issue, not theirs.

However in an earlier post you indicated you want to leave them well alone. ENTIRELY alone. When you suggested that such people should not even seek help if they are not a threat by saying that if they are in control of their urges then "paedophiles don't need any help at all".

And that is truly lacking in all human empathy right there. Do you not think their own well being is reason enough, or has your hatred of pedophiles precluded you from the least piece of human decency and empathy? Do you not think their own disgust at their own feelings...... and the misery, self loathing and alienation this brings them.......as exhibited for example by the self confessed Pedophile in the documentary that started the thread..... is not reason enough for them to deserve and require our help?

No, you would just have them rot in their misery unless they were a potential harm and therefore warrant us deigning to notice them?

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nope .......... using my line of thinking every man who admits to having urges to rape is a potential rapist

Nope, not true at all because you are now not comparing like with like. You are comparing now people who have attractions for children with people who have attractions to raping.

Having an attraction to a child is not the same as having urges to rape them. you continually, consistently contrive to conflate the two in order to manufacture an argument you simply have no other basis for making.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Exactly ............ he just doesn't seem to get how warped his opinion and sense of reality is ............ very very strange stance to take

The only time my opinion seems to get warped, is when you guys misrepresent what I have been saying and turn it into something else. One wonders what is so terrifying about considering my actual opinion, that you need to consider one I do not hold instead..... or dodge entire swaths of my post rather than deal with the substance in them, which you cover up with a throw away ad hominem attack.

MadDog76

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.

You may not SEE it as a risk to your children when an individual tells you they have sexual thoughts about children ........... but it IS a risk!

As I've said before, I wouldn't worry about a man being attracted to an adult female member of my family .............. however I would worry if he told me had an urge to rape!

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

You may not SEE it as a risk to your children when an individual tells you they have sexual thoughts about children ........... but it IS a risk!

Not really. Not when acting on such feelings would go against everything I know to be true about them. The only way to see it as a "risk" for me with those people is to pedantically point out the !extreme! true fact that !everything! is a risk. Leaving a child with !anyone! is a risk. We evaluate risks in our life and we work out who can be trusted in our opinion and who can not. And there are people who I would trust even knowing they had such attractions, than other people even not knowing such things about them.

I evaluate people based on everything I know about them. You clearly evaluate them by picking the single worst thing about them and extrapolate from that data piece alone. There is where we differ.

MadDog76 wrote: »

As I've said before, I wouldn't worry about a man being attracted to an adult female member of my family .............. however I would worry if he told me had an urge to rape!

And as I just pointed out, you are moving too easily back and forth, as it is convenient to you, from harboring attractions..... to urges to rape. The two are not the same thing. Yet you shift between the two arbitrarily (or more likely in a contrived fashion) too easily.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not know anyone as well as you think. They all have thoughts you do not know about. They simply do not, and would not, act on them. If such desires were revealed to me in the select people I mention, it would not affect the rest of the things I do know about them, and from which I draw my judgement, and which you nor anyone else know about given you do not know these people. My priorities are just fine.



There is a lot more going on there than just pedophilia. You are talking about someone openly expressing sexual desires in a way that is not socially appropriate. Leave pedophilia out of this, you would likely have a negative reaction to anyone saying anything of that sort about ANYONE, let alone your kids.

Secondly like MadDog, who also just thanked your post which is not surprising, you are shifting idly between attraction for children and desire to rape children almost as if the two things are the same. They are not. At all. No more than a man being attracted to women means he wants to rape them. Or would rape them even if such thoughts occurred.

As long as things that should not be conflated are being conflated, this conversation on this thread is not likely to progress meaningfully.



Yes. Frankly. Why would you not leave them be? Thought crime is not a thing, nor should it be. That YOU seem to obsess over what people have going on in their heads is your issue, not theirs.

However in an earlier post you indicated you want to leave them well alone. ENTIRELY alone. When you suggested that such people should not even seek help if they are not a threat by saying that if they are in control of their urges then "paedophiles don't need any help at all".

And that is truly lacking in all human empathy right there. Do you not think their own well being is reason enough, or has your hatred of pedophiles precluded you from the least piece of human decency and empathy? Do you not think their own disgust at their own feelings...... and the misery, self loathing and alienation this brings them.......as exhibited for example by the self confessed Pedophile in the documentary that started the thread..... is not reason enough for them to deserve and require our help?

No, you would just have them rot in their misery unless they were a potential harm and therefore warrant us deigning to notice them?



Nope, not true at all because you are now not comparing like with like. You are comparing now people who have attractions for children with people who have attractions to raping.

