The Paedophile Next Door

looking_around

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ........

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And straight back to your ad hominem dodges.



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

And I am saying that this is irresponsible of you at best ......... at worst it's actually enabling a potential abuser to hurt your children.

looking_around

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 ........

fair enough, but the point is, it's a perceived risk, that isn't backed up by evidence.

The same it would be foolish of me to think, that a guy who admits an attraction for me, might rape me.

Of course, depending on the person ...I might worry that...depending on the person.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

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?

"a person being attracted to children doesn't mean they'll act on those thoughts"? Agree ........

"do you think every paedophile is a potential child abuser?" Absolutely ........... and I'm not willing to take the chance with my children.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

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:

paedophilia, isn't a crime.
and the day thoughts become a crime, I weep for society

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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



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

Not true .........

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

"a person being attracted to children doesn't mean they'll act on those thoughts"? Agree ........

"do you think every paedophile is a potential child abuser?" Absolutely ........... and I'm not willing to take the chance with my children.

So lets rephrase that bold, if a girl you're attracted to, isn't interested in you, you're a potential rapist?

same thing, different ages, but same thing.

MadDog76

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.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

You've a bit of a habit of saying something ............. then blatantly denying you've said it!!!

Cathy.C

looking_around wrote: »

paedophilia, isn't a crime.
and the day thoughts become a crime, I weep for society

When people can get jailed for watching 'pixie porn'.. I fear that day might already be here, or at least not very far off.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/ronald-clark-new-zealand-pixies-cartoons-jail_n_3132519.html

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

A paedophiles attractions are a petty sexual desire now ........ :eek:

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

fair enough, but the point is, it's a perceived risk, that isn't backed up by evidence.

The same it would be foolish of me to think, that a guy who admits an attraction for me, might rape me.

Of course, depending on the person ...I might worry that...depending on the person.

What if he admitted to you that he thought about raping you ........ ???

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

paedophilia, isn't a crime.
and the day thoughts become a crime, I weep for society

It's not a crime ........... so it must be ok?

looking_around

Cathy.C wrote: »

When people can get jailed for watching 'pixie porn'.. I fear that day might already be here, or at least not very far off.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/ronald-clark-new-zealand-pixies-cartoons-jail_n_3132519.html

tbf, there was more to that, with previous convictions.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

So lets rephrase that bold, if a girl you're attracted to, isn't interested in you, you're a potential rapist?

same thing, different ages, but same thing.

Totally different thing because of the ages .......... let's not just brush over the age thing, it's quite important to this topic.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

What if he admitted to you that he thought about raping you ........ ???

if he thought of raping me, I'd box him in the face.

but again.

attraction to someone, does NOT equal attraction to raping them.. how do you not understand this?

___
Honestly, I don't think sexual desires can be wrong per sae, a bit like saying, liking fatty foods is wrong.
we can't control what we like, we can control our actions however

So being attracted to the dogs (yes some people are) = not wrong, acting on it = wrong.

You may not like this, but thoughts aren't wrong.

_____
" if a girl you're attracted to, isn't interested in you, you're a potential rapist?"
this question is NOT different despite the ages.

a paedohile is attracted to someone who can't be attracted back, so are they a potential abuser...if yes, you are also a potential rapists.
If you disagree with that, what makes it so that you aren't a potential rapist???

MadDog76

Just going back to the documentary .......... the featured paedophile, James, claims he has never hurt a child and doesn't think he ever will .......... maybe that's true and maybe it isn't .......... I personally believe him when he said he has never hurt a child based on nothing but gut instinct ie. he came across quite genuine.

However he did admit to viewing copious amounts of child porn which means, apart from it quite rightly being illegal, he is in some way responsible for the abuse of x amount of children .......... child porn is largely produced to feed paedophiles fantasises/attractions etc. so James failed to control his urges in this regard ........... who could trust him (or any paedophile) to control his urges in the future?? He certainly didn't seem to fully 100% trust himself.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

if he thought of raping me, I'd box him in the face.

but again.

attraction to someone, does NOT equal attraction to raping them.. how do you not understand this?

___
Honestly, I don't think sexual desires can be wrong per sae, a bit like saying, liking fatty foods is wrong.
we can't control what we like, we can control our actions however

So being attracted to the dogs (yes some people are) = not wrong, acting on it = wrong.

You may not like this, but thoughts aren't wrong.

_____
" if a girl you're attracted to, isn't interested in you, you're a potential rapist?"
this question is NOT different despite the ages.

a paedohile is attracted to someone who can't be attracted back, so are they a potential abuser...if yes, you are also a potential rapists.
If you disagree with that, what makes it so that you aren't a potential rapist???

Why "box him in the face" so???

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

if he thought of raping me, I'd box him in the face.

but again.

attraction to someone, does NOT equal attraction to raping them.. how do you not understand this?

___
Honestly, I don't think sexual desires can be wrong per sae, a bit like saying, liking fatty foods is wrong.
we can't control what we like, we can control our actions however

So being attracted to the dogs (yes some people are) = not wrong, acting on it = wrong.

You may not like this, but thoughts aren't wrong.

_____
" if a girl you're attracted to, isn't interested in you, you're a potential rapist?"
this question is NOT different despite the ages.

a paedohile is attracted to someone who can't be attracted back, so are they a potential abuser...if yes, you are also a potential rapists.
If you disagree with that, what makes it so that you aren't a potential rapist???

I've never been attracted to anybody who has been attracted to me!!

