RTE "paedophile" exposed (Read Admin note post #1)

deco nate

weldoninhio wrote: »

Not very. You haven’t explained why it is ok to humiliate one and not the other.

Are you for ****ing real?!
Read back my post, if you don't get it. Then I'll read it out SLOWLY for you

weldoninhio

deco nate wrote: »

Are you for ****ing real?!
Read back my post, if you don't get it. Then I'll read it out SLOWLY for you

Ive read it. You still haven’t said.

deco nate

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ive read it. You still haven’t said.

I know what you are at, an reported

Chrongen

mada82 wrote: »

Any interesting discussion ruined by 2 or 3 posters trying to get the better of each other.

gozunda thanked this :pac:

At least I had the decency to recognise that I was probably being lumped in with the 2 or 3 but you, gozunda?

Such obsequiousness.

weldoninhio

deco nate wrote: »

I know what you are at, an reported

What am I at? Why is it ok to humiliate one criminal, but not another?

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

no it's for facebook likes. they actually don't have the authority to put anyone's face out there, given that until the trial concludes one is innocent until proven guilty by a court, not social media. and given the fact that people are not named for legal reasons for good reason.

Eotr - you a bit like a parrot - repeating the same old again and again ad infinitum...

You have now been asked multiple times to provide link or reference to your assertion above. Going to provide one or you are you going to keep repeating yourself?

Chrongen

gozunda wrote: »

It remains that have no sympathy for psychopaths or paedophiles no matter what their deviation. I would suggest you reserve your sympathy for their victims who these preps deliberatly abuse.

I wish to see them subject to the full rigour of the law.

If you are Christian thats your business however you must be something else if your "judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy you feel for the perpetrator"...

You've displayed time and time again that certain stances are mutually exclusive. You've taken the position that if you oppose the tactics of the vigilante gangs then you are automatically a paedophile-apologist or that you somehow think it is normal and ok.

You have alluded to the notion that if someone has sympathy for someone afflicted with a mental disorder through no fault of their own, such as paedophilia then they are bereft of feeling sympathy for the victims of someone with said disorder and that is where you have displayed the limits of you ability to grasp the complexities of the real world.

To quote F. Scott Fitzgerald:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Something you seem all too incapable of doing. Take from that what you will.

gozunda

Chrongen wrote: »

It could include kids up to the age of 16. Puberty can also his at 10 or 11 or 12 in many girls at which point they are no longer PRE-PUBESCENT. If that is the case if some has an attract for them at that stage is not categorised as a paedophile. A bit perverted, yes, but not a paedophile.

I'll acquiesce to you 13 year-old cut off as source in your reference but I'll go one further and quote from your source:

You originally claimed it was 12 years of age now you say it could be 16 and most funnily of all now you'll acquiesce at 13 because I showed where it stated it was officialy 13 years of age??? Hahahahaha
Your freaking funny.


Oh and Btw that's not from my source....


Making it up as going along so? :pac:

gozunda

mada82 wrote:

Any interesting discussion ruined by 2 or 3 posters trying to get the better of each other.

Chrongen wrote: »

gozunda thanked this At least I had the decency to recognise that I was probably being lumped in with the 2 or 3 but you, gozunda? Such obsequiousness.

Didn't your little friend deco nate thank it as well? No comment on that? Really?

The smell of bs is strong in that one...
But hey they weren't wrong. As for the little gang of wreckers on the loose at the moment well what can I say...

gozunda

weldoninhio wrote: »

Ive read it. You still haven’t said.

I wouldn't bother replying tbh. The above 'Poster' is on a wind up mission posting bs in the guise of questions. Some of his little mates are up to similar. Thread wreckers doing what they do.

It would be funny if it was any other topic but they appear to be getting a kick out of this whole pathetic story. You can't account for folk I suppose....

They say imitation is the best form of flattery- what can I say ...

deco nate

I'd like this to get back to a real discussion at some stage.
But it's hard to do that at the moment.
To be honest.
Imo thier is 2 posters that are derailing this thread.
Sad people, imo

mada82

Interesting to hear he was friends on fb with more than one of their decoys. That’s some coincidence if they don’t add him.

Do we know anything other than he was arrested, bailed and the stuff said on video?

buckwheat

CeilingFly wrote: »

86 pages of comments about someone who chatted to a "virtual" teenager.

I don't think there has been anywhere near the same discussion on an murderer or rapist on the history of boards.

I'm not condoning his actions, but maybe a bit of perspective?

Whilst he had a few extramarital flings with younger women, he has no history of the age group he is accused of - maybe he was pushing boundaries, maybe he saw it as a goal or whatever, but people want more punishment for him than they want for a mass murderer!

I just don't understand the tabloid mentality of that.

Without a doubt the most ****ed up thing I've read on this whole thread. Pushing ****ing boundaries ffs. That's a fairly creative way of describing ****ing a 13 year old.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note:And on that note, we're done here, seeing as the discussion has moved to discussing the discussion.

We'll review this tomorrow and decide if it needs to be reopened.

Thanking all for their contribution,

Buford T. Justice