Having an attraction to a child is not the same as having urges to rape them. you continually, consistently contrive to conflate the two in order to manufacture an argument you simply have no other basis for making.



The only time my opinion seems to get warped, is when you guys misrepresent what I have been saying and turn it into something else. One wonders what is so terrifying about considering my actual opinion, that you need to consider one I do not hold instead..... or dodge entire swaths of my post rather than deal with the substance in them, which you cover up with a throw away ad hominem attack.

Your posts have no substance ........... for some reason you, even whilst risking your own children, favour the side of the "poor miserable paedophile" .......... help paedophiles (if possible) by all means but not at the risk of small innocent children, they deserve better especially from their own parents!!

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really. Not when acting on such feelings would go against everything I know to be true about them. The only way to see it as a "risk" for me with those people is to pedantically point out the !extreme! true fact that !everything! is a risk. Leaving a child with !anyone! is a risk. We evaluate risks in our life and we work out who can be trusted in our opinion and who can not. And there are people who I would trust even knowing they had such attractions, than other people even not knowing such things about them.

I evaluate people based on everything I know about them. You clearly evaluate them by picking the single worst thing about them and extrapolate from that data piece alone. There is where we differ.



And as I just pointed out, you are moving too easily back and forth, as it is convenient to you, from harboring attractions..... to urges to rape. The two are not the same thing. Yet you shift between the two arbitrarily (or more likely in a contrived fashion) too easily.

I would seriously take into account the fact that somebody has admitted to me that they're a paedophile ......... especially if my children (or any children for that matter) are going to be around such an individual ......... being a paedophile is not something you can weigh up against other good qualities a person may have ............ "ah yeh he's into kids *wink* if you know what I mean but still a lovely fella ........... loaned me his lawnmower last summer" ........... get a grip!!!

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

Your posts have no substance ........... for some reason you, even whilst risking your own children, favour the side of the "poor miserable paedophile" .......... help paedophiles (if possible) by all means but not at the risk of small innocent children, they deserve better especially from their own parents!!

This post really has no substance.

I can only assume you are deliberately distorting what he has said clearly and repeatedly or else are too animated by somebody refusing to burn all (non-offending) peadophile alive to read what he said.

You are also clearly attacking his character and his parenting skills which is conplelty uncalled for. You know nothing about him.

What is absurd is that he has made clear repeatedly that he is talking about (hypothetical) people that he knows well enough to conclude that there is no risk. And yet you criticise his judgment without actually being in a position to refute that claim.

You have just assumed there is a risk and refuse to accept that there is any possibility that the contrary may be true.


I know personally I would much rather kids be raised by people who make informed decisions about issues affecting their welfare, rather than one who makes reactionary decisions based on certain facts and to the exclusion of all others.

I also think it's better that he based the decision on how the person is as a whole (and this the entirety of their character) rather than who being hung up on what they are not (or are not known to be).

drumswan

MadDog76 wrote: »

I would seriously take into account the fact that somebody has admitted to me that they're a paedophile ......... especially if my children (or any children for that matter) are going to be around such an individual ......... being a paedophile is not something you can weigh up against other good qualities a person may have ............ "ah yeh he's into kids *wink* if you know what I mean but still a lovely fella ........... loaned me his lawnmower last summer" ........... get a grip!!!

Do you think everyone who is attracted to another person is likely to rape them? Im attracted to supermodels, doesnt mean Im going to force myself on Elle McPherson, that would be rather inappropriate. How do you propose to deal with things when your offspring are sexually mature and normal people are attracted to them? Are you going to treat everyone as a potential rapist then? Im not sure youve thought his through.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Your posts have no substance

You wouldnt know. Because every time I make them, you dodge. Just like you are doing here. And just like you did in post #301. You are just pursuing an MO of soapboxing and dodging.

MadDog76 wrote: »

for some reason you, even whilst risking your own children

Once again I have taken no such risks. Ever. Because no one I know has expressed any such sexual interests. I have explained why with a SELECT handful of people my !overall! evaluation of my children's safety would not be affected.

You have simply ignored and dodged those reasons, usually with either an ad hominem attack, a complete misrepresentation of what I am saying, or a contrived attempt to conflate sexual attraction with a desire to rape.

So no, if you are looking for points with no substance, allow me to purchase you a mirror.

