Paedophiles Watch

PoisonDonna
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by Glutamic Acid)
There seems to be rather reactionary responses to paedophiles. I really don't see how having sex with a kid, as unnatural and 'wrong' as it is, is deserving of death.
I think it's a social stigma thing. Some people respond with the typical reactionary response and others follow without thinking about why it happened or what they're doing by reacting that way.
It's a social sheep thing to "hate" paedophiles and I'd imagine most don't even know why they hate them.
0
reply
ViolatedTreason
  • CV Helper
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Sifr)
I laughed out loud from your humorous description.

I think it was on Panorama that I watched how there were paedo forums,
where you could watch live torture..and request things to be done to the Child..DISGUSTING..

I think Capital Punishment should be introduced to these sickos..
definately

walking through birmingham and around town, my gf says that she used to be felt up all of the time, and approached by older men, when she was 14..

you should be allowed to shoot them, right there and then.. legal weapons include the desert eagle and any variety of shotgun.
0
reply
danmccolm
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
This guy was arranging a date with his girlfriend. "Be there at 8," he said. His girlfriend said "I'm not going anymore, my Mum says you're a paedophile." "Paedophile!?" he says? "That's a big word for a 7 year old!"
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
(Original post by solo2wolf)
they should be treated like the animals they are. no more rights than a dog. acting on there feelings includes looking at child porn. if someone should take offense to the actions of a paedophile and kill them it should carry the same charges as the slaughter of any ordinary animal.
Say for instance, they didn't pay for the child porn, and they didn't make it themselves, surely the person who made it is a lot more in the wrong then just the person who is looking at it?

(Please note I am not giving my own opinions, just raising counter-arguments that are valid. I agree more or less with Glutamic Acid, although I think in a way it is morally wrong, as children haven't gone though puberty, and therefore are not meant to be sexual objects. However, without acting on their feelings, is not a serious issue, some people may feel things, but not acting on it means it isn't an issue.)
0
reply
Glutamic Acid
Badges: 14
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
(Original post by PoisonDonna)
I think it's a social stigma thing. Some people respond with the typical reactionary response and others follow without thinking about why it happened or what they're doing by reacting that way.
It's a social sheep thing to "hate" paedophiles and I'd imagine most don't even know why they hate them.
Yes. Most likely a media-perpertuated impression that street corners are crawling with paedophiles who devote their time 24/7 to handing out candy in an attempt to trick children.
0
reply
Sifr
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
(Original post by ViolatedTreason)
definately

walking through birmingham and around town, my gf says that she used to be felt up all of the time, and approached by older men, when she was 14..

you should be allowed to shoot them, right there and then.. legal weapons include the desert eagle and any variety of shotgun.

Why didnt she report them?
Or stop them?

Damn, if someone Tried to grope me I'd scream (LOUD)!
0
reply
captainlumpy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
(Original post by rmhumphries)
Say for instance, they didn't pay for the child porn, and they didn't make it themselves, surely the person who made it is a lot more in the wrong then just the person who is looking at it?

(Please note I am not giving my own opinions, just raising counter-arguments that are valid. I agree more or less with Glutamic Acid, although I think in a way it is morally wrong, as children haven't gone though puberty, and therefore are not meant to be sexual objects. However, without acting on their feelings, is not a serious issue, some people may feel things, but not acting on it means it isn't an issue.)
yes that is a fair enough point, but the person looking at it is still in the wrong as it could be said they are encouraging this disgusting behaviour of making the child porn in the first place
0
reply
Sifr
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
(Original post by danmccolm)
This guy was arranging a date with his girlfriend. "Be there at 8," he said. His girlfriend said "I'm not going anymore, my Mum says you're a paedophile." "Paedophile!?" he says? "That's a big word for a 7 year old!"
Looool
0
reply
PoisonDonna
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
(Original post by Glutamic Acid)
Yes. Most likely a media-perpertuated impression that street corners are crawling with paedophiles who devote their time 24/7 to handing out candy in an attempt to trick children.
Exactly.
0
reply
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
Thing is, what do you class as a paedophile?
We have a pretty screwed up system in the UK, where its fine to have sex with 16 year olds, but its not fine to put them in pornographic situations.

Do we class both someone who wants to have sex with someone under 16, and someone who likes looking at pictures of 16 and 17 year olds as paedophiles? Surely since having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is legal, then being sexually attracted to them should be fine too??

(just playing devils advocate here btw).
0
reply
ViolatedTreason
  • CV Helper
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
(Original post by Sifr)
Why didnt she report them?
Or stop them?