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why "box him in the face" so???

because It'd be far creepy if a guy came up to me to confess his attractions and then say he has thought of raping me,

again paedophilia doesn't equal child rape.

on the child porn, I can't comment on that. He's a paedophile who claims to struggle with it. I wonder the numbers who don't?

cgi, has also come long ways, would you be against cgi child porn, despite no child being harmed? and proof that with normal porn, sexual crimes are lower, it would stand to reason the cgi/cartoon porn would be something they could use.
(although even cartoon depictions is illegal in most countries...)

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

I've never been attracted to anybody who has been attracted to me!!

?
sooo...you are or aren't a potential rapist?

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

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:

And your distortions and misrepresentations go on.

I simply have no concept of thought crime. You clearly do.

MadDog76 wrote: »

And I am saying that this is irresponsible of you at best .......

You are saying it, but in doing so you are neither supporting it, adding substance to it, and in order to say it you have to distort and misrepresent my position. Frequently.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Not true .........

Except it is. I have given examples. I can do so again.

MadDog76 wrote: »

You've a bit of a habit of saying something ............. then blatantly denying you've said it!!!

Have not done so once on this thread or, to my knowledge, this forum. I am happy to pull your words out of my mouth though. You have given me enough chances.

MadDog76 wrote: »

A paedophiles attractions are a petty sexual desire now ........ :eek:

More of your misrepresentations.

I mean petty relative to other reasons someone might harm me. For example someone who is starving and their family starving might be compelled to steal from me despite their love for me.

But relative to things like that, simply getting your rocks off is quite petty yes. And the people I speak of I firmly trust to never hurt me or mine, regardless of their sexual desires. It is just not in them to do so.

You do not have anyone like that in your life clearly, so I can not expect you to understand.

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

?
sooo...you are or aren't a potential rapist?

I'm a potential anything ......... but to date I haven't harboured any urges to rape or murder or attraction to children or to rob a bank etc

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And your distortions and misrepresentations go on.

I simply have no concept of thought crime. You clearly do.



You are saying it, but in doing so you are neither supporting it, adding substance to it, and in order to say it you have to distort and misrepresent my position. Frequently.



Except it is. I have given examples. I can do so again.



Have not done so once on this thread or, to my knowledge, this forum. I am happy to pull your words out of my mouth though. You have given me enough chances.



More of your misrepresentations.

I mean petty relative to other reasons someone might harm me. For example someone who is starving and their family starving might be compelled to steal from me despite their love for me.

But relative to things like that, simply getting your rocks off is quite petty yes. And the people I speak of I firmly trust to never hurt me or mine, regardless of their sexual desires. It is just not in them to do so.

You do not have anyone like that in your life clearly, so I can not expect you to understand.

In your case we're not talking about "Thought Crime" as such ......... we're talking about somebody going from thinking it to actually verbalising it to you ....... to which you do not react in any meaningful way to protect your children

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

I'm a potential anything ......... but to date I haven't harboured any urges to rape or murder or attraction to children or to rob a bank etc

attraction to children = want to rape them?
but
attraction to adults /=(does not equal) want to rape them?

why does your definition of attraction change with age?

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

attraction to children = want to rape them?
but
attraction to adults /=(does not equal) want to rape them?

why does your definition of attraction change with age?

Because the paedophile has a malfunctioning brain which could (and often has) lead to rape and abuse of children .......... also I didn't say the paedophile would definitely rape a child, I just said that I personally am not willing to take that chance with my children.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

In your case we're not talking about "Thought Crime" as such ......... we're talking about somebody going from thinking it to actually verbalising it to you ....... to which you do not react in any meaningful way to protect your children

Which is also not true. Nothing you have said about me so far is true.

looking_around

MadDog76 wrote: »

Because the paedophile has a malfunctioning brain which could (and often has) lead to rape and abuse of children .......... also I didn't say the paedophile would actually rape a child, I just said that I personally am not willing to take that chance with my children.

we only have statistics of those who commit a crime.

That's like judging all men on rapists. It's biased. (One of the major reasons I want the reactionary "burn at the stakes", anger, to change, so that hopefully, we can get some real umbers on paedophiles & risk.)

__
and yes, in your posts, you assume a paedophile wants to rape a child.

nozzferrahhtoo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Because the paedophile has a malfunctioning brain which could (and often has) lead to rape and abuse of children

By all means tell us what parts are malfunctioning and how that malfunction affects other parts of the brain specifically, such as making them likely to harm or rape anyone.

Also you said one has lead to the other. Substantiate this too please. Perhaps they are two entirely seperate things, neither leading to the other, but when both are present in the one brain, you have an issue.

Which would explain why the majority of pedophiles likely are unknown, harm no one, are not a risk to anyone, and will not rape or harm a single person.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is also not true. Nothing you have said about me so far is true.

Why don't you just say "liar liar pants on fire" at this stage ........ pathetic.

MadDog76

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

By all means tell us what parts are malfunctioning and how that malfunction affects other parts of the brain specifically, such as making them likely to harm or rape anyone.

Also you said one has lead to the other. Substantiate this too please. Perhaps they are two entirely seperate things, neither leading to the other, but when both are present in the one brain, you have an issue.

Which would explain why the majority of pedophiles likely are unknown, harm no one, are not a risk to anyone, and will not rape or harm a single person.

Would you like to substantiate this claim with recognised hard evidence ......... please???

MadDog76

looking_around wrote: »

we only have statistics of those who commit a crime.

That's like judging all men on rapists. It's biased. (One of the major reasons I want the reactionary "burn at the stakes", anger, to change, so that hopefully, we can get some real umbers on paedophiles & risk.)

__
and yes, in your posts, you assume a paedophile wants to rape a child.

Actually we only have statistics on reported crimes/convictions ........ not actual crimes committed