MadDog76 wrote: »

favour the side of the "poor miserable paedophile"

More of your misrepresentation MO. What I DID say, which you are now distorting, is there are a lot more reasons for a pedophile to want help, and for us to want to offer it, than them merely being a risk to children. Such people are ends in their own sake, a fact you want to ignore by dehumanizing them entirely as if their own personal needs are made irrelevant by the nature of their issue.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I would seriously take into account the fact that somebody has admitted to me that they're a paedophile

As would I. That is !exactly! what I have been saying. And I am merely telling you that there are a !select few! people in my life that I know that having taken this into account my evaluation of them as a risk would remain relatively unaffected.

Because unlike you I recognize the difference between attraction and action. And desire and intent. And I realize that THOSE people I know well enough to say with every confidence possible that their desires are not ones they would act on. At all.

MadDog76 wrote: »

being a paedophile is not something you can weigh up against other good qualities a person may have

Except yes it is. Very much so. In the same way as being attracted to women does not mean you are going to rape one or take advantage of a semi clad drunk out of her mind one you find unguarded on a bed.

Because the vast majority of people have attractions and the vast majority of them do not act on them inappropriately. You are pedaling the baseless assumption, that you have supported with nothing but assertion and repetition, that somehow while the majority of our species do not act inappropriately on our desires and attractions..... pedophiles magically.... on nothing but your magically fantasy land say so.... are precluded that ability. As if ending a post with "get a grip" suddenly magically validates all the nonsense you just spewed into it.

As I said numerous times on this thread you are pedaling the "Asses against the wall" mentality school kids on school yards pedal against homosexuals. As if merely by being homosexual they can not help but bend you over and have their way with you at the first sign of opportunity.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nope .......... using my line of thinking every man who admits to having urges to rape is a potential rapist :rolleyes:

Paedophiles, don't necessariliy have urges to rape.
They have an attraction, that can't be consented to. A bit like, if you can imagine this, having an attraction to redheads, but not having any consent to you, doesn't mean you're going to start raping them.

And your post above this one.
You're assumption is that clearly, all paedophiles are abusers. Just because a paedophiles is attracted to some kid, does not mean, they'll act on it.

floggg

looking_around wrote: »

Paedophiles, don't necessariliy have urges to rape.
They have an attraction, that can't be consented to. A bit like, if you can imagine this, having an attraction to redheads, but not having any consent to you, doesn't mean you're going to start raping them.

And your post above this one.
You're assumption is that clearly, all paedophiles are abusers. Just because a paedophiles is attracted to some kid, does not mean, they'll act on it.

I'm attracted to Rob Kearney. Knowing he's straight and out of my league, I know he would never consent.

That doesn't stop me fantasising about him.

I don't consider myself to want to rape him though.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

This post really has no substance.

I can only assume you are deliberately distorting what he has said clearly and repeatedly or else are too animated by somebody refusing to burn all (non-offending) peadophile alive to read what he said.

You are also clearly attacking his character and his parenting skills which is conplelty uncalled for. You know nothing about him.

What is absurd is that he has made clear repeatedly that he is talking about (hypothetical) people that he knows well enough to conclude that there is no risk. And yet you criticise his judgment without actually being in a position to refute that claim.

You have just assumed there is a risk and refuse to accept that there is any possibility that the contrary may be true.


I know personally I would much rather kids be raised by people who make informed decisions about issues affecting their welfare, rather than one who makes reactionary decisions based on certain facts and to the exclusion of all others.

I also think it's better that he based the decision on how the person is as a whole (and this the entirety of their character) rather than who being hung up on what they are not (or are not known to be).

You can't be serious!!
Everything he has said HE has said, it's all there in black & white ......... he has said that he has a select few people in his life that he does/would trust with his children and that wouldn't change even if (yes "if" does mean hypothetically :rolleyes:) one of these people proclaimed to be attracted to children ......... I do not agree with that train of thought and I make no apologies for believing that is a risk too far.
And obviously this would bring his character and parenting skills into question in my opinion .........

MadDog76

drumswan wrote: »

Do you think everyone who is attracted to another person is likely to rape them? Im attracted to supermodels, doesnt mean Im going to force myself on Elle McPherson, that would be rather inappropriate. How do you propose to deal with things when your offspring are sexually mature and normal people are attracted to them? Are you going to treat everyone as a potential rapist then? Im not sure youve thought his through.

I've made this point before but I'll make it again just for your benefit ......... you saying you are attracted to Supermodels is perfectly fine (even normal) ........ you saying you are attracted to the thought of raping a Supermodel is not fine .......... get it?

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Everything he has said HE has said, it's all there in black & white

And yet despite this I have had to correct numerous misrepresentations of that black and white from you, sometimes more than once. Quite telling I feel.

MadDog76 wrote: »

I make no apologies for believing that is a risk too far.