Damn, if someone Tried to grope me I'd scream (LOUD)!
i dunno, maybe because there was no police anywhere, and you cant exactly stop them if they are coming at you from behind (not in the dirty sense), and you cant see them...

in the unlikely evnt that i was groped by a guy, id probably smack him in the mush, and see how many false teeth i can knock out...
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
(Original post by captainlumpy)
yes that is a fair enough point, but the person looking at it is still in the wrong as it could be said they are encouraging this disgusting behaviour of making the child porn in the first place
How is it being encouraged if they are not paying anything for it?
0
reply
abc101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
(Original post by solo2wolf)
they should be treated like the animals they are. no more rights than a dog. acting on there feelings includes looking at child porn. if someone should take offense to the actions of a paedophile and kill them it should carry the same charges as the slaughter of any ordinary animal.
Like the animals they are? Excuse me, a dog deserves far more rights than a paedophile. Animals aren't sick perverts who abuse children.

Paedophilia is a crime of the most disgusting degree. And yes, current punishments are far too lenient. These perverts are let out to abuse and abuse again, and nothing is done about it. If you abuse a child, the least you deserve is life in prison with no possibility of parole.
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Thing is, what do you class as a paedophile?
We have a pretty screwed up system in the UK, where its fine to have sex with 16 year olds, but its not fine to put them in pornographic situations.

Do we class both someone who wants to have sex with someone under 16, and someone who likes looking at pictures of 16 and 17 year olds as paedophiles? Surely since having sex with 16 and 17 year olds is legal, then being sexually attracted to them should be fine too??

(just playing devils advocate here btw).
Personally, in this thread, I am dealing with Paedophiles as being people who are sexual attracted to children pre-puberty.

There is a word beginning with e (That I don't know) for attraction to teens (during puberty+), and I consider that a whole new argument.
0
reply
username138106
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
Well. Gun crime is a problem, so we ban guns. Knife crime is a problem, so we ban knives.

Ban kids?
0
reply
Cowz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
(Original post by Glutamic Acid)
I don't think there's anything wrong merely being a paedophile. It's a sexual preference, no different to homosexuality or a foot fetish. However, I don't think this is you're asking; you're talking about paedophiles who carry out their desires.
Oooo you took a risk syaing that didn't you? I'm not sure how age can be seen as sexual preference. Besides, would you be happy with the idea that some old perv may be secretly taking photos of your kids? Or does that not count as 'carrying out their desires'?
0
reply
Chemical_Scum
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by TheLandOfNorwegia)
Aren't you a wonderful human being.

Paedophiles do not choose to be attracted to children, however this does not make acting on their desires right. It works in the same way that people are attracted to the opposite sex, so we should kill people who are born with a certain mind set?
no. i said kill those who act upon it. if they choose to completely disregard another persons humanity and do things to them against their will that cause terrible pain then there is only one course of action to be taken. a sickness it may be, though i doubt it. i would love to kill so very many people but i refrain from doing so, not because i think its right (in fact i think it very right to kill people like mugabe) but because i want to live within society. if one chooses to brake the rules laid down by society then so be it, but this should not go unpunished. the punishment for ruining anothers life for personal pleasure should be harsh and i do not have any trouble with it being death. i am speaking from a very experienced point of view given that my family fosters children whom have been abused and i have seen the fruits of such abusive actions. i say it again i would dearly love to kill the men responsible for some of the things that happened to these children but i CHOOSE not to. my desire to kill them is as strong as any desire to hurt them children will have been for them. there is no absolute moral code. we are animals. highly evolved or not. for me that means we can protect one another as we can harm one another but i do not believe that those who harm for reasons other than protection of another/self should be protected. illness or not, if a person is a threat to you or another then there should be nothing to stop you from defending yourself or that person.
0
reply
ViolatedTreason
  • CV Helper
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
theres someone else in out friend group who looks very young, shes 17, rather short, and to compensate, wears rather tarty clothes. when she was 15/16 she kept getting followed aroung town by wierd old men. not too bad at 16, but considering she only looks 15 now (shes 17/18) it was a little sick at the time.

she doesnt even realise why the people are following her either..
0
reply
ocelotrevs
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
Castration wouldn't do much. They'd use other more sinister methods to abuse.

I'd put them all on an island, so that they could interfere with each other.

If a child is produced by the nonces, the could would be removed immediately.
0
reply
rmhumphries
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
Age can be sexual preference. I am 18, therefore I like girls between 16-20, with 17-19 being optimum.

Or are you saying you find 70s year olds just as attractive as 20 year old's cowz?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (512)
37.76%
No - but I will (104)
7.67%
No - I don't want to (93)
6.86%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (647)
47.71%

Watched Threads

View All