And I make no apologies for pointing out why your belief is wrong. The substance of most of which you have misrepresented or dodged.

MadDog76 wrote: »

you saying you are attracted to the thought of raping a Supermodel is not fine

And who has said that? You have introduced this new aspect relatively recently. Up until recently we were talking about people who openly admit they feel sexually attracted to children. Only recently have you suddenly moved the goal posts to include thoughts of rape. Get it?

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You wouldnt know. Because every time I make them, you dodge. Just like you are doing here. And just like you did in post #301. You are just pursuing an MO of soapboxing and dodging.



Once again I have taken no such risks. Ever. Because no one I know has expressed any such sexual interests. I have explained why with a SELECT handful of people my !overall! evaluation of my children's safety would not be affected.

You have simply ignored and dodged those reasons, usually with either an ad hominem attack, a complete misrepresentation of what I am saying, or a contrived attempt to conflate sexual attraction with a desire to rape.

So no, if you are looking for points with no substance, allow me to purchase you a mirror.



More of your misrepresentation MO. What I DID say, which you are now distorting, is there are a lot more reasons for a pedophile to want help, and for us to want to offer it, than them merely being a risk to children. Such people are ends in their own sake, a fact you want to ignore by dehumanizing them entirely as if their own personal needs are made irrelevant by the nature of their issue.



As would I. That is !exactly! what I have been saying. And I am merely telling you that there are a !select few! people in my life that I know that having taken this into account my evaluation of them as a risk would remain relatively unaffected.

Because unlike you I recognize the difference between attraction and action. And desire and intent. And I realize that THOSE people I know well enough to say with every confidence possible that their desires are not ones they would act on. At all.



Except yes it is. Very much so. In the same way as being attracted to women does not mean you are going to rape one or take advantage of a semi clad drunk out of her mind one you find unguarded on a bed.

Because the vast majority of people have attractions and the vast majority of them do not act on them inappropriately. You are pedaling the baseless assumption, that you have supported with nothing but assertion and repetition, that somehow while the majority of our species do not act inappropriately on our desires and attractions..... pedophiles magically.... on nothing but your magically fantasy land say so.... are precluded that ability. As if ending a post with "get a grip" suddenly magically validates all the nonsense you just spewed into it.

As I said numerous times on this thread you are pedaling the "Asses against the wall" mentality school kids on school yards pedal against homosexuals. As if merely by being homosexual they can not help but bend you over and have their way with you at the first sign of opportunity.

I'm very happy (genuinely) to hear that nobody close to you has expressed interest in children ......... sexual or an attraction or any urges .......... because I would fear for your children if that situation ever arose considering your opinion on the matter.

The issue I do have (regardless of your so-called many many "valid" points) with you is that you have said that the fact that someone is a paedophile would not affect your judgement of that someone even to the point of trusting him/her with your own children.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

I would fear for your children if that situation ever arose considering your opinion on the matter.

Given how groundless your opinion on the matter thus far has been, I can merely console you by informing you your fears are ill founded and you can sleep well tonight.

MadDog76 wrote: »

The issue I do have ..... would not affect your judgement

And the problem with your issue is it is AGAIN a distortion of what I have been saying. A distortion I have corrected numerous times now, and so have other people who have also noticed it.

But as long as you have the will / patience to continue making that distortion, I am similarly disposed to continue to call you on it.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

Paedophiles, don't necessariliy have urges to rape.
They have an attraction, that can't be consented to. A bit like, if you can imagine this, having an attraction to redheads, but not having any consent to you, doesn't mean you're going to start raping them.

And your post above this one.
You're assumption is that clearly, all paedophiles are abusers. Just because a paedophiles is attracted to some kid, does not mean, they'll act on it.

Ok I'll say it again for the hard of understanding ........... adult males being attracted to adult redheads is not the same as paedophiles attractions ......... to even compare them makes you look foolish at best .......... in my opinion.

Also I wouldn't assume a paedophile will acted on his/her urges .......... but I also would not risk my children ......... no responsible loving parent would risk leaving their children in the care of an admitted paedophile .......... that's the first sentence on the first page of the Parenting Book!!

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok I'll say it again for the hard of understanding ........... adult males being attracted to adult redheads is not the same as paedophiles attractions ......... to even compare them makes you look foolish at best .......... in my opinion.

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.

MadDog76

floggg wrote: »

I'm attracted to Rob Kearney. Knowing he's straight and out of my league, I know he would never consent.

That doesn't stop me fantasising about him.

I don't consider myself to want to rape him though.

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

drumswan

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've made this point before but I'll make it again just for your benefit ......... you saying you are attracted to Supermodels is perfectly fine (even normal) ........ you saying you are attracted to the thought of raping a Supermodel is not fine .......... get it?

Please point out where you made this point?

You are the one that is failing to grasp the difference. People who have sexual attractions, be they "normal", perverse or fetishistic, do not necessarily act upon them as other social norms are a far stronger influences than are attractions in the first place. People may have rape fantasies, incest fantasies or teenager fantasies (and many, many do if the internet is anything to go by) but they do not act upon them as to do so would destroy their lives and family relationships and hurt those closest to them. You seem unable to grasp this simple point.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet despite this I have had to correct numerous misrepresentations of that black and white from you, sometimes more than once. Quite telling I feel.



And I make no apologies for pointing out why your belief is wrong. The substance of most of which you have misrepresented or dodged.



And who has said that? You have introduced this new aspect relatively recently. Up until recently we were talking about people who openly admit they feel sexually attracted to children. Only recently have you suddenly moved the goal posts to include thoughts of rape. Get it?

Who said that? Read the posts .......... I was responding to another poster :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah ........... but what if you admitted to Rob's manager that you sometimes fantasised about raping Rob

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Who said that? Read the posts .......... I was responding to another poster :rolleyes:

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.

floggg

MadDog76 wrote: »

You can't be serious!!
Everything he has said HE has said, it's all there in black & white ......... he has said that he has a select few people in his life that he does/would trust with his children and that wouldn't change even if (yes "if" does mean hypothetically :rolleyes:) one of these people proclaimed to be attracted to children ......... I do not agree with that train of thought and I make no apologies for believing that is a risk too far.
And obviously this would bring his character and parenting skills into question in my opinion .........

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.

Dave_The_Sheep

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah ........... but what if you admitted to Rob's manager that you sometimes fantasised about raping Rob ..........

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.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given how groundless your opinion on the matter thus far has been, I can merely console you by informing you your fears are ill founded and you can sleep well tonight.



And the problem with your issue is it is AGAIN a distortion of what I have been saying. A distortion I have corrected numerous times now, and so have other people who have also noticed it.

But as long as you have the will / patience to continue making that distortion, I am similarly disposed to continue to call you on it.

Ok so let's be clear then ............. would you allow/trust someone who has expressed an interest, attraction or urges towards children to care for your children???
You've already answered yes to this question depending on the person/situation etc .......... I don't care about the person's other positive qualities .......... it's the "yes" in your answer (under any circumstances) that I disagree with.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok so let's be clear then.......

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

...... would you allow/trust someone who has expressed an interest, attraction or urges towards children to care for your children???

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.

MadDog76 wrote: »

it's the "yes" in your answer (under any circumstances) that I disagree with.

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.

MadDog76

MadDog76 wrote: »

Again you chose to ignore the part of that post that didn't suit you .......... you were referring to a 17 year old plus daughter so fantasising about having sex with her didn't necessarily mean rape .......... you seem to be hard of understanding so I'll repeat it (again :rolleyes:) ......... I may not like a man fantasising about having sex with my 17 year old daughter but I'd accept it as normal .......... I would not accept as normal a man fantasising about raping my 17 year old daughter ......... you'll eventually get what I'm saying, I have faith in you

MadDog76 wrote: »

You have a habit of ignoring certain parts of my posts in order to justify and validate your own posts ........ shall I point out the part you conveniently ignored?

I said if the straight man told me he fantasised about (pay attention now, this is the important part) raping my daughter then I would take issue with that ......... you miss it again??? It was the rape part ....... you get it now?

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes I am ............. even more so if said straight man tells me in advance that he has fantasised about raping my daughter ............. so obviously I wouldn't do it :rolleyes:

drumswan wrote: »

Please point out where you made this point?

You are the one that is failing to grasp the difference. People who have sexual attractions, be they "normal", perverse or fetishistic, do not necessarily act upon them as other social norms are a far stronger influences than are attractions in the first place. People may have rape fantasies, incest fantasies or teenager fantasies (and many, many do if the internet is anything to go by) but they do not act upon them as to do so would destroy their lives and family relationships and hurt those closest to them. You seem unable to grasp this simple point.

Try reading the entire thread ......... please :rolleyes:

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok I'll say it again for the hard of understanding ........... adult males being attracted to adult redheads is not the same as paedophiles attractions ......... to even compare them makes you look foolish at best .......... in my opinion.

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??????

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Try reading the entire thread ......... please :rolleyes:

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.

floggg

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

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

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

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

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

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

MadDog76 wrote: »

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

Where exactly?

MadDog76

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

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

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 ..........